Burning Fossil Fuels Is Greening The Earth

images (6)

Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (P.S.), gives this fascinating lecture on Reason.tv about how fossil fuels is actually resulting in greening the planet.

Which is pretty much the opposite of what we’re told by the environmentalists:

“The fact that we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air means there’s more fuel to grow plants,” says Ridley. “There’s tons of experiments now showing that plants grow faster if there’s more carbon dioxide in the air.”

The point being that the climate change alarmists who would have us believe that CO2 emissions are pollution – keep in mind that the EPA has declared that CO2 is a pollutant and the courts have upheld that designation – are wrong. Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually pretty great for plant life.

Which just goes to show that declaring a “scientific consensus” on climate change, and basing broad and sweeping policies on that supposed “consensus,” is a mistake. There are a lot of things about the impact of human activity on the environment that we don’t understand.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • mikemc1970

    But, but Rob. Everyone knows CO2 causes cancer, earthquakes, and is responsible for gun violence in the inner cities. Algore told us so.

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      Asteroid strikes, and a hundred other things. To hell with the plants!

  • WOOF

    We are not plants, less than 10% of carbon dioxide
    in breathing atmosphere results in death.

    • banjo kid

      You might want to look into that a little further it is not that simple. if there is to much we would die, but it would have to be so much that it blocked all the atmosphere from you . If there is not enough Co2 to convert then yes you would suffocate.

      • WOOF

        1% Co2 you get drowsy,
        3% mild narcosois, reduced hearing,
        5% dizziness confusion headache, shortness of breath,
        8% tremor, sweating , unconciousness.

        • Spartacus

          WOW! The symptoms you describe for 5% concentration also describe the symptoms of liberalism. There must be pockets of 5% concentration at nearly every urban area in the country.

    • Wayne

      So? The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 0.039%. That is the same as 30 years ago on a percentage basis. That is a long, long way from 10%. In fact it’s a long, long way from 1%. BTW, in spite of the fact that CO2 levels have continued to rise, on a ppm basis, global temperatures have not risen in 17 years. Global warming (or cooling) is primarily driven by the sun. IMHO

      • mikemc1970

        Global warming (or cooling) is primarily driven by the sun.

        Yeah, but that isn’t going to scare monger enough of the sheople into accepting global socialism. So you’ll never get the left to admit they are lying about it.

    • Waski_the_Squirrel

      Not even the most extreme alarmists claim that the CO2 content of the atmosphere will rise to levels that cause difficulty with breathing. I’m not sure why this 10% figure was even brought up. It is not on the table from any side.

      • WOOF

        I mentioned it cause banjo kid thought “we would die, but it would have to be so much that it blocked all the atmosphere from you”

  • banjo kid

    Science class in the 60’s taught that the cycle was the plants with leaves would take in Co2 which is what we breathe out and convert that to Oxygen which is what is needed to sustain life . that is what we were taught that without that exchange we would suffocate . Al Gore says we need to stop Co2 because it is killing us. I will take the teachings of the 60’s over that scum ball any day . The whole sky is falling thing is to get into our back pockets for doing nothing . It is also a way to gain control over the people . One volcano erupting can put more Co2 into the air than the whole lot of us driving our SUV’s and cars, for a year .

    • Simon

      It looks like someone needs a little bit of levity.

      Just pulling your chain, man.

      Have a good one.

      • banjo kid

        I understand you have a good one also , I find nothing funny about Gore . his Daddy used to stop at my grandmothers house about noon time campaigning, of course he knew he would be asked to sit and eat with them so he did . Grandfather never voted for him though. I can stand to have my chain pulled every now and again .

  • PK

    The earth is in a CO2 starved condition. In the past, CO2 levels have been much higher and correlates with more life. The Club of Rome, in the 50s, talked about seizing control, through taxation and regulation, of one of the elements of the life cycle of the planet. Doing so would allow total control over every aspect of society worldwide. Back then global cooling was the avenue, because all the long term trends showed we’re going back into an ice age and that trend is still the same today. But the radicals at the UN decided they would take advantage of a small warming trend due to an active sun and try to put in controls over 2 life cycle elements, carbon and oxygen. This agenda is about shutting down America’s industry and middle class and to make America subject to UN dominance, all for the earth. America is the main enemy to their world government, that’s why China is exempt from all the controls. A totalitarian world government based off of UN Agenda 21 can’t exist with a sovereign America who won’t buy into all their scams. If you believe what i said, you’re a potential terrorist according to DHS, because there’s obviously no New World Order UN conspiracy with America in the crosshairs.

    • Patrick R. Pfeiffer

      This writer is correct. I remember being a school kid in the early 70’s and they trudged us all to the cafeteria to show us a scare-movie about how man’s activity was causing a coming ice-age. Scared the hell out of me for weeks.
      Now the claim is the exact same activities are causing warming. Or sometimes they get confused and have to call it “change” not “warming.”
      Wake up a get a clue people: Man-made global warming is a hoax-period.
      It’s not a scientific enterprise, it is a political ideology bent on destroying capitalism. It’s where the 60’s commie pot-smoking liberal radicals landed after communism went out of vogue.
      It’s also not, as is claimed, some universal consensus. Take just a few minutes to google “scientists against global warming” and you’ll have an eye-opening experience.
      By the way-a few hundred years ago it was “scientific consensus” that the world was flat. By definition, science is NOT consensus.

  • Guest

    This video is very interesting and eye opening. I would say that this quote by Rob in his post is not true based on the video: ”
    Which just goes to show that declaring a “scientific consensus” on
    climate change, and basing broad and sweeping policies on that supposed
    “consensus,” is a mistake.”

    When the man was speaking he talked about climate change. He even talked about how CO2 can make warm temperatures that lead to more water being in the atmosphere which causes more precipitation (which is also a reason for more extreme weather). He did not argue against climate change, he argued that there are positives that may go with CO2 as well.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That’s fair, and my fault for using imprecise language.

      When I referenced the alarmists, I thought readers would take it for granted that i was talking about the people who claim that warming trends will lead to disaster.

      That’s not necessarily true, which was the point of this video.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Of course he didn’t argue against “climate change.” Nobody is claiming that the earth’s climate isn’t changing.

      What’s in doubt is that said change will be catastrophic.

      • Guest

        Gotcha, argument about trade offs..

      • Patrick R. Pfeiffer

        I’m sure as hell claiming that it isn’t changing due to man’s activities.

        Absolutely, 100% claiming it. Or with a qualifier, not to anything more than an infinitesimal, inconsequential degree. Like fleas on an elephant. Less than that by a geometric degree..

        Changing in general? Certainly! The climate has changed unceasingly for the planet’s entire history.

        I’ll repeat this: google “Scientists against Global Warming.” You’re in for an education.

        • Guest
          • Patrick R. Pfeiffer

            That’s not a review; it’s a cherry picked example from a laundry list of links to scientists who don’t agree with the pop culture global warming claptrap.
            That the article begins with a warning to ‘avoid’ Fox news tells you all you need to know.
            Why don’t you post a few of the top 10 hits Einstein?

          • Guest

            Did you read the article it was simple factual information they got wrong. The rest showed that the big petition circulating that global warming is a hoax is not validated info and who is circulating most of this information. It was pretty informative and there isn’t any well respected science agency nationally or internationally that believe it is a hoax. May there be an economic reason that some people dont like the environmental data?

      • Simon

        Also in doubt is the theory of human influence on climate, which constantly changed for billions of years before humans existed.

  • Mike Adamson

    Interesting video. The criticism of Ridley’s work that I’ve read often focuses on his identification of current consensus,which is too often wrong apparently,and his misinterpretation of data and facts. I don’t put any stock in what he claims but it is refreshing to hear from a sceptic who seems to be trying to be fair and reasonable. If he could only improve his math skills…

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      From the “stuff Mike just googled” department.

  • yy4u2

    We know that progressive politics is a failure and back this kind of bunk as well.

  • awfulorv

    You have to wonder of the inner feelings of those Green Energy zealots, who allowed the installation of the monstrosities on their properties, as they pick up the dead birds around the Turbines each morning? Strangely enough we never hear their protests as they, dutifully, fall on their swords. Perhaps they are still hoarse from protesting the evictions of the Spotted Owls from their, that tree over there will not suffice, nesting sites.

Top