Carbon Dioxide Is Life, NOT A Pollutant
Is carbon dioxide — two pounds of which each of us exhales daily — a pollutant? And are weather catastrophes increasing as a result of higher concentrations of the gas?
Physics — along with a few other branches of science — says no.
Nonetheless, in a landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling, the EPA concluded that it has the authority to regulate ‘greenhouse gases’, setting off a cascade of regulatory actions that target fossil fuels as emitters of a dangerous gas and promoting “green” energy as the solution.
This ruling has become known as the “Endangerment Finding” and it determined that carbon dioxide was a “pollutant” that was dangerously warming the atmosphere and oceans, leading to climate catastrophe.
Now, the current Supreme Court is set to review the 15-year-old finding Feb. 28. Never mind that, according to Clean Air Act co-author John Dingell, Congress never intended for EPA to regulate ‘greenhouse gases’.
Setting aside legalistic arguments as to whether Congress or the EPA has the authority to make such decisions, the science is clear: Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not lead to the catastrophic consequences that the global warming enthusiasts predict.
In fact, a recent Louisiana judge dictated that the EPA needs to use realistic metrics when evaluating the costs or benefits of more CO2. Using a higher, real-world discount rate mandated by Congress reveals that the “social cost of carbon” from increasing carbon dioxide emissions is a net benefit to society.
That is correct. More CO2 benefits society and the peoples of the Earth.
The Earth’s atmosphere has warmed about one degree Celsius since 1850, and CO2 has increased approximately 130 parts-per-million since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to about 415 ppm today This combination of modest warming and a rise in atmospheric CO2 has provided a huge benefit to the Earth’s ecosystems and to humanity.
Contrary to predictions of ever-increasing catastrophes and harm to humanity, quite the opposite is occurring. By virtually every metric the planet’s ecosystems are improving and we are enjoying those benefits.
Deserts are shrinking, the bulk of the planet is enjoying re-forestation not de-forestation, vegetation is exploding across all ecological niches, natural disasters have been in a twenty-year decline, hurricanes are not increasing, the strongest tornadoes are in decline, and our air and water are cleaner today than in modern history.
The majority of North American heat records were set 90 to 100 years ago.
Where is the crisis? There is none.
That more carbon dioxide is fueling plant growth is accepted as fact by all parties in the climate debate (and yes, Virginia, there IS a debate). Modest warming is providing longer growing seasons in temperate climes, assisting in the cultivation and harvesting of more food.
Image: Craig Idso / Christopher Monckton
That increase in crop growth is turbocharged by the CO2 fertilization effect. With carbon dioxide increasing in recent decades, there have been significant improvements in crop harvests and an overall greening of Earth.
Greenhouses add carbon dioxide to enhance production.
It is accepted by experts on both sides of the issue that carbon dioxide retains small amounts of solar radiation — heat — that otherwise would escape into outer space.
Proponents of catastrophic man-made warming exaggerate this phenomenon, using unlikely and unsupportable high-end projections of the warming effect to achieve extreme heat scenarios of the future.
Whatever the cause of the temperature increases of the last 300 years, there is no need to fear carbon dioxide’s future ‘greenhouse effect’ because the gas at the current concentration of approximately 400 parts per million has nearly reached its peak potency. Even if the gas were to double, the effect would be a mere one degree Celsius of warming— hardly an emergency.
A ruling by the Supreme Court to roll back the Endangerment Finding would simply be a ruling that “follows the science” and recognizes the important contributions that more CO2 is having on the planet’s health and to the human condition.
About the author: Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, an organization of more than 80 scientists and researchers. He has been an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is author of the bestselling book Inconvenient Facts.
Editor’s note: While PSI argues there are no ‘greenhouse gases’ and no ‘greenhouse effect’, we appreciate Greg Wrightstone’s important work in this field.
See more here: naturalgasnow.org
Header image: Boston University
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Allan Shelton
| #
Greg should, IMO, provide proof of the GHG Theory/Hypothesis.
And, not present computer models as proof.. They are not proof.
Also Greg should explain how the added 400 ppm of CO2 can “trap” enough heat to raise the temperature 2C degrees.
Reply
Tony
| #
Bravo for bringing this important issue to our attention. When I was a college student in the 1990s in New York, a science journalism student, I interviewed scientists at NASA in New York. They were developing the thesis of global warming.
There were 22 specific effects they were studying, from coastline inundation to runaway greenhouse effect. I can tell you 40 years later that not a single one of their predictions has come true. That pretty much sums it up.
Carbon dioxide release is healing the earth. Maybe that’s why they don’t like it as much because they hate the human population, and more verdant earth means more people, more carrying capacity, and they don’t want that.
Reply
Richard C. Willson
| #
There is no Human-caused climate crisis or ’emergency’
Even if there were humans could not do anything significant about it – and that includes the wasteful, expensive and inadequate solar and wind energy components of ‘renewable’ energy sources. Nothing within the power and technology available to humans can significantly affect climate. Climate varies continuously between warmer and colder than average and humans have just one option to climate change – ADAPT.
The hypothesis that’s devolved into the CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hoax is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. CAGW has been promulgated in large part by ill-informed environmental extremists, ‘renewable’ energy profiteers and globalist population and control ideologues.
See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/…/still-epic-fail-73…/
The climate varies continuously and is determined primarily by the radiant energy, the solar irradiance, the earth receives from the sun. The solar irradiance of the earth has natural variabilities caused by both intrinsic changes in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun and by variations in the earth-sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. These natural solar irradiance changes are cyclical on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climate changes.
So there is no reason to sabotage the economies of nations by failing to use fossil fuels, the most cost-effective form of energy, to the maximum extent possible. The ‘alternative renewable’ technologies currently provide only 3% of the world’s energy supply, are extremely expensive to fabricate, install and maintain, are environmentally harmful and cannot provide the energy humans require when they need it. Additionally there is little justification for more nuclear fission reactor power plants that require safely storing dangerous nuclear waste for thousands of years when nuclear fusion power sources will eventually be able to provide electrical power with no negative environmental byproducts or delivery limitations.The nuclear fusion technology required to generate reliable and adequate alternative energy on a scale that can replace fossil fuel use is under development and will be available long before fossil fuel sources are depleted.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion
https://www.facebook.com/wayne.carter.5473894/posts/4867350603300798
Reply
davejr
| #
Thank you for this article. There is only one way to achieve ‘net zero’, and that is to step off or be eliminated. Pure and simple. So, when the true shith heads, those who actually know what they are talking about and propagate the lies, say they want you to achieve net zero; what they mean is, they want you dead so that you can no longer consume THIER precious resources.
Reply