John Shewchuk @_ClimateCraze
160 million-year history of carbon dioxide says we are in a CO2 famine.
4:39 PM · Dec 8, 2023

Wide Awake Media
@wideawake_media
Jordan Peterson: "We're essentially in a CO2 drought by historical standards... We were almost at the point where the plants were going to start to die."

"Now they have been increasing... The major consequences is that the planet is 20% greener than it was in the year 2000... Crop yield has gone up 13%."

"It's the opposite of what was predicted, and the opposite was regarded as a catastrophe. Okay, so the opposite of a catastrophe is good—there's more plants and crops grow better. Okay, so what's the problem exactly?"

Credit:
@jordanbpeterson
@Pints_W_Aquinas

Wide Awake Media
@wideawake_media
Geologist Viv Forbes explains why geologists tend to reject the "man-made climate change" scam:

"They've read a bit of geological history. They've read climate history. They know there is nothing new about today's climate. There's nothing extreme, there's nothing new, the fluctuations are very minor, the temperature is very moderate. And even if it warms up a bit, we'll probably benefit."

Wide Awake Media
@wideawake_media
Award-winning journalist Alex Newman delivers a PERFECT 90 second summary of the climate scam:

"The notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely preposterous... The idea that [it's] going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the Earth is totally ludicrous."

"But from a totalitarian perspective, if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there's no human activity that doesn't result in CO2 emissions, including living, including dying, turning on a light switch."

"Every single aspect of your life, then, if we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution." //

Roman tidal baths in Malta are still at sea level after 2000 years...

It took a few years, but the “green blob” finally settled on manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) as the main culprit, and climate extremists and their allies in government have been railing about the need to rapidly transition to non-CO2-producing energy sources to “save the planet” from impending climate-driven catastrophes.

The problem for the blob is that contrary to the predictions of the various climate models, no scientific evidence has yet been developed to categorically prove the theory that manmade CO2 emissions cause climate change. The various hair-on-fire predictions from the likes of Al Gore have been proven to be drastically wrong over the years (see here, here, and here).

In point of fact, there is no scientific evidence that manmade CO2 emissions cause climate change. Rather, the real causes of significant climate change (over long periods of time) are natural solar cycles, major and minor volcanic eruptions, natural changes in ocean currents, and the hydrologic (water) cycle in the Earth-Atmosphere system that has existed for millennia. In short, the factors that most US high school physics students learned through the 1970s until physical science textbooks began to be corrupted by CAGW theory activists in public education. I fondly recall learning about the beneficial effects on plant growth of introducing carbon dioxide into enclosed terrarium experiments in my own high school physics class. I wonder if such simple and highly illuminating experiments are ever conducted these days? //

Economists, average Americans, and big-tech billionaires are weighing in on the green new scam and questioning the Left’s headlong rush toward the sustainable energy fraud. Whether it is the horror stories about exploding EV batteries, EV fires, purposeful skyrocketing energy prices, or the reality that clean energy simply cannot produce the energy required to maintain current energy needs let alone accommodate the requirements of AI data centers and other future needs – not to mention that the predicted climate disasters simply haven’t materialized as promised by green scam backers! – Americans are beginning to understand the realities of radical green policies. And the potential return of nuclear energy is the clearest sign that some sanity is being injected into the US energy production debate.

The massive green subsidies of the Biden-Harris regime could very well be the highwater mark of the green nonsense in America. This is a great shift that is long overdue!

Vox, who has been reporting some evaluation of cow "emissions," and doing a little panic-mongering into the bargain. The problem? They predictably get almost everything wrong. [On the "Climate Realism" website, the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy's Linnea Lueken has the receipts]<https://climaterealism.com/2024/12/no-vox-measuring-burps-and-farts-will-not-save-the-planet/).

A recent article at Vox, titled “Scientists are measuring burps and farts. It could help save the planet,” claims that methane produced by farm animals is causing dangerous global warming, and thus that reducing agriculture-related methane is critical to limiting warming to the 1.5°C target established for political ends in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. This is false. Animal related methane is not a threat to the environment, contributing little if anything to global warming.

Part of what Vox doesn't understand (and that's a lengthy list) involves the nature of methane and its half-life in the atmosphere - which, one would think, would be something that should be added to the evaluation.

Although methane is, as Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide, it has a short atmospheric life as so plays a relatively minor role in the atmosphere when it comes to long-term warming. NASA, one source for Vox’s story admits as much. What Vox and NASA neglect to mention, however, is that methane’s absorption bands occur at wavelengths that the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, making up as much of 97 percent of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, already covers. Methane, a small trace gas, is a very minor player despite alarmism surrounding it. //

But beef production only represents 2 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and is beaten out in emissions by crop agriculture, which contributes 10.2 percent of U.S. emissions. These numbers are likely similar in most western countries. Climate Realism has covered these facts multiple times before, here, here, and here, for example. The facts haven’t changed, yet climate alarmists arguments are never revised or improved.

Michael Shellenberger, who has been involved in breaking down some of the Twitter files releases, has posted a thread and an article about the World Economic Forum, ahead of its meeting in Davos this week.

Shellenberger says that the World Economic Forum is “fighting back against those who say it and its founder are seeking global domination through a ‘great reset’ aimed at stripping the masses of their private property, de-industrializing the economy, and making everybody eat bugs.” But Shellenberger takes apart that “defense.”

A WEF managing director claimed in August of last year that the “you’ll own nothing and be happy” meme was a conspiracy theory started by an anti-Semitic account on 4Chan. But that wasn’t true, since it was based on an article on the WEF website from 2016. The spokesperson mentions that article but downplays it as a “years old” opinion article.

The managing director also leaves out the subsequent video put out by the WEF in 2018 that makes it seem far less like a “years-old article.” While they deleted the page that had the video on their site, the video is still up on their Twitter and it’s a creepy, prospective look for 2030.

It was significant enough for them to put together this video that repeated the “own nothing” claim, as well as phasing down meat and eliminating fossil fuels. The video is a festival of all kinds of leftist aims in one place.

Shellenberger noted that if the WEF is calling on others to be transparent, why are they deleting their web pages and why aren’t they forthcoming about their own financial information?

How much can capitalism help address the climate crisis? This is Climate One, I’m Greg Dalton.

SpaceWeatherNews @SunWeatherMan
·
Trying to shoot a hole in this argument. Can’t. Any takers?
prayingforexits 🏴‍☠️
@mrexits
He is kind of asking the right questions here

There exist magic rocks that can boil water.

Boiling water gives us energy.

We stop using magic rocks because they exploded that one time.

Are we re*ed? Imagine if pre historic (sic) peoples stopped using fire because some red burnt his house down once.
10:54 AM · Dec 2, 2024

It's an interesting question. It's also a great illustration of the irrational thinking in some quarters when things like climate change are concerned. The fact is that nuclear energy is safer, with a lower rate of injury, than any energy method other than solar.

Climate scolds, people who want to keep the earth at some human-approved level, are all about "clean energy." They love the intermittent, low-energy-density sources - windmills, solar power - but can't abide and will not discuss nuclear power or "magic rocks." And when it comes to energy density, there just isn't any comparison. One fuel pellet of uranium in a light-water reactor produces as much energy as 1.3 tons of coal, 250 gallons of oil, and 34,000 cubic feet of natural gas. In a breeder reactor, the numbers are much higher: 22 tons of coal, 4,350 gallons of oil, and 590,000 cubic feet of natural gas. //

Forget what climate scolds claim to want. Look at what they are in favor of: You (not they) reducing your standard of living to meet their claimed goals. Look at the actions of the high-profile members of the opposition: Jetting around the globe in private jets, living in huge mansions a few feet above the tide line in the oceans they claim are rising out of control. They expect you to pay the price they aren’t willing to.

Do you want clean energy? This is clean energy. It's safe energy. No “still just thirty years away” fusion boondoggles are required. Not that fusion wouldn’t be even greater if we can make it work on an industrial scale, but how long have various organizations been trying to make that happen? This technology, nuclear power, especially the promising small modular reactors, is a technology we have now.

The new, improved small modular reactors described above could and should be built today. Technological societies like ours are dependent on abundant, cheap energy, and nuclear power has the ability to provide that power. Throughout our history, every major technological advance in power – from animal to machine, from wood to coal to oil to gas – has had one key characteristic in common, and that is increased energy density. Nuclear power represents just such an increase over generating electricity with coal or gas. Solar and wind power run in just the opposite direction, which is why they don’t scale up. //

anon-j5pd
a day ago
I’m an engineer and was a nuclear operator in the Navy. I’m a big supporter of nuclear power.
My dad used to work at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in AZ. It’s the biggest nuke in the country.
Just for fun I calculated the area of solar panels required to match Palo Verde’s output. It would require a field of panels 25 miles on a side, 625 square miles of panels. I used the power conversion factor and highest rate of sunlight incidence on the panels.
Palo Verde churns out the same amount of power day and night and isn’t impacted by dust. //

They Call Me Bruce
a day ago
Can't argue with a word of this.

As for safety, I used to be fond of pointing out that more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than in every civilian nuclear accident in the US combined.

When it first appeared in their radar images, NASA scientist Chad Greene and his team of engineers weren’t sure what they were seeing.

Flying above northern Greenland in a Gulfstream III in April of this year, Greene and his crew were monitoring radar information collected from the ice sheet below when, about 150 miles east of Pituffik Space Base—formerly Thule Air Base and still the northernmost installation operated by the U.S. Armed Forces—they spotted something unexpected.

The aircraft’s radar system had detected some kind of structure buried beneath the ice.

“We didn’t know what it was at first,” recalled cryospheric scientist Alex Gardner with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). In the radar imagery, what appeared to be a massive structure had been revealed deep beneath the frozen landscape.

“We were looking for the bed of the ice,” Gardner said, “and out pops Camp Century.” //

A remote U.S. military base once used as a top-secret testing site for the deployment of nuclear missiles from the Arctic, Camp Century was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the Greenland Ice Sheet in 1959. Remaining in use for less than a decade, the base was decommissioned after just eight years and abandoned beneath Greenland’s frozen landscape.

Also known as the “city under the ice,” this forgotten Cold War relic consists of a network of tunnels hewn into the near-surface portions of the ice sheet. Today, the remnants of the secretive base lay hidden beneath close to 100 feet of snow and ice that have continued to accumulate since it was decommissioned. //

Although the radar imagery obtained in April by Greene and Gardner could prove useful in terms of ongoing monitoring of such threats as melting continues, the researchers said the images of this forgotten vestige of the Cold War they obtained occurred entirely by chance.

“Our goal was to calibrate, validate, and understand the capabilities and limitations of UAVSAR for mapping the ice sheet’s internal layers and the ice-bed interface,” Greene said.

“Without detailed knowledge of ice thickness, it is impossible to know how the ice sheets will respond to rapidly warming oceans and atmosphere, greatly limiting our ability to project rates of sea level rise,” Gardner added.

Educating the public on the benefits of carbon dioxide is the mission of the CO2 Coalition, which I lead. We sponsor speakers and publish scientifically based materials for adults and children. Much of the information is about the role of CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas in moderating the extremes between daytime and nighttime temperatures and as a photosynthetic plant food.

“Fossil Fuels Are the Greenest Energy Sources” by Dr. Indur Goklany is an example of our work. Did you know that up to 50% of the globe has experienced an increase in vegetation and that 70% of the greening is attributed to plant fertilization by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels? Or that nearly 200,000 square kilometers of the southern Sahara have been converted to a lush grassland from desert? //

Below about 150 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2 is not compatible with plant life; in other words, below that level, plants would die, and all animal life, including humans, would follow.

Current CO2 levels are at about 440 ppm, and yes, they are rising, due to several factors. This is leading to the effects that are noted in the work of Dr. Indur Goklany: //

Based on satellite data, Zhu et al. (2016) found that from 1982–2009, 25–50% of global vegetated area had become greener while 4% had become browner. They attributed 70% of the greening to CO2 fertilization from emissions from fossil fuel combustion (which increases photosynthesis and water use efficiency, WUE, of most vegetation), 9% to nitrogen deposition (also from the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers), 8% to climate change, and 4% to land use change. The first three, responsible cumulatively for 87% of the greening, are related to the use of fossil fuels. //

A slight increase in atmospheric CO2 is good for plants, good for human agriculture, and good for greening the Earth. //

anon-2hhh
9 hours ago
I’ve been suspicious of ‘experts’ motives ever since I realized that the scientific solution for the coming ‘Ice Age’ (1970s) and the scientific solution for ‘Global Warming’ was the same;
‘Stop using fossil fuels’. //

Val U Eigen
9 hours ago
There's one more benefit that NO ONE talks about—fewer violent tornadoes. Check this out.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html

Break this into 25 year segments, and you'll notice that:
in 1950–1974 we had 33 cat 5 tornadoes.
in 1975–1999 we had 17 cat 5 tornadoes.
in 2000–2024 we had 9 cat 5 tornadoes (and none in the last 11 years.)

This is due to global warming. The explanation comes from the second law of thermodynamics (and it's too complicated to explain here). But the bottom line is that tornadoes are getting weaker.

Cat 4's are getting much less common too, but the data isn't as easy to display. //

Val U Eigen Hoover the Great
9 hours ago
First, global warming mainly warms the coldest places at the coldest times (because the effect is essentially like insulation). So temperature differences are reduced. Technically, it's temperature "gradients" that are reduced. This is not in dispute.

Second, the second law of thermodynamics says that temperature differences, not simply heat, is the energy source for all heat engines. It is impossible to build a device that simply converts heat into energy (that is, gets cold while spitting out electricity or mechanical motion). Otherwise, you could build a refrigerator that produced electricity instead of consumed it.

Because this is a result of the second law of thermodynamics, this is cleverly called perpetual motion of the second kind. This is the complex part that takes a long time to explain. The best way to learn about it is to google perpetual motion of the second kind.

Temperature gradients are the energy source for tornadoes. //

ibt
9 hours ago
The next time your climate change deranged relative talks about CO2, ask, "What is the ideal atmospheric PPM of CO2 for the planet?" Show your work. Then ask what the current PPM is. You can also remind them that 4 times as many people die of cold than of heat related issues so a warmer planet would save lives. That's a "good" thing right? ///

What's the ideal temperature for the planet? Why?

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that in my post on the United Nations climate conference in Azerbaijan this week, its president boldly declared that oil and gas were a ‘gift from God’.

The eco-activists attending the event were enraged.

The climate cultists will likely be working themselves up into even more hysteria because of another climate conference that occurred mid-November in the Czech Republic city of Prague.

The Czech division of the International Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague on November 12-13, 2024, where climate scientists declared that the “climate emergency” is over. The conference concluded with a communiqué drafted by the participating scientists and researchers that targeted the climate hysteria promoted by the United Nations body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.’

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

The declaration has 18 different point referencing climate science and facts that counter the narratives being pushed by the IPCC and those who want to push their green agendas. //

1 The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.

2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual. //

Though I have to say, #17 is a favorite of mine:

17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.

But, perhaps most importantly, the conference attendees demand the end of persecution of those researchers doing real science who struggle to share their reasonable and reliable findings whenever the data counters the political narratives.

Since 2005, one spot in particular — the Solfatara crater — has been releasing increased volumes of gas, catching the attention of researchers and locals alike. //

Even without a major eruption, the Solfatara crater outs out between 4,000 and 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide each and each day. That's roughly the equivalent of burning half a million gallons of gasoline - every day.

Bjorn Lomborg
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg researches the smartest ways to do good. With his think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, he has worked with hundreds of the world’s top economists and seven Nobel Laureates to find and promote the most effective solutions to the world’s greatest challenges, from disease and hunger to climate and education.

cupera1 Mike P. 2 days ago edited

About 40 years ago an ASU professor conducted an experiment in Tempe Arizona with orange trees in two greenhouses one was a control and the other he had increased the CO2 level to 3X of what he had in the control, ~1000 ppm of CO2. All other conditions: water, fertilizer and temperature were left the same. The results of that study were astounding. The growth rate and fruit production that the trees in the greenhouse with the higher CO2 was incredible, it was almost double what the control was able to produce. If you look at the production per acre that farmers have experience with the higher CO2 levels is close to matching those results. With the higher CO2 crops are producing more and have a higher tolerance to drought.

anon-f9f0 mopani 2 days ago

Dr. Sherwood Idso wrote many, many articles on this experiment. You might be interested in:
CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 2.5 years into a long-term experiment
S. B. IDSO, B. A. KIMBALL, S. G. ALLEN. Plant, Cell, & Environment
Volume14, Issue 3. Pages 351-353
First published: April 1991 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01512.x

CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 2.5 years into a long-term experiment

S. B. IDSO, B. A. KIMBALL, S. G. ALLEN. Plant, Cell, & Environment
Volume14, Issue 3. Pages 351-353
First published: April 1991

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01512.x

Abstract. Eight sour orange trees have been grown from seedling stage in the field at Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A., in four identically-vented, open-top, clear-plastic-wall chambers for close to 2.5 years. Half of the chambers have been maintained at ambient atmospheric CO2 concentrations over this period, while half of them have been maintained at 300 ppm (300 μlmol CO2 per mol air) above ambient. Initially, the trees in each treatment were essentially identical; but in less than 2 years, the trunks of the CO2-enriched trees had become twice as large as their ambient-treatment counterparts. After 2 full years of growth, the enriched trees had 79% more leaves, 56% more primary branches with 172% more volume, 70% more secondary branches with 190% more volume, and 240% more tertiary branches with 855% more volume. In addition, the CO2-enriched trees also had fourth-, fifth- and sixth-order branches, while the ambient-treatment trees had no branches above third order. Total trunk plus branch volume of the CO2-en-riched trees was 2.79 times that of the ambient-treatment trees after 2 fulf years of growth.

Watch the full episode here: Ep. 320 -    • Climate "Science" | Dr. Richard Lindz...  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM

so the narrative was the climate is
determined by a greenhouse effect
and adding CO2 to it
increases it causes warming and moreover
the natural greenhouse substances
besides CO2 water vapor clouds upper
level clouds will amplify whatever man
does
now that immediately goes against Le
chatelier's principle which says if you
perturb a system and it is capable
internally of counteracting it it will
and our system is and that
applies so that was a
little bit odd you began wondering where
did these feedbacks come from
and uh immediately people including
myself
started uh looking into the feedbacks
and seeing whether there were any
negative ones or how did it work
but underlying it and this is what I
learned if you want to get a narrative
established
learned if you want to get a narrative
established
The crucial thing is to Pepper it with
errors
questionable things so that the critics
will seize on that and not question the
basic narrative the basic narrative in
this sense was that climate is
controlled by the greenhouse effect
in point of fact the earth's climate
system
which has many regions but two distinct
different regions are the tropics
roughly the minus 30 to 30 degrees
latitude
and the extra Tropics outside of 30
degrees plus or minus
they have very different Dynamics

It didn't take long for the media to run a hit piece on Chris Wright, who President-elect Donald Trump nominated as his Secretary of Energy. Wright, the founder and CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, a fracking company, was nominated earlier this week; see NEW: Trump Taps Fracking Exec As Next Energy Secretary. Today, Reuters is on the move with a story headlined: Trump energy pick wrote ESG report hailing oil, gas, downplaying climate worry.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the energy department believes fossil fuels are the key to ending world poverty which, he says, is a greater problem than climate change's "distant" threat, according to a report he penned as CEO of oilfield services company Liberty Energy.

In a corporate report released in February called 'Bettering Human Lives,' Chris Wright said that the energy transition has not begun and that climate change, while a challenge, is not the greatest threat to humans.

Poverty is a bigger threat that can be alleviated with access to hydrocarbons, said Wright, who started a foundation aimed at expanding propane cook stoves in developing countries. //

Wright wrote "the wealthy world has gone beyond over-optimism surrounding the breadth and scalability of a narrow slice of alternative energy and, unfortunately, has rushed head-long into outright obstruction of hydrocarbon infrastructure and production." //

Wright places the welfare of people and communities above scientific grift. He supports what works and is critical of what doesn't and can't work...looking at you, wind and solar. He understands that energy production is inextricably linked to our freedom and prosperity. This bill of indictment against Wright should be read into the Congressional Record ...

We understand that some increase in CO2 levels is good for plants, and can increase crop yields. We understand that too little CO2 can result in a catastrophic collapse of the food web. And we do not understand the global climate well enough to interfere with it, as the results could be bad - very bad indeed.

Yes, a slight increase in CO2 can have some warming effects. So can the sun, so can volcanoes, and so can many other factors. But everything comes with tradeoffs, and if you ask people around the world who depend on plant crops for survival if they would prefer a couple of degrees cooler summers or having plenty to eat, I'm pretty sure I know which option they will choose.' //

ibt
2 hours ago
Next time your "climate change" relative starts bloviating, ask them "What is the ideal Global Surface Mean temperature in Celsius degrees?" or "What is the ideal PPM for CO2 in the atmosphere?". And ask them to show their work. //

anon-lsnr
3 hours ago
Every acre of corn produces enough oxygen for 131 people per year. 90 million acres of corn in US =enough air for 1.1 billion people per year.Jul 19, 2023. //

Bertrand du Guesclin
an hour ago
With a more CO2-rich atmosphere, plants don't have to open their pores as much to ingest the compound. That means such ingestion allows less water evaporation from the plant. Such water conservation is important in dry regions, which is why such regions (like Africa's Sahel) are getting greener. //

stripmallgrackle
an hour ago edited
Two years ago I watched and interview with a physicist (can't remember his name). He was discussing the saturation point of CO2. He mocked climate science for predicting all hell breaking loose due to runaway atmospheric heating. He stated that physics supports no such hypothesis and presented a curve that is familiar to any electronics student: the saturation curve for the transistor (tubes for us old farts). This, he pointed out, shows the limit on the conversion of UV to IR by CO2 by density in a gas mixture. For those not familiar, at the top the curve flattens to horizontal and any additional input voltage (for transistors) or UV energy (for CO2) will not increase the output of the transistor or the CO2 mixture. Saturation. His point was that arguing client sensitivity is absurd, as CO2 is self limiting on how much heat it can trap no matter how many PPM.

Almost as an aside, he mentioned at one point that all the plant species on Earth, except corn, evolved in a much richer CO2 atmosphere, and today the plant kingdom is living in a CO2 desert. //

anon-73eu mopani 2 days ago

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/fosteretal2017fromexcel-1600px.jpg

stripmallgrackle mopani 2 days ago

Wish I could help. I found these two YouTubes from Dr. William Happer. It may have been him, but I remember a man with somewhat longer hair. Searching for CO2 saturation/physicist puts Happer at the top of hits. The short 2 min video is specifically his statement about plants and a CO2 famine. I will be watching the longer lecture video tonight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKcBM5gaFEk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8iEEO2UIbA