This story is unavailable.

The reason farm prices are falling is in large part due to higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons. I rarely get past the first paragraph on these Think Progress articles because I know that they are all about “climate activism”, and very little that they write is true or makes sense.

Plants thrive in an environment of about 1,000 ppm CO2. This is the reason greenhouse growers pump “warm” CO2 into their greenhouses. Not only do they grow better with more CO2, plants also require less H2O at higher CO2 levels. That is why the earth has greened significantly since the start of the Industrial Age.

In addition to more vibrant plant growth, fossil fuels eliminated the need for cutting down forests for firewood used in heating and cooking. Today, New England has far more wooded areas than it did during Colonial times. In addition, fossil fuels eliminate the need for horses for farming and transportation. This had the huge benefit that land used for growing feed for the horses could instead be used to grow food for people or be turned back to natural habitat. We are talk about millions of acres. At the beginning of the 20th Century, one of the biggest sanitation concerns of large and growing cities was what to do with the mounting piles of horse manure that spread disease and stench, not to mention the disposal of dead horses.

There is NO science empirically proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will be catastrophic. While there is science that proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that’s about as far as it goes. That proof has been don’t countless times in carefully controlled lab experiments. That is one of the facts that 97%, in fact 100%, of scientists agree on. What is not generally appreciated is that CO2 has a logarithmic signature, which means that each additional molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere has a diminishing warming effect. That fact is also appreciated by 100% of scientists.

This fact means that climate modelers need to introduce “positive feedbacks” to make their climate models produce high levels of warming. The biggest feedback is water vapor. Water is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The problem with water vapor as a feedback is that water vapor is the major component of clouds. Certain types of clouds have a cooling effect on the earth. Clouds and the “formation of clouds” are poorly understood by scientists and, by extension, by the climate modelers. It may be, and there are experiments underway to gain a greater understanding, that the water feedback, instead of being positive as in the climate model, may be negative, meaning that higher levels of water vapor leads to more clouds and more cooling. Maybe that is one of the reasons for the warming hiatus that appears to have started around 1998.

The point here is that although CO2 is recognized as a greenhouse gas by all scientists, the greenhouse effect empirically tested in a controlled lab experiment is not the same as the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere where it is but one of many factors acting on the earth’s temperature.

To prove scientifically that higher levels of CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe, we would need a control earth, exactly the same as our earth, except for humans. It is only then that we could measure the impact humans are having on our earth’s temperature, and the effect that that temperature may be having on all the other aspects of life on earth, like sea level rise, coral die off to mention just two of whole host of claimed negative impacts.

The burning of fossil fuels is only one aspect of the impact of human. The urban heat island effect is another very large one. How large is anyone’s guess. Consider this one fact. In the three years ending in about 2014, China used more cement than the U.S. used in the entire 20th century. That fact can be Googled.

Just think about the impact the use of cement and asphalt worldwide has had upon global temperatures, which have increased about .8 degrees C since about 1850. That is another fact that upon which most scientists.

Get the picture. Yes, there are aspects of climate change, a.k.a. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, upon which the is a consensus, but it is NOT that the warming will be catastrophic. For that there is NO consensus.

That use of cement and asphalt will continue unabated, regardless whether we eliminate the use of fossil fuels, because people all over the world want to live better, which is also the reason we will probably not eliminate fossil fuel usage until a workable alternated 24/7 fuel is developed. We have one today, nuclear, but the greens are against nuclear, which speaks volumes about their real goal. Their real goal is not only to decarbonize human economic activity. It is also to depopulate the earth. That is their hidden agenda.

The Progressive Left loves humanity. Humans not so much. Everytime the Progressive Left has a bright idea, million perish.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.