Greenpeace Co Founder CO2 Is Essential To Life On Earth

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans’

The whole premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on the erroneous hypothesis that CO2 is a climate driver, and that as the concentration of atmospheric CO2 rose so global temperatures would increase by anything from 2 – 9 degrees Centigrade.

Since 1988 there has been no warming, despite what the Greens describe as obscene increases in CO2 emissions, global temperatures have stubbornly refused to rise.

The warmists and their junk scientists have been at a loss to explain where all the warming they predicted has gone, various ideas have been floated, the most desperate being that the deep oceans had absorbed all the heat and this would cause ocean acidification, and total wipeout of the coral reefs. Well it was something like that, the environmentalists have changed the story so many times to fit their junk science fear scenarios, it can be difficult to keep up with the latest spin.

In the last year a number of once devout members of the Church of Climatology have broken ranks and openly criticised the junk science and WWF hijacked agenda of the IPCC, and the warming alarmists in general.

In Germany Fritz Vahrenholt’s book The Cold Sun: Why The Climate Catastrophe Won’t Happen seriously upset the warming alarmists who immediately launched a smear and hate campaign, which did little to dissuade the German public who bought the book as fast as it could be printed.

In January Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore blasted wind farms as a destroyer of wealth and then criticised the organisation he helped found as not basing its position on science.

The warming alarmist propaganda machine has produced a new study trying to explain the lack of their predicted warming:

The new study claims: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming: Excerpt: ‘The earth would have warmed faster in the last two decades had there not been an unexplained rise in the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed on land, scientists believe.” Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems…the breakthrough had taken scientists “completely by surprise”…[study] explains how much CO2 is absorbed by plants and animals, with some of the CO2 then being passed from plants into the land.” [End study excerpt]

Patrick Moore’s comments on this new study will certainly not make him popular with the Greens:

Ecologist Dr. Moore pulled no punches in commenting on the new study: “These people are either completely naive about the relationship between CO2 and plants or they are making this up as a way of deflecting attention from the lack of warming for the past 15 years.” Moore is the author of the book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” in which he exposes the green movement and explains why he left the organization.

Moore then criticised the so called science of Climate Change and those complicit in trying to keep scam alive:

Moore told Climate Depot: “Plants grow much faster when CO2 is higher, the optimum concentration is between 1500-2000 ppm so there is a long way to go before plants are happy. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise despite plants absorbing more CO2. So what is the ‘scientists’ point? It is to obfuscate, confuse, and otherwise muddy the waters with disinformation.

So a former Green has noticed the antics of Hansen and all the other junk scientists tampering with data to prove themselves and their theory correct.

Moore continued: “We should challenge them to admit that CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth and to admit that it is proven in lab and field experiments that plants would grow much faster if CO2 levels were 4-5 times higher in the atmosphere than they are today. This is why greenhouse growers pipe the exhaust from their gas and wood heaters back into the greenhouse to increase CO2 levels 3-5 times the level in the atmosphere, resulting in 50-100% increase in growth of their crops. And they should recognize that CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth.

“There is no ‘abrupt’ increase in CO2 absorption, it is gradual as CO2 levels rise and plants become less stressed by low CO2 levels. At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth.

Patrick Moore may  actually be correct in the title of his book, he is possibly the first sensible environmentalist that has appeared in the last 25 years, the jury is still out on that one, but there is good reason to be cautiously optimistic on Moore’s stance thus far.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on July 14, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies, Junk Science, ManBearPig, Oh FFS, Social Engineering, Wealth Redistribution and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. There is no doubt that Man’s burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forrests has to have an effect on the balance of how the planet’s ecosystems deal with that. What the Carbon Nazi’s claim though is not just the cause and effect, it is that creating a new ecomonic paradigm where the lower you earn the more you pay for “carbon pollution” via either “pricing” or Tax will somehow fix it. Plain stupidity and cowardice, when actual policy that demands real pollution is cut down may have real impact, but might see them voted out.

    • Why link the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests? Some inefficient methods of burning fossil fuels were polluting; the classic London smogs were lethal. Use of petrol in cars, gas and coal in power stations, has become ever more efficient and cleaner.

      That is why the ecoloons’ propaganda (and I am not suggesting that Drunk Guy is anything like an ecoloon) started deliberately to mix up “carbon” and “carbon dioxide”, which makes about as much sense as assuming that hydrogen and water have the same characteristics. The clearing of forests has continued apace, but now with the blessing of the insane church of climatology. It started out as a waste of trees and it’s still a waste of trees (and habitats) – a waste of trees “justified” by a preposterous “need” to produce biofuels from palm trees, which aren’t real trees. The real ecosystem, the forest, is replaced by a sterile growth of very short-lived palms, which may support invertebrates, but will support very little of anything else.

      And the palm oil is something we don’t remotely need.

      • I agree, and too, there is a case to be answered by the push for more and more ethanol content in fuel because both forrests and third world food supply is suffering because of the Profit ( yes money again) they can make from fuel cropping.

  2. I think Jo Nova did actually report on an Alarmist claim, a couple of years ago, in which so-called scientists (of the Alarmist variety, natch) really suggested that there was somehow a difference between the effects of man-made CO2 on plant growth and those from CO2 from non-human sources. I’m looking for the original study now, although Alarmists should have an advantage in tracking it down first, since their cronies actually concocted the tripe.

  3. OK, “Drunk Guy,” call me an elitist (PLEASE!) but I have to critique your grammar. It’s “Carbon Nazis” OK? I know this is a blog post, but seriously… the apostrophe makes it possessive. I don’t expect that you know what that means, so, as a matter of fact, just forget it.

    I don’t even understand what you guys are saying. Who is talking about “clearing forests?”

    Palm oil? What the F?

    “Natch,” you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. No one mentioned biofuels. This is a post about anthropogenic global climate change.

    Honestly, anyone who claims to be a “Climate Realist, Tea Party supporter and NRA member… [who doesn’t] buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam” is just a brainwashed moron.

    What incentive do scientists have to make this stuff up?

    If the data were actually showing that burning fossil fuels were totally safe, why wouldn’t they go work for the massively profitable oil and gas companies? Why wouldn’t they all be churning out reports that said, “put all the greenhouse gasses you want into our atmosphere! It won’t do a thing!”

    Do you really trust politicians over scientists?

    The reality is that your logic is based on conspiracy theory BS. Scientists get discredited, attacked, fired, and are subject to death threats for speaking the truth about climate change.

    “the lower you earn the more you pay for “carbon pollution” via either “pricing” or Tax will somehow fix it.”

    (Again with the grammar; you don’t capitalize nouns in the middle of a sentence!)

    What are you talking about? Carbon taxing is not based on profits. It’s based on how much carbon you produce. You don’t pay more for earning less money. You pay more for producing more carbon.

    I hate to be harsh, but you need to realize that you are completely misinformed.

    • Calm down please, mikelasusa, your ranting is illogical, fragmented and mostly trivial, and when you are criticising punctuation, please do not call it grammar. Furthermore it is not a secret what the incentive “to make this stuff up” is; quite simply money and reputation, to say nothing of the panic stricken belief that they simply can not have been horribly wrong about it all the time. Life is so unfair!

      It is even more so to pseudo scientists who go round proclaiming that “the science is settled” when any real scientist knows that scientific theories always have to be questioned. questioned and questioned again. Anyone who insists that it is not so should expect to arouse suspicion that he has an ulterior motive, like the obscene actor and failed politician Al. Gore, who, the last I heard had made about $100,000,000 from his espousal of the Anthropogenic Climate Change “cause” and still counting. No wonder he insists the science is settled, it certainly settled for him alright.

  4. mikelasusa | July 15, 2012 at 06:08 ; Dude, seriously? you’re reading me all wrong anyway, my point was that even if we are the direct cause of climate change, taking money from us won’t do one iota for reparation of that change. We are definitely the cause of some climate change and the only way to change that is to reduce the two major things that we have done over the last hundred plus years, and that is burn fossil fuels and clear forrests . I don’t understand how you cannot agree with that in favour of paying out a few dollars each, seems insane to me.

    When I said that the poor will pay more than the rich, it’s true. Why are the poor being given handouts if it’s not? The so called big polluters will be fine they will get carbon credits to trade if it ever goes to a trading scheme, but in the meantime they will simply pass on the costs to those why have no ability to fund their own alternatives, yes the poor.

    I’m really pleased that you agree with the rest of us on what seems to be the main point of your diatribe, “that politicians are hard to believe” or just plain Lie, the fact that they are agreeing with the so called climate science is one huge reason why I believe that paying for carbon (especially when there are so many far worse pollutants ) will never fix anything.

    Happy for you to pull out the red pen and correct my “grammar” again 😉

  5. Any time you want to post on my blog, have at it. I promise I won’t stoop to your level of cowardice and delete it… 🙂

  6. jay donnelly

    Patrick Moore might just as well have titled his book ” The Happy Hooker” (except that
    someone got there first right?)

  7. If there was “abrupt CO2 absorption”, would that not mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere went down? All of the graphs of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in parts per million show the amount of the gas going up, and is now just at 400 ppm. Wasn’t 400 ppm the “tipping point” that would cause the globe to begin an uncontrolled thermageddon? Where is the catastrophe? Where is the evidence of “abrupt CO2 absorption”? The only think I see evidence of is a bunch of lying, snake oil selling pseudoscientists telling the politicians what the politicians want to hear in an attempt to garner grant money instead of working for a living.

  1. Pingback: Greenpeace And Their Policy Of Lies And Deceit « Tory Aardvark

  2. Pingback: Dr Patrick Moore The Sensible Environmentalist « Tory Aardvark

  3. Pingback: environmentalism » Blog Archive » Dr Patrick Moore The Sensible Environmentalist « Tory Aardvark

  4. Pingback: ChangeOurClimate vs. Deniers – Updated « Mike LaSusa

  5. Pingback: Todays Scores From The Arctic – Russian Coastguard 1 Greenpeace 0 | Tory Aardvark

  6. Pingback: Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells US Senate Earth’s Geologic History Fundamentally Contradicts CO2 Climate Fears | Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: