Earth Going Green Environmentalists in Denial

by Lewis Loflin


See the graphic Science Vs. Environmentalism

"Rise in CO2 has Greened the Planet" BBC April 25, 2016 sends anti-human environmentalists into fits.

Satellite data shows new plant growth is covering an area twice the continental United States and humans are to blame! Of course climate alarmists went right into panic mode and began to attack these proven facts as bad, because anything linked to humanity is evil. Again they recite the usual collection of scare mongering about glaciers melting, oceans turning into acid, sea level rise, etc.

The real facts are: "American satellites over the past 33 years show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth vegetated land which in turn are slowing the place pace of climate change is plants are using CO2 from the atmosphere."

Note: there is no empirical proof humans are changing the climate and if we are this is good news.

"They further note just 4% of vegetated land has suffered from plant loss. This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by maverick scientist James Lovelock who propose that the atmosphere, rocks, and implants work together as a self-regulating organism while mainstream science call such mechanisms feedbacks."

This Gaia hypothesis has been hijacked and turned into a religion to the point that Dr. Lovelock has renounced this nonsense. He is a big supporter of natural gas and nuclear power.

"Scientists say several factors play a part in the plant bloom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifting land management at 4%. CO2 is 70%." A Chinese scientist notes plants can "fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon and climate system." This is nothing new.

Of course any good news related to climate comes under vicious attack by climate alarmists, who claim that it diminishes over time. Note: they have no idea if this will happen and no way to prove it. Their previous computer models failed to predict this, thus computer models must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Again they go into the obvious nonsense that plants can't grow without water or nutrients. Gee whiz, as if we already didn't already know that. I will skip all of the alarmist nonsense that we have heard for decades. Nick Lewis an independent scientist often critical of the (UN) IPCC told BBC News:

"...the magnitude of an increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies. This suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies a global temperature rises projected by IPCC (computer) models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."

Note: And there we have the problem "models imply". They have no actual proof of their claims, but instead rely again and again on computer model hypothesis that cannot project the real world and have failed consistently in predicting future events.

And Prof. Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "it is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (what is projected from climate "computer" models.)

I for one accept only empirical data and real world proof. That is what science is, the rest is politics and religion. Computer models in the hands of crackpot biocentrists believing Nature is more important than humanity must be rejected as experts for reasons of public policy.

Quoting April 26, 2016

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25...using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Then what happens? The detractors and biocentric cultists are out in force. To quote,

"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."

"While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models...the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved."

Then why didn't the "models" predict any of this? Where is the real world empirical proof for these claims? When are models "improved" enough to actually work in the real world?