Millions of people are alive today because the net emissions of carbon dioxide have increased. These extra emissions have provided essential fertilization for crops around the world. Craig Idso has released a new report calculating that the extra value that the rise in CO2 has produced from 1961 – 2011 is equivalent to $3.5 trillion dollars cumulatively. Currently the extra CO2 is worth $160 billion dollars annually. Big-biccies. Projecting forwards, increasing CO2 levels could be worth an extra $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050. Virtually every economic analysis to date does not include the agricultural gains. There are also benefits in health, as warmer winters reduce mortality by more than hotter summers increase deaths. The real economic question then, is “Can we afford to slow CO2 emissions at all?”
While there are negative externalities projected by some climate modelers, their models are unvalidated, proven wrong, and based on unsupported assumptions about clouds and humidity. Compare that to the agricultural gains, which are not just demonstrated in laboratory greenhouses, but confirmed in the field, and with global satellite estimates of increased biomass.
Obviously, the only sensible thing to do at this point is continue our emissions of carbon dioxide. At some point in the future, after climate models start working, and proper calculations of externalities can be estimated, we will probably want to tax projects which sequester CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere.
My only hesitation is that if Murry Salby is right, Big-Oil don’t have a lot to do with it. We can thank Mother Nature instead. Scrap that tax too. ;- )
How much better does it get?
A 300ppm increase in CO2 would increase crop mass by between 4% – 77%. (It doesn’t matter much to your melons, but is marvelous for your carrots and pretty darn good from your grapes too.) Most crops would be 30-40% larger. (I guess the Greens will be excited we won’t need to raze so many forests to convert to cropland, right?)
Table 2. Mean percentage yield increases produced by a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric
CO2 concentration for all crops accounting for 95% of total food production.
Despite this basic, well-known research being replicated-ad-nauseum no one has really thought to count this as a serious cost benefit until now.
Absent (or severely underrated) in nearly all social cost of carbon (SCC analyses), however, is the recognition and incorporation of important CO2-induced benefits, such as improvements in human health and increases in crop production. With respect to human health, several studies have shown that the net effect of an increase in temperature is a reduction in sickness and death rate (Christidis et al., 2010; Wichmann et al., 2011; Egondi et al., 2012; Wanitschek et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013). A warmer climate, therefore, is less expensive in terms of health care costs than a colder one. With respect to crop production, literally thousands of laboratory and field studies have documented growth-enhancing, water-conserving and stress alleviating benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plants (Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011). For a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content, such benefits typically enhance herbaceous plant biomass by around 30 to 35%, which represents an important positive externality entirely absent from today’s state-of-the-art SCC calculations.
It is only food, after all.
However, this is serious money
Table 3. The total monetary benefit of Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on each
of the forty-five crops listed in Table 1 for the 50-year period 1961-2011. Values are in
constant 2004-2006 U.S. dollars.
So the by-product of fossil fuels supposedly made rice growers richer by around $600 billion in the last 50 years?
(Not to mention that a few people got fed as well.)
Is that a hockeystick I see?
Hands-up who wants to go back to 350ppm?
Everyone I guess — except for the farmers and people who eat …food.
Figure 1. The total annual monetary value of the direct CO2 benefit on crop production for all 45 crops studied over the 50-year period from 1961-2011.
Thanks to pollution there is more food available per capita today. (Orwell didn’t see that one coming.)
Figure 8. Global population, CO2 emissions, and food production data over the period 1961- 2010, normalized to a value of unity at 1961. A data value of 2, therefore, represents a value that is twice the amount reported in 1961. Food production data represent the total production values of the forty-five crops that supplied 95% of the total world food production over the period 1961-2011, as listed in Table 1.
Who is the denier? Civilization depends on carbon.
The science behind this is well established and uncontested. The fertilization effects of carbon dioxide have been known for 200 years.
Numerous studies conducted on hundreds of different plant species testify to the very real and measurable growth-enhancing, water-saving, and stress-alleviating advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations bestow upon Earth’s plants (Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011). In commenting on these and many other CO2-related benefits, Wittwer (1982)wrote that “the ‘green revolution’ has coincided with the period of recorded rapid increase in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it seems likely that some credit for the improved [crop] yields should be laid at the door of the CO2 buildup.” Similarly, Allen et al. (1987) concluded that yields of soybeans may have been rising since at least 1800 “due to global carbon dioxide increases,” while more recently, Cunniff et al. (2008) hypothesized that the rise in atmospheric CO2 following deglaciation of the most recent planetary ice age, was the trigger that launched the global agricultural enterprise.
In a test of this hypothesis, Cunniff et al. designed “a controlled environment experiment using five modern-day representatives of wild C4 crop progenitors, all ‘founder crops’ from a variety of independent centers,” which were grown individually in growth chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 180, 280 and 380 ppm, characteristic of glacial, post-glacial and modern times, respectively. The results revealed that the 100-ppm increase in CO2 from glacial to postglacial levels (180 to 280 ppm) “caused a significant gain in vegetative biomass of up to 40%,” together with “a reduction in the transpiration rate via decreases in stomatal conductance of ~35%,” which led to “a 70% increase in water use efficiency, and a much greater productivity potential in water-limited conditions.”
In discussing their results, the five researchers concluded that “these key physiological changes could have greatly enhanced the productivity of wild crop progenitors after deglaciation … improving the productivity and survival of these wild C4 crop progenitors in early agricultural systems.” And in this regard, they note that “the lowered water requirements of C4 crop progenitors under increased CO2 would have been particularly beneficial in the arid climatic regions where these plants were domesticated.” For comparative purposes, they also included one C3 species in their study – Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch – and they report that it “showed a near-doubling in biomass compared with [the] 40% increase in the C4 species under growth treatments equivalent to the postglacial CO2 rise.” In light of these and other similar findings (Mayeux et al., 1997), it can be appreciated that the civilizations of the past, which could not have existed without agriculture, were largely made possible by the increase in the air’s CO2 content that accompanied deglaciation, and that the peoples of the Earth today are likewise indebted to this phenomenon, as well as the additional 110 ppm of CO2 the atmosphere has subsequently acquired. And as the CO2 concentration of the air continues to rise in the future, this positive externality of enhanced crop production will benefit society in the years, decades, and even centuries to come.
Extra CO2 helps plants cope with drought conditions, and improves plant growth even in situations where soil is poor (e.g. Africa)
In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important nutrients are present in the soil in less than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their “genetic and agroecological technologies” have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of “a severe lack of phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen.” Yet even in such adverse situations, atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been reported to enhance plant growth (Barrett et al., 1998; Niklaus et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2003; Rogers et al., 2006). And if supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway and Toenniessen, even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil would likely be realized.
There are some however who deny basic chemistry, and who appear to have little concern for the hungry or poor people of the world. What kind of world do you want to pass on to your kids? One where billions of dollars is spent trying to pump a harmless fertilizer deep underground, where no plant can grow? In this future, some children grow up to be serfs to pay for the pumping, while other kids die of hunger as corn is fed to cars, and they all lose money making sure the extra fertilizer that might have improved crop yields is not permitted to do so.
On Roy Spencer’s Blog, Roy mulled it over: “E’Gad! How could any by-product of human activity possibly be good?” Meanwhile in comments there, KR wondered about the Green Revolution being forgotten, whether the C3/C4 ratios were considered in the paper, and whether the FACE experiments showing more woody mass and decreased edible mass under CO2 enrichment (is Nitrogen the limiting factor).
Craig Idso replied that KR should read the paper.
His answer in full:
KR,
See the actual paper. I give full acknowledgement and recognition to the green revolution in what I refer to as the Techno-intel effect. Look at Figure 3, it shows that for sugar cane yields, the techno-intel effect accounts for between 85 and 95 percent of annual yields. The CO2 effect accounts for the rest.
As for the difference between C3 and C4 responses to CO2, that is also accounted for in the estimates. Again, read the paper! The CO2 effect is derived from the plant growth database at CO2science.org. These CO2 growth response factors are plant specific.
Your concerns about nitrogen limitation are false: See http://www.co2science.org/subject/n/subject_n.php and scroll down to Nitrogen, Progressive Limitation Hypothesis and view the links there. And as for FACE studies, they tend to UNDERESTIMATE the CO2 effect. See http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/faceartifacts.php
Lastly, as for the claim that the edible portion is decreased, that is not supported by the literature either. Using wheat as an example, where both total biomass and grain biomass responses are reported, the grain biomass is usually HIGHER than the total biomass. See http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.php
REFERENCE
Idso Craig (2013): The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production , Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. [PDF]
POST NOTE: ” an additional $11.6 trillion on crop production ” revised by Craig Idso to $9.8 trillion. 24/10/2013
Hi Jo. The PDF reference is giving me a, “Not Found”. Would you mind checking it? Thanks awfully.
10
Mohammed has gone to the mountain.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
gets you there.
—–
Thanks fixed. There was an extra http at the end of the link I had. sorry. Jo
30
That’s no hockey stick, it’s a boomerang. The slopes too steep for a hockey stick
60
Nobody in their right mind could justify reversal of 400ppm, excepting some lunatic NGO’s making a vocation of it.
Praise the day when these are no longer “sustainable,” the tipping point isn’t far away.
It will be long forgotten as a nightmare that lasted some 10 years
120
Craig Idso’s paper at CO2 science can be found here.
10
The EPA in the U.S. has determined that a saved human life is valued at about $9 Million. This is the value they use to determine the social cost of any pollutant, including CO2.
Assume this is correct (it is based on what the public is willing to pay to eliminate a pollutant). The social benefits of increased crop production due to increased CO2 levels should be estimated based on how many additional people are kept alive by that extra CO2, multiplied by EPA’s official $9M per person. One estimate pegs biosphere productivity increases of 15% from increased CO2 levels. With 7 Billion people, that comes to about 1 Billion people kept alive by the additional CO2 levels. The benefit that should be attributed to CO2 emissions (ignoring the side effect of the energy made available to society) is an astounding $9,000 Trillion over the average lifespan of 70 years, or $130 Trillion per year.
And growing.
110
Gosh! If the EPA took this on board, and started promoting it, they could claim to be making a profit! What is not to like, in that?
110
When you’re the EPA, everything about it is to not like. When you’re paid to find trouble then you must find trouble to keep your paycheck.
If you tally up the real benefit we’ve had from the EPA it’s a pretty sad tale of obsession with CO2 and “clean air” standards while neglecting their responsibility to clean up existing polluted sites and prevent real pollution. The smell of the EPA is as bad as the smell of the IRS (Internal Revenue Service).
The EPA (IRS too) has many good honest people working for it. But the bosses — political appointees — are easily made pawns of the current administration and the workers are forced to go along for the ride.
10
Yup. All that food is the result of CO2 and photosynthesis. A lot of sunlight was soaked up to do that. As somebody asked before; how is that accounted for in the global energy budget?
Certainly made lots of sugar, but extra heat?
20
Strictly speaking photosynthesis takes place only in the visible spectrum, peaking toward the red on land (green plants are green coloured because they reflect the green light), more towards the red in the water, because water scatters the blue.
10
Having said that incoming short wavelength radiation after hitting the surface does smear a bit, the bit that doesn’t reflect being converted to heat and either conducted, radiated, or convected away in the IR. So any incoming light at any wavelength that is stored in sugars cant re-radiate as IR.
One should also factor in that increased leafy biomass does increase the total water loss (Even though the relationship isn’t linear) so increasing vegetation also increases the evaporative loss and results in higher amounts of energy flux used to overcome the latent heat of evaporation of course the energy locked up in LHE can’t heat the atmosphere, though it can make it damned uncomfortable.
Bob
11
“A lot of sunlight was soaked up to do that”
That’s a telling point about the level at which their “science: operates.
You never hear of the other “non radiative” energy considerations such as plant growth, the water cycle {surface water to clouds)
rotational friction losses between the Earths surface and the atmosphere.
No doubt there are more.
The whole CAGW scam has always been very simplistic but above all it has been very exclusive,
it has excluded so many relevant but inconvenient factors from view of the following masses of CAGW Hysterics.
KK
150
Hmm, sugar beet, grapes and fruit all seem to do pretty well. Apply the wisdom of the yeast and our descendants might do well to consider converting to ethanol. I believe some experiments in this direction are already running. 🙂
Beans, too. Perhaps a biomethane fuel cell for the truly dedicated.
Let the Good Times Roll!
40
Stirring the hornet’s nest by posting about this on Richard Dawkins’ foundation’s Facebook page (I greatly respect Richard Dawkins on a huge range of ideas), if hornets were reflexive, defensive imbecilic humans.
75
Richard Dawkins has a cadre of reflexive, knuckle-dragging “progressives” to lose if he steps away from the “global warming” psychosis.
Demagogues such as he live in constant fear of such scenarios.
70
That could be a part of it.
Now that said, humans have had an effect on the climate and probably contributed slightly to warming of it overall.
43
Empirical quantification of ‘slightly’?
40
Thanks Manfred.
A quantitative answer would be interesting but on analysis the “Human” effect is so small it is incomprehensible that anyone could measure it.
Christoph Dollis has been on here before, he seems to be a warmer
KK
31
As is JoAnne Nova, Anthony Watts, and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
12
Hi Chris,
Well, once again your comment, “The truth about AGW is it’s probably happening somewhat”, is a bit ambivalent and possibly providing uncertainty for to others reading here.
As far as I can see and calculate there could possibly be a small change to my comment above to reflect another aspect of the issue.
How about:
On analysis the “Human” effect is so small it is incomprehensible that anyone with a knowledge of the quantitative truth of
the matter could possibly say that “AGW is .. probably happening somewhat”.
By any observational-mathematical-theoretical analysis AGW does not and cannot exist.
I must admit that many who oppose the CAGW Hysterics say the same thing, “that AGW exists but it is small”.
It has even happened on this blogg. 🙂
This may just be a debating trick to get people onside initially but I see it as a misrepresentation of the actual situation and something we could leave behind as a science based group.
CAGW is all about money, power and control; let’s not confuse things by “allowing” incorrect and unnecessary concessions to the CAGW lunacy.
KK
00
10
It’s a good question, Manfred. I don’t know. It’s under investigation.
Less than most earlier iterations if IPCC ARx maintained.
Also, it isn’t just that. You have to include better modelling of all the natural drivers, which hasn’t much been done enough.
41
We cannot predict the weather two weeks ahead. Why would we think we can predict the climate in 100 years? And if we finally agree that to try that is insane, wouldn’t it be better to spend all those billions of dollars (which are now thrown into a black hole) wisely on real problems of our times?
30
Reinder van Til,
This guy fron New Zealand, Ken Ring has a pretty detailed forecast for South East Queensland and very different from BOM when considering the number of cyclones and when.
Article is here in The Sunshine Coast Daily. Below is a few quotes from the article:
Also lots of detail on rain forecasts around Christmas etc. Be interesting to see who’s right, Ken Ring or BOM. My money is on Ken.
02
He does soccer matches and lotteries too? If yes email address please! 😀
10
Reinder,
The contact details are on his webpage here but unfortunately no soccer matches or lotteries. But weather can affect the outcome of a soccer match. 🙂
20
Maybe!? But then the question becomes, so what? And the only answer I can see is this — So nothing at all. Who cares? Certainly no one with an honest agenda.
11
With respect, I don’t agree.
I believed in the AGW hypothesis as it is broadly understood when I was first taught it. So did Anthony Watts and JoAnne Nova. Others too, I’m sure, including some who believe it now and still have an open mind.
I don’t think it follows we didn’t or don’t have an honest agenda.
01
Christoph,
You took the time to actually state your disagreement with me so the least I can do is respect that and give you my reply.
You’ll notice that I began with, “Maybe!?” I do not deny the possibility of some human impact on the climate. My problem is that I can’t find any evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere behaves the way IT IS ASSUMED to behave. Until there is such evidence I have to say I don’t believe we are impacting the climate.
I apologize for the emphasis on, “it is assumed,” but that is the critical point in the whole global warming issue.
But there’s another issue. Even if CO2 is having some effect it has become quite clear that it’s down in the measurement noise and not detectable.
So as far as I can see the answer is legitimately, who cares?
10
Hi Roy
Liked the bit about “honesty”.
Seems to be missing in a lot of analysis by politicians and earnest fence sitters who seem to be here to sew uncertainty where there is none.
The motivation behind some comments is suspect, teetering on the edge of condemning CAGW but never quite making it.
KK
00
I see that you are being trolled by the Sisco kid…. ask him if he has the balls to come here with his crap.
51
So does every orangutan there is, I would expect
(And what orangutan wouldn’t, putting them so closely allied to human)
42
If you have no idea how life started, like Dawkins does, but still insist evolution brought us here, then in my eyes you are not that bright.
44
Exactly. I notice that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate or explain “evolution”or the theories behind it,when questioned. That is not how anyone should act.
13
I think I have made my thoughts on this pretty clear in the past.
Towards 700ppm and beyond ! 🙂
Why 700ppm? … because its twice 350 (.org) 🙂
101
I go for 1200 pm. Must be a lovely planet, all that green.
20
From that fruit and vege table it appears that only melons and pineapples don’t respond well to extra CO2.
That ties in well with the local troll population. 🙂
91
Yes I suspect Mattb is a certain type of fruit going by a recent exchange on here.
Just kidding Mattb 🙂
21
Yep, I notice you attracted his attention. 😉
21
Keep a towel handy….
11
Not a scratchy one though…
10
Yeah, I also noticed that pineapples and melons don’t seem to respond to extra plant food.
Pineapple is an arboreal epiphyte (bromeliad) that has a sparse root system.
The pineapple opens the stomata at night to absorb the required CO2 and during the day it can close the stomata to conserve water and still do photosynthesis.
Looks like the pineapple can regulate the CO2 uptake so it explains the lower yield from a higher atmospheric CO2 content.
Have not clue about the melons though. Could possibly be a similar scenario to the pineapple.
30
scaper…
1. The pineapple is a bromeliad and has crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) P/S pathway to create sugars. This allows them in hot or dry climates to open their stomates at night rather than during the day, which reduces water loss. So they accumulate CO2 at night and store it. very efficient, and wouldn’t respond that much to increased levels.
2. But the melons are all C3 and origins mainly in hot climates, with a very fast growth rate to fruiting stage (melons are actually berry’s) and should in theory respond to increased CO2, but I think that as they have evolved in hot climates, water (but well drained) and nutrients are the main drivers of rapid growth. They respond to warm soil and temperature, and production of watermelons alone has increased to over 130 million tonnes in 2012 from 104 million in 2011 so CO2 may have an influence. Also this Study shows a marked increase in photosynthesis in melons when CO2 is increased.
This website CO2 Science has a list of all the plants that have increased rates of growth associated with increased CO2.
40
Pineapple is a CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism) plant.
Link.
10
Here’s a marketing ploy for one of the resident trolls to try.
Bring a range of fruit and vege onto the market that are grown in special sheds that are restricted to less than 280ppm CO2.
Big advertising blitz on “CO2 lite” fruit and vege..
What could possibly go wrong.. you have 97% of climate sciences who would obviously buy the product.
200
Can we now legally make the claim that those who are in favour of reducing our CO2 emissions are terrorists, and should be dealt with as such? I actually look forward to the day that AGW alarmists and hoaxes are put behind bars. May not ever happen but it should given it’s the biggest scam of all time. People who defrauded the public in much smaller amounts have been convicted and punished. Bernard Madoff is just one example of many. His scam was miniscule compared to the AGW fraudsters.
192
After working at a Hydroponic farm I don’t deny the benefits of increased CO2.
I was interested to know how much benefit 700ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere would be in the event of the next Mini Ice Age?
Would crops survive better or the cold temps override the potential increased photosynthesis?
If we could produce large amounts of CO2 (without extracting from the atmosphere) as in large mechanized plants/structures that could produce purely CO2 for the benefit of growing crops, would this help in the event of another Ice Age?
Sorry if these questions have been asked before.
10
Raised CO2 levels help plants in low water situation because it allows the plant to minimise transpiration through the stomata.
Unfortunately, unless it also allows the plants to create more anti-freeze, I can’t see it helping too much as temperatures start to drop.
I don’t recall any research being done in this area either, mainly because of the erroneous assumption that extra CO2 causes warming.
61
Thanks Andy, maybe someone can chime in with more insight on this or I’ll try and search later, gotta run.
20
Ps, I think I remember reading somewhere that some plants DO actually make their own anti-freeze. Ethylene Glycol is a pretty basic CARBON compound.
And we know that plants excel at making esters! (ie smelly compounds)
31
A little snippet for the coming LIA, Yonniestone.
About twenty years ago when I was playing around with hydroponics, I bought a book on research into Nutrient Film Technique (NFT – a form of hydro). The most surprising thing the researchers discovered was that the ambient air temperature had little to do with the results.
What really mattered was the temperature of the liquid nutrient. One section of the book had some rather startling photos of strawberries thriving out in the snow in Sweden. They were in raised horizontal hydro tubes (PVC pipe with holes cut at regular intervals), and the strawberries didn’t mind the below freezing air temperatures as long as the circulating nutrient was kept at 28 deg C, which seemed the optimum temperature for most plants. Even frost from contact with the snow was not a problem.
90
An extra seasonal crop upsets the lefts green sustainable population agenda’s.
71
You are straight to the point. That is what I fear for quite a while. CO2 reductions will lead to less crop yields and therefore hunger and starvation. That must be the plan behind this AGW scare hype. The illuminati want to reduce the human population of our planet back to maximum a billion people (some suggest 500 million). This AGW scare hype is just the start of a far more huge threat to us all: Agenda 21.
20
Fuel taxes will also make it more expensive to bring those crops to market.
They have already made housing more expensive, electricity more expensive, water more expensive, and found ways to restrict the garbage that government services will take away. Kind of makes sense they would also go after food. Full spectrum dominance.
10
Hell Tel, they’ve been going after our exhalation (co2). They tax our heat, food, water, shelter, Oh you forgot our excrement which is also taxed as sewerage. What is left but what we breathe out?
10
Yeah, sewage costs have been going up… and if you own your own tanks they also have started charging “inspection” fees to make sure you don’t get off without a tax.
10
Neatly captured in the subtext of the recent hollywood movie “World War Z”
The subtext is as follows.
1. Humans are destroying the planet.
2. Humans are a plague.
3. Humans are culled by horrific virus.
4. The UN (global government) defeats the virus and saves the world for the remaining survivors.
Humans are bad and the only hope is a massive cull and global government.
Apart for the appalling subtext – not a bad entrant in the Zombie Movie genre.
10
As I understand it, Green ‘philosophy’ views the reduction of human population as aspirational, a desirable way to reduce, from their perspective, the unsustainable anthropogenic burden on ‘failing’ Gaia. So, far from celebrating the effects of increased biomass, or the unmodeled, unanticipated warming ‘hiatus’, which a non-Green ideologue might express, the Greens instead relentlessly pursue their tiresome lament because none of what is taking place appears to be leading to any decline in population. Actually, they ought to reconsider. It is in the ‘first world’ countries that the birth rate is failing to reach replacement levels. Supporting progress not primitivisation seems more consistent with their views.
However, the tragedy of the current fires in NSW does focus the mind more sharply. And predictably here the Greens soft peddle. I notice the MSM aren’t inserting the de rigeur linkage to climate change with quite the usual level of enthusiasm. Are the Greens concerned that the tragic results of their policies and handiwork are becoming too obvious?
100
I would hope so. I for one, will try to make sure that their myopic single issue view takes its full share of the blame.
You can’t speak fairer than that.
120
Fuel loads on the floor support population reduction targets loved of the Greens and current LNP and past labor policies only support the lefts handy work..
22
Not arguing with you Dallas but could you give me a few refs if possible about current LNP and population reduction policies.
00
Nicely held up here for all to see, Green policies have a cost-benefit ratio that makes P look like a cheap, recreational drug.
30
Just looked at my bank account. No $3.5 Trillion there.
20
Yeh.. Dangit. All I got was 89K..
10
When you’re getting mangosteens, you know you are doing something right.
10
At the Copenhagen conference the delegation from China pointed out that during 3,600 years of their civilisation and related records there were three warmer periods than the period that ended in 1998, and that each warmer period brought increased prosperity as plants flourished providing more crop yields to feed people.
90
O/T but I see Adam Bandt (you know, the soon-to-be-leader of the Greens when they finally get rid of Milne) tried to get CAGW mileage out of the current bushfires in NSWS:
One thing is for certain, the Greens Party will continue to fade into deserved obscurity with this callous attitude towards human beings.
121
They’re just trying to cover their organically induced, hemeroid encrusted arses because their filthy movement have been effectively banning fuel reduction burning off.
Looking forward to dancing on the Green’s political grave!
101
I want some AGW scare scam money too. I am going to apply for a study on hemeroids and how the number of hemeroids on this planet have a correlation with rising CO2 levels and/or if sea level rising is too blame. 😀
Update: I already got an email from the UN. They will send me 1 million euros tomorrow by bank transfer. I think next time I appear here the moderator will notice an IP change. Spending the last 30 or 40 years of my life on the tropical island of Curacao. 😀 😀
10
Bulldust
He’s still at it, here’s his latest tweet:
Here he is on Sunday morning in Melbourne having a latte, tweeting and blaming everything on CAGW like the new threat to Lithgow and over 200 houses lost. Meanwhile TA is out with the RFS helping those who need it most.
Adam Bandt is the most callous hypocritical mongrel I have ever seen in the political group.
Even John Brookes on a previous thread tried to make excuses for him. Bloody mongrels all of them.
91
Well if Bandt got off his Latte sipping ass and had a look around the rest of Victoria he would see dams and waterways full, the ground nicely hydrated and every plant/grass green and thriving, and yet back in 2009 we had Black Saturday here.
A bloody mongrel with NFI added Dave.
51
And that is not even mentioning the greater energy production, efficiency and lower costs that using fossil fuels give.
And also the potential for plant life to start shutting down once c02 levels get too low in the atmosphere, which has been the direction of the general trend in c02 the last several million years. So perhaps the planet wants us to emit C02.
40
MSM is really ramping up this meme:
17 Oct: Bloomberg:Alan Bjerga: Can’t Make Enough Food? Make Fewer People
Solve the world’s future food needs? That’s easy. Make more food or make fewer people. Pick one.
Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute and author of a new memoir, Breaking New Ground, suggests we think about fewer people…
The key to feeding people, Brown suggests, is by trying to manage population growth. Leaders need to ensure the planet’s capabilities aren’t overwhelmed, he said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-17/can-t-make-enough-food-make-fewer-people.html
20
Pat,
From the GrainMarket:
GIWA increased their WA crop production estimate this month by 1.4mmt to 13.8mmt.
Above average September rainfall was the main reason for the increase. WA wheat production was revised 1mmt higher to 8.9mmt.
Total barley production was revised higher to 2.5mmt and canola higher to 1.5mmt from last month’s estimates.
Seems like nothing has changed with the Bull schit that comes from CAGW alarmists.
From Tim Flannery’s new Climate Council of Commiserations.
The southeast and southwest regions of Australia are expected to experience more droughts, and a return to the earlier, wetter climate is unlikely (still using old climate commissions reports).
10
Or stop using food for fuel, when there is plenty of perfectly good oil and gas in the ground.
STUPID BIOFOOL !! Should only be allowed from otherwise waste materials.
10
less likely to be found in MSM:
Carbon fraudster ordered to repay 13 mln pounds or face more jail
LONDON, Oct 17 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A British man jailed for his part in a 38-million pound ($61.4 million) tax fraud relating to Europe’s carbon market has been ordered to repay nearly 13 million pounds to UK tax authorities, or face another 10 years in prison, Britain’s revenue and customs agency said Thursday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2652388?&ref=searchlist
20 Oct: Bloomberg: Stephanie Tong: China Solar Energy Says Directors Detained Amid Fraud Probe
China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd. (155), a Hong Kong-based solar panel maker, said its chairman and two directors have been detained by Chinese authorities on allegations of fraud involving the assets of a mainland unit.
Chairman Yeung Ngo, Yang Yuchun and non-executive director Hao Guojun were arrested and have been held since Aug. 26, according to the company’s legal advisers, and can’t be contacted, China Solar Energy said in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange on Oct. 18…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-19/china-solar-energy-says-directors-detained-amid-fraud-probe.html
German SPD urges quick action to rein in rising energy costs
BERLIN, Oct 18 (Reuters) – The leader of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) said on Friday a new government must move quickly to rein in rising energy costs in order to safeguard the competitiveness of German industry…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2655491?&ref=searchlist
10
ABC joins the chorus:
18 Oct: ABC PM: Caroline Winter: Man gets very public snip for World Vasectomy Day
A doctor from Florida has performed a live vasectomy in a bid to lower the planet’s population one snip at a time.
Doug Stein is a tireless campaigner for men to take responsibility for family planning and preventing unintended pregnancies.
His round-the-world journey, which has been captured in a feature-length film, has now taken him to Adelaide where he has performed vasectomies in front of a live audience.
The vasectomist is somewhat of a crusader in his field, encouraging those who are ready to exit the gene pool via a delicate and relatively simple procedure…
Stein: “I just think that people should have only the children that they want because each of us is a fairly significant burden on the planet and competitors with our fellow species.”…
***Dr Stein, who began his quest in his home state of Florida, says it is a viable way to reduce our carbon footprint and it is time for men to step up.
“We’re not really selling vasectomy; we’re selling individual responsibility,” he said…
He travelled to the Philippines and Haiti on vasectomy missions, where he witnessed confronting scenes of poverty and overpopulation…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/very-public-cut-made-for-world-vasectomy-day/5031710
00
19 Oct: AFR: Mark Latham: Why the ABC’s The Chaser did Chris Kenny a huge favour
In real life, Kenny needs to be less dogmatic, accepting the scientific consensus on global warming and, like his old boss Malcolm Turnbull, acknowledging the impartiality of the ABC. If he can alter his position on pooches, why not political issues?…
http://www.afr.com/Page/Uuid/a5471dc2-3622-11e3-94a7-1378f03bd3e7
20 Oct: Australian: Joe Kelly: Labor urges Tony Abbot to show how his direct action climate policy will work
Mr Burke, the opposition finance spokesman, also refused to say whether support for carbon pricing would remain Labor policy going into the 2016 election.
New Labor leader Bill Shorten on Friday declined to commit to reinstating a carbon price if the Coalition repeal was successful, leaving himself greater flexibility to change Labor’s position…
Burke: “They’ve explained what they’re abolishing but they haven’t explained what they’re doing in its place,” he told Sky News’s Australian Agenda program.
“We, on all the analysis we’ve seen, don’t see how direct action can work, don’t see how it can be efficient.
“We want that information provided as well.”…
In a rebuke to the Greens, Mr Burke also warned there was a danger in linking specific natural disasters directly to climate change…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/labor-urges-tony-abbot-to-show-how-his-direct-action-climate-policy-will-work/story-e6frg6xf-1226743278549
00
“At some point in the future, after climate models start working and proper calculations of externalities can be estimated…”
I might add:
and when political agendas no longer drive climate science,
20
Just proves how its all about money with you guys. [snip YOU MUST SHOW YOUR WORK! No more crazy rants without hard evidence.]
As has been ably explained in many different ways, the climate is affected by natural and anthropogenic factors, sometimes working against each other and at other times amplifying each other. But after 60 years while ENSO cycles have evened out, solar has been flat or falling, massive cooling volcanos etc temps have risen 0.6 deg c, oceans have warmed and risen, the Arctic, glaciers and global ice volume ar falling, the oceans ph is dropping etc etc. There is no other viable explanation that has been put forward that is confirmed by firm science and data except for AGW, which fits it like a glove. But while people suffer you worry about a couple of dollars in your pocket.
We now have a secretive, [snip, sure no proof again]
AS is obvious now [snip, blah blah blah blah blah Oh hurricanes?] ED
110
“The world experienced un[snip]
Precipitation and floods:
[as it always has] ED
010
A very good explanation of the conservation of energy law of physics and how it applies to AGW. Starting your cherry picking on the highest elnino affected year in 60 years and then ignore all the other science and evidence to delay action is having consequences you should be ashamed of.
“Human-caused global warming is the inevitable consequence of this law of physics, because greenhouse gas pollution is causing more energy to come in than go out.
If the average surface temperature – which is only one way to measure global warming – doesn’t go up every year, it’s because the “blocks” are being hidden somewhere else, for now.
But energy changes forms, and sloshes back and forth between sub-systems. Ice will continue to melt and sea level will continue to rise as the water warms. A slowdown in one rate is compensated by a speedup in another until the cycle of natural variability reverses.
Scientists know that more energy is coming in than going out. We can measure it and there is no dispute.
Because of carbon pollution, the Earth is gaining energy at the rate of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day of every year. And that rate is going up.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/global-warming-is-as-unde_b_4097174.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
[Huffington post, really? Gads I leave this untouched as proof] ED
014
Huffington post huh? Love your peer reviewed science Michael… you really are in desperation….
70
Salvador,
I lost count of the number of times in earlier Comments, you mentioned that you only link to peer reviewed information, and yet, here you are, linking to the basest of leftist blogs.
You’re a fendorkulating hypocrite, speaking out of your fundament with nothing but bovine waste coming out every time you press the Post Comment button.
Tony.
70
Jo Ann will you open a window there is a disagreeable odor in here
20
Hmmmm. Michael the Activist disappears – BilB-o commences posting.
BilB-o earns himself a stint in moderation – AAD aka Michael the Activist returns.
Is there a warmist tag team going on?
(Cue accusations of conspiracy theory and the usual rhetoric from AAD)
30
…and of course, AAD read the subject paper, analysed its findings, formulated a response and submitted his rebuttal to the applicable journal before jumping on an opinion blog (which he detests sooooooooo much) to sook about it.
He did, didn’t he?
30
More energy as in the last five record cold winters in Europe?
70
I’m pretty sure the point of money is it helps people.
Food, shelter, health care, transportation, heating, cooling, transportation, and so on.
Did you by any chance miss the first sentence of this post, which you probably did not read, before you started with your reprehensible slur and subsequent nonsense?
50
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
20
.
I see the Master Baiter is back with his very own brand of pseudo-scientific quasi-religious quackery, with hell and damnation about to descend on us all, because of the global warming which isn’t happening, with “blocks” of energy hiding and sloshing about in “sub-systems”, whatever they may be, wherever they are hiding.
Even our regular trolls have the good sense not to buy into the Master Baiter’s particular version of disturbing, psychotic unreality.
Please take a leaf out of their book and avoid feeding him.
It only encourages him to even greater flights of psychedelic self-delusion.
70
OK I will not feed the troll. Mostly because he has not answered or responded to so many arguments.
He’s not a good troll he’s a propagandist.
40
.
He never does.
Unless you count stark raving bonkers flights of fantasy as “answers”.
Mind you, he hates it when we talk about him like he’s not here.
40
The surrealist dumps another load of meaningless dribble.
Nothing even worth responding to.
20
How would you like to be his wife/boyfriend, whatever
That must be a real treat
10
Brian,
Maybe she/he (whatever) would like to SNIP just like the MODS did to his posts. 🙂
00
.
He’s definitely not of this planet.
He start’s by inferring that we are motivated by money, in order for him to make a comment.
Not one reference at all to any of the main points:
1. Plants.
2. Increased CO2 aids agriculture.
3. Photosynthesis
4. C4, C3 & CAM pathways.
5. etc.
Just finishes off with a quote saying 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs are going off every day.
MV you’re right about Master Baiter being in a state of –
A Green Parasitic Fruitloop species called Citrullus lanatus.
30
Bet he saw the pic of the money, and his eyes and mind glazed over,
……… just like any good catastrophist.
30
That’s addressed well here, Andy. I almost posted it, but I knew he didn’t have the emotional fortitude nor intellectual honesty to read it (except, perhaps, with due prodding such as that), so I didn’t bother.
Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis
20
Grrrr…. Must…. not… respond… to troll… Grrrr….!
Hold!…. Hold!….Hold!*
_____
* = gory violence warning.
10
I wonder if the Easter Islanders measured and depicted their prosperity against the trees that they harvested and the birds that they consumed at the height of their civilization?
Why don’t we ask them?
05
I see Fester is on another drive-by.
Last time he elicited 17 responses without the good grace a single reply.
A rude, petty, obnoxious troll, uninterested in debate, and so unworthy of attention or reply.
.
Ignore the ignoramus.
Perhaps he and the Master Baiter can strike up a conversation together.
10
Rapa Nui, please Chester, not Easter Island.
This place was ruined by GAIA like religious fever, constant warfare between tribes, disease, invasive species and the opening of the island to foreign slave trade eventually led to Easter Island’s collapse by the 1860s. Not CAGW, Chester the Windmill Molester.
Easter Island has recently been in the news because many climastrolists and trolls have used it as a metaphor for our planet. Oh, Chester, look over there, at the bush fires that are a result of CAGW and Tony Abbott (you’re worse than John Brookes & Adam Bandt), but please leave the Greenies alone in the blame game. You know nothing about the earth, the environment nor the current disgust of the likes of your lies that you are spreading.
You have learnt nothing from history, not even from the 2009 bushfires, you are a very sick parasitic member of society. Easter Island (wrong), Bush fires (wrong), biofuels (wrong), you believe in the GAIA cult Chester the windmill molester.
They built Moai, you are building windmills.
And you are so blind you can’t see the similarity.
10
Gees Dave, leave the poor child alone..
He’s worried about ‘Easter Island’ because he is worried about where his Easter eggs will come from next year.
10
Good one, Andy. Does G stand for “Group Think Enforcer?
02
Enforcer? No.
I just saw your comedy act and decided to have a try as well.
And I was sitting down !
.
.
Group think? Sorry, no group think here, only what you bought with you.
10
Devastating argument, Dave. Of course, that’s the point of an analogy – its exactly the same situation and scenario.
Would have been a better look and more honest for you to have written: Geez, all I got is abuse.
02
At least the statues had some sort of functionality !
10
[…] Jo Nova notes how CO2 benefited the US […]
00
Enerconics: The relationship between energy and GDP” in other words, we don’t burn more because we are wealthier, we are wealthier because we have more energy to burn.
10
Why did they cherry pick 1961? There’s not a lot significant about that year, except Barack Obama’s and John Key’s birthdate.
(Note: not a serious comment. But I just wanted to make some inane comment about cherry picking.)
00
Its good for forests too! Authors found, “The observed increase in forest water-use efficiency is larger than that predicted by existing theory and 13 terrestrial biosphere models. The increase is associated with trends of increasing ecosystem-level photosynthesis and net carbon uptake, and decreasing evapotranspiration. Our findings suggest a shift in the carbon- and water-based economics of terrestrial vegetation, which may require a reassessment of the role of stomatal control in regulating interactions between forests and climate change, and a re-evaluation of coupled vegetation–climate models”.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7458/full/nature12291.html
10