David Craig, on May 3rd, 2023Wednesday/Thursday blog
As you’ll know, CO2 is vital for plant growth. CO2 levels are currently around 413 ppm (parts per million). Many agriculture companies using greenhouses instal CO2 generators to take CO2 in their greenhouses to around 1,000 ppm:
In fact, rising CO2 levels are causing a greening of our planet:
CO2 levels have been much higher for much of the last 600 million years than they are today:
The black line on the diagram is atmospheric CO2 (the scale on the left). The blue line is the estimated average global temperature (scale on the right of the diagram).
Yet, plant and animal life thrived. Just ask any dinosaur. And, in case you were wondering, it wasn’t the CO2 emissions from Fred Flintstone’s car which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs:
If CO2 levels were ever to drop below around 200 ppm, most plant life would die and humans would have nothing left to eat. In fact, it would be rather amusing if our useless Western governments wasted billions on developing wonderful CO2 capture machines which managed to substantially reduce atmospheric CO2 and wipe out the human race.
Here’s a great article from Conservative Woman demolishing the whole CO2-driven, man-made global warming scam. The best bits of the article are the readers’ comments. We truly are in a madhouse when so many people realise that man-made climate change is total nonsense on stilts, yet their governments insist on impoverishing their citizens and destroying advanced Western civilisation in order to fight a demon that doesn’t even exist:
Category: 
I would like to know whether the temperature in the greenhouses with high levels of CO2 is higher than a greenhouse with normal levels. I have never seen anything about that. There have been experiments with model greenhouses to show that the heating is not due to trapped radiation but not to show what happens with higher CO2 levels.
Doesn’t the graph of past climate shown here and the ones from ice cores showing the series of ice ages indicate that humans are obsessed with the trivia of a few degrees change in recent years and ignore the bigger picture which has never been explained satisfactorily.
I wonder what response there would be if a politician did an Andrew Bridgen on climate science. The house would clear, the government representative would read out a bland statement about a climate crisis and the MP would be expelled from his party. This is the real problem. The MPs are mostly incompetent. They can’t even manage the economy after years of trying. How many remember the Gordon Brown promise of a new golden age of the city with no more boom and bust. David Starkey summed it up recently saying they they haven’t got a clue what to do about anything and they can’t anyway because they are no longer in control – it is banks and global corporations who are in control.
I’m not impressed with the CW article. There are a lot of statements, which I agree with, but no evidence to support them. I cannot see that this is going to change minds. As for using Happer, he is a fence sitter who I think is still in work and is protecting his job.
The author is an electrical engineer and I worked with many but none of them understand basic thermodynamics and believe that heat can transfer from cold to hot. This is because they think in terms of radiation which does transfer from cold to hot but they don’t understand that is does not cause heating.
Why doesn’t TCW get a climate expert, such as Ian Plimer, to write an article for them, or even list all those who do not agree with human caused climate change and let people do their own research? Why not challenge all the schools to discuss correlation analysis and prove that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth forgot to do the maths?
The problem is not with science it is with the human race, hardly surprising when many now think they can change sex by sterilising themselves, all with the enthusiastic support of health professionals.
I put a mildly negative comment on TCW yesterday and I learned something from it because of the responses from deniers who viewed me as an alarmist. I discovered that they don’t know anything about science. It now seems to me, that in many areas, most people are chanting a view they support but haven’t a clue about the evidence related to that view.