Actually in the real world we need more CO2

Will Happer is President Trump’s go-to man on Science and he is a great fan of CO2. In long-term historical perspective we are at a low point for CO2 and there is barely enough for good plant growth. The planet has been greened by the increase in modern times and more will be better.

This is a particularly informative interview in the Interviews That Matter series. Particularly clear on the “historical drought” aspect, the diminishing effect of increasing CO2, the way it builds drought resistance and increases agricultural productivity.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Actually in the real world we need more CO2

  1. Mak Siccar

    As I posted on the other thread, read this.

    Unfortunately, on this blog we are talking to the rational/converted.

  2. pbw

    This is the most promising avenue of attack on climate change hysteria. It’s not only Happer, but Patrick Moore, the now-expunged co-founder of Greenpeace, who argue from the relative paucity of CO2. Moore points out during the last (I think) glacial period, CO2 concentration fell to 180ppm. Plants start to die off at 150ppm.

    That is an extinction event.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    The planet has been greened by the increase in modern times and more will be better.

    In support of Rafe’s comment is this story from yesterday:

    New Study: The Recent CO2 Increase Has Had An Even Greater Earth-Greening Impact Than Previously Thought

    The Earth has been rapidly greening in recent decades, and CO2 fertilization may explain 70% of the trend (Zhu et al., 2016). A new study finds models have significantly underestimated the greening effect of rising CO2.

    I think it may be closer to 100% of the trend since real world temperature hasn’t been rising since the mid 1990’s. And rainfall isn’t changing much either, when you look at the actual data and ignore the hysterical pronouncements of the climatistas.

    All this shows how mad the climate actions that ScoMo and Shorten are inflicting on us. First there’s nothing dangerous actually happening to justify any cost let alone the trillions now being spent, and second the benefits of CO2 are more than they thought. The value to agriculture alone will be huge, and will let us feed the 10 billion people projected to be on the planet by mid century.

  4. Stanley Park

    Can anyone explain how an increase; from 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air to nearly 5 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air; affects temperature or plant growth? There’s magic in those 2 molecules.

  5. Stanley Park

    A long long time ago, candidates for an upcoming election would door-knock and discuss matters with electors. Should any candidates knock, I have questions requiring an answer. They are: “What concentration of CO2 does your party’s policy aim to achieve?. Would zero ppm be acceptable?”

Comments are closed.