Both the quantity and nutritional value of plants is growing around the planet due to recent increases in carbon dioxide, claim the authors of an important new science paper. The recent rise in carbon dioxide during modern industrial times, from a period of dangerous denudation, is at the centre of worldwide fearmongering designed to enforce a Net Zero collectivisation. “In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops,” state the authors.
Regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be aware of the massive greening of the planet that has occurred over the last 40 years. Alas, this astonishing success story is inexplicably missing from most mainstream Net Zero-focused discourse. This latest paper is written by a group of scientists and published by the U.S.-based educational foundation CO2 Coalition. It is highly technical but it seeks to explain why the nutritional value of the world’s more abundant crops “can and will remain high as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase towards values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth’s history”. With CO2 levels considerably higher over most geological history, the current level of 425 parts per million (ppm) is much less than optimum for most plants, the experts observe.
For too long, note the scientists, atmospheric CO2 has been the nutrient in shortest supply holding back plant growth. “Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have clearly been beneficial for the biosphere, agriculture, humanity and particularly for global food security at very low additional cost. Still higher concentrations will bring additional benefits,” they note. The CO2 Coalition, supported by the work of atmospheric scientists like Emeritus Professor William Happer of Princeton, has long argued that CO2 becomes ‘saturated’ at certain levels in the atmosphere. At higher levels its warming properties diminish rapidly. Due to this ‘saturation’, which helps explain why atmospheric CO2 concentrations been up to 20 times higher in the past without the planet turning into a fireball, “man-made CO2 emissions are not capable of triggering dangerous future warming”.
The great success of what is termed the ‘green revolution’ is shown above. The scientists note that important factors in the dramatic increase in food production have been increased atmospheric CO2, the development of greatly improved plant varieties and intelligent use of mineral fertilisers. The authors quote from a recent scientific paper, Taylor and Sclenker 2023, which states: “We consistently find a large CO2 fertilisation effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans and wheat respectively.”
The evidence for greening of the Earth from atmospheric carbon dioxide “is now too obvious to deny”. The scientists publish the world map below to prove their point.
The above map was produced from satellite data recorded between 1982 and 2012. Greening by 20-30% was recorded in India, West Australia, the Sahel and the Anatolian highlands. Reference is also made to Chen et al. 2024, reported here in the Daily Sceptic, that found CO2 greening had actually accelerated over the last two decades. The increase in C02 was found to be the dominant driver of the positive trend of the Leaf Area Index over most of the global land surface.
Attempts have been made recently to downplay the benefits of more vigorous CO2-driven plant growth by suggesting it leads to a slight dilution of some nutrients, notably nitrogen, in plant tissues. In the course of their work, the authors state that these deficiencies are small compared with the nutritional shortages that agriculture and livestock face because of natural phenomena. “These problems have been routinely dealt with for generations through adequate fertilisation, proper species and cultivar selection, and food supplements for livestock and humans,” they argue.
The numerous desirable and beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere greatly outweigh ‘climate-damaging’ or ‘nutrient-damaging’ impacts, to the extent that these even exist. There is no ‘social cost’ of carbon, as is incorrectly claimed in numerous recent publications. In the course of their paper, the scientists say that have reviewed the literature and provided arguments that “arrive at quite a contrary view” to those who claim enhanced atmospheric CO2 somehow threatens human nutrition. “In fact, there is a social benefit from more CO2 in the air,” they conclude.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well when you take a vaccine that is programs your cells to create the toxin created by a virus throughout your body with very little control this will happen…
These days I wonder what a virus is because the last time I checked coronaviruses were pretty harmless common colds and now we have a killer pandemic from one?
Oh thats right, its all a lie and they are making it up as they go along…
The truth will come out when the seasonality of coronaviruses kicks in over the winter months. If we’ve already gone from 99% to 77%, I think we’re in for a rude awakening as it begins to dawn on people that the vaccination drive has not been nearly as effective as made out.
Who knows, maybe there’ll also be a new found appreciation that 99% of people are completely fine after being infected anyway and we have to move on…we’ve got 3 people off work just now with symptoms of a runny nose for pete’s sake!!!!
It would be interesting to compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated for hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and deaths for ANY reason, not just “covid” (ie a positive pcr test result). I suspect a much less favourable picture might emerge. Is it just me, or do there seem to be a whole lot of (vaccinated) people ill with a wide range of health issues at present?
Yes! That’s exactly what I’m seeing, but they are all absolutely vehement that it has nothing to do with the experimental unlicensed drug they just had injected into them
Since the beginning of this year, among my vaccinated acquaintances and friends there has been one death from a stroke, one minor stroke, one major bleeding episode, one person diagnosed with fibrosis of the lungs who was perfectly healthy last year, one person, single jabbed, who had high numbers of inflammation markers in her blood which three courses of antibiotics failed to shift and several people “testing positive” for Coronavirus.
Am I being overly suspicious?
I’m a bit worried about spike protein shed myself (though I heard pine needle tea can help), and T worry that “vaccines” and NPI’s could create the conditions for worse variants. I wonder how things are going in South Dakota – and Belarus (even if they are threatening to invade the Baltic states).
yes
The Israeli data confirms all cardiac anecdotal evidence.
I suspect that we will now live in an era of generally very poor health, with the cult members adamant that it has nothing to do with the vaccination or boosters they keep having. This is going to get very interesting, and I still believe they will somehow blame us lot for it all!
Not just you.
We really need to see figures for vaxxed and unvaxxed in fairly narrow age bands, with information about their state of health, what else they were ill with. I’m sure we never will. The government are not in the slightest bit interested in vaccine efficacy, or any other covid related data.
Now surely “our” NHS” wouldn’t cover it up, would they?
I don’t like the sound of this.
Microchips for September? Because drugs, vaccines and the mark of the beast are the way out of this (or not)…
Hotel California springs to mind.
And I ask again, what do scientists independent of pharmaceutical companies and their proxies have to say about the vaccines?
Is this the ventilator treatment that Doctors stopped using in the US because they discovered its use was lethal to the patients in some instances?
My experience at the moment is that pretty much all of the vaccinated people I know are all getting sick with covid! Which is privately very amusing as they are all committed Guardian reading covid cult members.I just had covid, as an unvaccinated persons, and suffered four days of very mild sniffles! They simply don’t work!!
Antibody Dependent Enhancement, anyone?
Guardian readers? Maybe they don’t like work…
Give me an “A”
Give me a “D”
Give me an “E”
What’s that spell?
Content that’s banned from social media!
The good news at least for team apocalypse is that at least now they will get the “dark winter” they were pining for. Yeah Team Apocalypse!
Woooooo! Oh my god.
My missus and I were double vaccinated in May (alright, stop shouting at me!). Three weeks ago she had summer cold symptoms and tested positive. Probably the very transmissible Delta variant, so transmissible that I didn’t get it!
I had a very very mild dose back in March 2020 which has probably served me better than artificial jabs.
So the point of the vaccine, sorry, experimental gene therapy, is what exactly?
I’ve said it before, but the point of the “vaccine” is
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A coup d’etat, without people even realising. The perfect crime?
You can NEVER drug/jab a body back to health. Medicine is meant as a support while you heal.
The figures show that old people die.
We simply cannot allow that to happen! (….I’m old’ish)
That’s good news isn’t it? The 3rd shot might not cause blood clots.. but may cause infertility, autoimmune disease, heart damage and early death.. I expect by the 6th or 7th shot you actually become younger and you develop superhero powers.
The 8th shot may undo all the mistakes you have made in life.. by the 9th shot you are a millionaire, by the 10th shot you own your own home and your children are perfect. By the 11th shot your mother and father are rich and you are at Eton, with not an original or sensible or decent thought in your head, ready to run the country into the ground because ‘save the planet’…
By the 12th shot, you live as long as a greenland shark.
Are they the ones who got mistaken for the Loch Ness Monster?
maybe.. they live perhaps to be 500… cold temperatures and slow metabolisms are good for health it seems.. that and sharks are some 400 million years old, surviving whatever killed the dinosaurs.. their immune systems are such that they don’t seem to suffer much illness.. bats on the other hand also don’t suffer much illness, yet apparently they harbour lots and lots of viruses.. despite a high metabolism and body temperature their immune system doesn’t go cytokine crazy.. some species can live 30 odd years.. with very little illness..
Bow whales possibly reach 300 plus years… again, well developed immune system that has developed over 50 million years.. good thermoregulation, slow metabolism.. less wear and tear…
I expect they’ll miss the 13th and go straight for 14th – just in case…
“This phenomenon warrants further investigation.” Well, I never! What a surprise! How about buying an old banger from the guy down the road, and relying on it to get along? A similar level of trust, perhaps.
You jest, but I know many, many people who have bought cars on the basis of a promise of reliability. I try to point out that such a promise is meaningless, since you cannot buy a car that WIL BE reliable since no one knows what will happen to it tomorrow, you can only buy a car that HAS BEEN reliable, but surprise surprise, they prefer the comfort of the meaningless promise…
Did anyone else notice the headline in the Telegraph a few days ago – cardiac events at home surge by over 30%. They were blaming lockdowns but it put me in mind of something else…