New for Earth Day circulation: Randall’s methodical new essay blasts the foundation of Carbon dioxide-demonizing propaganda with a review of published papers touting the many positive effects of an enhanced level of atmospheric CO2! Read the highlights or get immersed in the full article (part 1) to prep yourself for the pivot of the global warming / climate change debate.
The imposed perspective on climate change these days claims to have a consensus, and has demonized a beneficial trace gas component of the atmosphere, while blaming us polluting human beings as the energy-addicted culprits that over-produce this “poison”, thus causing a (truly negligible) rise in average temperatures.
In honor of our fantastic planet, leading up to Earth Day this April 22nd, we ask that you temporarily take off your “Environmentalist” hat, set aside your unfounded pre-judgements held for the sake of “Saving the Earth”, and forget what you have been force-fed by a two-faced ex-VP and the factions of money-hungry egoists and control-hungry bureaucrats, to think seriously about the fact that carbon dioxide is the primary “food” for plants, processed by sunlight, that replenishes oxygen and regenerates the vegetation for our shared “green” home.
PLANTS NEED AND LOVE CARBON DIOXIDE!
“Redemption of the Beast – Global Change and the Carbon Cycle”
from Randall Carlson’s essay highlights:
. . . Their report, appearing in the Perspectives section of the journal, began by discussing what they presumed to be the inexorable future rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to fossil fuel burning and land clearing, and the implications of this increase to global climate change. They then qualify their statements by saying: “However, these changes are meshed within an immense natural global carbon cycle that is still poorly understood and that will almost certainly provide new surprises.” [See: Mahli, Yadvinder, and John Grace. “Tropical forests and atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution Vol 15, No. 8 (2000): 332-337.]
The two things these authors emphasize should be kept in mind before continuing: the immensity of the natural carbon cycle relative to the contributions of humans, and the fact that this immense natural phenomenon, which, in the authors’ words, “is still poorly understood” is central to the question of climatic consequences. If the authors are right, that the immense natural carbon cycle is “still poorly understood,” how is it possible to be so absolutely certain of outcomes that we can declare the debate over and the science settled with respect to the matter of climate change? ***** p53
“A large North American terrestrial uptake was estimated consistently for a range of spatiotemporal patterns assumed for the terrestrial uptake.” This large-scale intake of carbon dioxide by North American vegetation is attributed to a number of factors, including regrowth of abandoned farmland and previously logged forests, with this process being enhanced by nitrogen deposition, CO2 fertilization, and a mild increase in temperature. [see: Fan, S., M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T Takahashi, P. Tans (1998) A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide and Models: Science, vol. 282 (Oct. 16) pp. 442 – 446]
Both model simulations yielded more remarkable results. It was found that North America’s contribution to the annual uptake of carbon dioxide was 1.7 billion tons. Given that the estimate of the annual North American emissions of CO2 by both the United States and Canada is about 1.6 billion tons, the implication is that North American vegetation is consuming each year more carbon dioxide than is being released through the burning of fossil fuel in North America! ***** p56
Obviously, these results have enormous implications relative to the whole global warming debate. And, just as obviously, “greenhouse warming experts” are not as omniscient as the mainstream press and varied promoters of propaganda would have us believe. It is time to recognize that the IPCC is NOT infallible, that the so-called “consensus” is a complete fiction, and, that an effort to impose a global regulatory scheme based upon uncertain science would be a certain blunder. ***** p57
As I am criticized by various individuals who find the information I bring to the table unpalatable because it goes against their assumptions and unexamined beliefs, it is persistently apparent that most of them are simply regurgitating something they have heard, or read in popular accounts and assume, therefore, that they have enough knowledge to express an opinion on the matter. The degree of ignorance, the amount of misinformation and lack of critical thinking skills manifest in many of the remarks directed towards me in some of these public forums is symptomatic, I believe, of the sorry state of modern liberal education in America today. But that is a discussion for another place…. ***** p63