https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/28/the-process-of-rescinding-the-endangerment-finding-has-begun/
Look how fast the CO2 is increasing!
Oh my! Are we all going to die?
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Note the impact of that increasing CO2 on climate deaths and crops, below. The diametrically opposed polar opposite of what it's supposed to do.......kill people and the planet.
Increasing CO2 has SAVED an enormous number of lives. Over 1 billion ADDITIONAL being fed, just from the positive contributions of INCREASING CO2 and beneficial climate change.
Fossil fuels are feeding almost half the planet from the synthetic fertilizer made with natural gas.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Death by GREENING!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Remember the good old days when they taught this about CO2 as the beneficial gas that it is?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Anothersecret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/28/much-harm-and-no-good-from-epa-greenhouse-rule-kill-it/
Having declared carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be harmful pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2009 endangerment finding has been the cornerstone of wrongheaded climate regulation, an impediment to economic growth and destroyer of livelihoods. All the result of rulemaking that puts ideology ahead of science.
Empowered to impose sweeping restrictions on GHG emissions from all manner of human activity, the EPA has been free to impose unreasonable demands on electric generation, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture – just to name more prominent targets. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, with CO2 emissions being the focus, fossil fuels in general and coal in particular were hammered by this regulatory cudgel.
In the last decade, regulations have contributed to the closing of more than 40 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plants – one of the most economical and reliable generators of electricity. Job losses hit thousands of plant workers, coal miners and employees of supporting businesses, and both the price of electricity and the risk of blackouts increased.
The endangerment finding was a response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act if they endangered the public. On the basis of flawed analyses, the Obama administration’s EPA concluded that there was such a threat, laying a foundation for some of the agency’s most consequential regulations.
++++++++++++
Even if the US didn't have a debt crisis, this would be a great idea!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/22/climate-change-weekly-535-paris-climate-treaty-is-going-down/
https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-change-weekly-535-paris-climate-treaty-is-going-down/
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc
++++++++++++++++++
Just a little reminder of the work we've been getting from the extremely corrupt, biased and scientifically dishonest IPCC the past 3+ decades. They are responsible for the Fake Climate Crisis Bible to be used around the world by those following climate religion:
Here's an accurate description with the evidence of how they hijacked climate science then REWROTE CLIMATE HISTORY for their agenda. Seriously, they completely eliminated the Medieval Warm Period, (proven by 100 studies and long accepted by climate scientists) from climate history!!
Re: Poisoning the minds of young people
By metmike - Aug. 14, 2023, 9:34 p.m.
++++++++++++
Science corruption (IPCC)
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
By metmike - March 20, 2023, 11:36 p.m.
As expected/predicted earlier this year:
If finalized, this proposal would undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations, save more than $54 billion annually
Revoking the agency’s Endangerment Finding will lift costly regulatory burdens and restore the Clean Air Act to Congress’s original intent.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/epa-endangerment-finding-clean-air-act-trump
+++++++++++++
I always thought the biggest irony of this silly endangerment finding was catalytic convertors.
The most ingenious and effective pollution fighting device in history for decades.........suddenly became the source of CO2 pollution based on this junk science, political nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80x4IAm1n6o
++++++++++++++++
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
A catalytic converter part is an exhaust emission control device which converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine into less-toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction. Catalytic converters are usually used with internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline (petrol) or diesel, including lean-burn engines, and sometimes on kerosene heaters and stoves.
The first widespread introduction of catalytic converters was in the United States automobile market. To comply with the US Environmental Protection Agency's stricter regulation of exhaust emissions, most gasoline-powered vehicles starting with the 1975 model year are equipped with catalytic converters.[1][2][3] These "two-way" oxidation converters combine oxygen with carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).
The three-way catalytic converters have the additional advantage of controlling the emission of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (both together abbreviated with NOx and not to be confused with nitrous oxide (N2O)). NOx are precursors to acid rain and smog.[24]
Since 1981, the three-way (oxidation-reduction) catalytic converters have been used in vehicle emission control systems in the United States and Canada; many other countries have also adopted stringent vehicle emission regulations that in effect require three-way converters on gasoline-powered vehicles. The reduction and oxidation catalysts are typically contained in a common housing; however, in some instances, they may be housed separately. A three-way catalytic converter does three simultaneous tasks:[24]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Three-way-Catalytic-convertor_fig1_340022700
World , Vegetation Health Index (VHI): Current Week and One Year Ago | |
| VHI of current year | |
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/vci/VH/vh_browseVH.php
I plotted 2025, 2024, 2023 and the last major drought year 2012 below. 2025, in red is a new record high for vegetative health in the United States.
China, below is also well into record high territory for vegetative health right now as the global climate optimum continues thanks to the increase in CO2!
EPA’S ENDANGERMENT FINDING:
THE LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION FOR
CUTTING CLIMATE-CHANGING POLLUTION
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/epa-endangerment-finding-fs.pdf
In 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its science-based finding
that the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare. This Endangerment Finding reflects the overwhelming scientific evidence on the causes and impacts of climate change. It was made after a thorough rulemaking process considering thousands of public comments and was upheld by the federal courts. In the years since, the scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding has only gotten stronger
++++++++++++++=
100% junk science rubbish!!!
CO2 has been a beneficial gas for tens of millions of years. Is a beneficial gas in 2025 and will always be a beneficial gas unless it gets much more than double the current level and that will not happen before fossil fuels run out.
Death by GREENING!
52 responses
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
Death by GREENING! - MarketForum
++++++++++++++++
By metmike - June 7, 2025, 4:56 p.m.
Human emissions of CO2 have rescued the planet from CO2 starvation!
The current level of 430 parts per million is still LESS THAN HALF of the optimal level of life.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
Without the endangerment finding, the U.S. would have fewer tools to curb emissions, leaving Americans more exposed to climate damages, according to Field. That could mean more cases of asthma and heart disease linked to poor air quality, higher food prices from climate-stressed crops, and economic losses as U.S. companies fall behind in global clean-tech markets.
+++++++++++++==
Not only is this a blatant and outrageous scientific lie, it's 100% the opposite of the truth. We've been bombarded with these lies for over 3 decades now.
Climate change and the increase in CO2 is responsible for at least 28% of the increase in food production and crop yields.
The current climate OPTIMUM is massively BOOSTING crops around the planet. Droughts have NOT increased.
This is the authentic science based on every legit measurement!
CC: Need links showing it leads to larger crops
25 responses |
Started by WxFollower - Oct. 4, 2025, 9:13 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/reply_post/115673/
++++++++++++
Just look at the climate-stressed crops below
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
Anothersecret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
There is plenty of REAL pollution on this planet!
The real environmental crisis's
31 responses |
Started by metmike - April 10, 2019, 7:11 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/
++++++++++++++++
Instead of fighting that as a #1 priority, crony capitalists are getting rich on really dumb, fake environmental projects like sequestering CO2 in the ground.
Dumbest idea in history
Started by metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 2:53 a.m.
President Trump deserves much credit for fighting against the fake climate crisis fraud and waste.
Fossil fuels are cheap, abundant, reliable and CLEAN, especially compared to wind energy that destroys the environment/tears up the earth to obtain the raw materials, are very aesthetically unappealing and unnatural after they are installed. Then they kill many thousands of birds and bats for 20-25 years(but not when there is no wind, when they produce no power). After that they go into landfills.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand are the only TRUE green energy.
Their CO2 emissions are massively greening up the planet and increasing food, yet the energy sources that we have been conditioned to call "green energy" are anti environmental and anti green. Go figure
++++++++++=
Fossil fuels vs renewable energy: Which is best?
https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10271866/Fossil-fuels-vs-renewable-energy-Which-is-best
The results were unequivocal.
Across 30 different measures of environmental and social wellbeing, the clean-energy transition future was between two and 16 times better for nature and society than the fossil-fueled "business-as-usual" one.
For example, under the fossil fuel scenario, the impacts of climate change, ocean acidification and pollution from fossil fuels result in four times the loss of nature – including species extinctions – compared with a clean energy transition.
+++++++++++++
These are mostly huge lies!!!
So sad that climate science has been hijacked and they even rewrote climate history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago and the Holocene Climate Optimum, 9,000 to 5,000 years ago.
They reclassified an extremely beneficial gas that's still less than 50% of the optimal level(and the entire planet begging for more, even after we rescued life from dangerously low levels).
Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level
26 responses |
Started by metmike - Dec. 15, 2020, 8:03 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/
Remember this equation from science class when you were younger?
Sunshine +H20 + Minerals +CO2 = O2 + Food(sugars)
All of life on this planet still abides by that indisputable law.
However, humans with a political agenda(and crony capitalists) have gone in and redefined CO2's role as an entirely beneficial gas:
Sunshine +H20 + Minerals +POLLUTION = O2 + Food(sugars) + a planetary apocalypse
https://www.wri.org/news/statement-us-epa-reverses-its-authority-limit-climate-pollution
+++++++++
Climate "pollution" ?????
Anybody that calls the massively beneficial gas CO2, climate pollution is either scientifically ignorant, scientifically biased or scientifically dishonest.
The current 430 parts per million is less than half of the OPTIMAL level for life on this planet.
We rescued the planet from dangerously low levels of this beneficial gas. Plants were just barely above the level needed to survive and be productive.
The entire planet is begging for MORE CO2 and the booming biosphere and greening up from the increase from 280 to 430 ppm is telling that to us loud and clear.
Lying to us and calling it carbon(which is a solid) pollution or climate pollution are just blatant, anti science lies.
+++++++++=
I've been an objective, independent atmospheric science for 45 years. I've studied climate science/change for over 3 decades.
I'm extraordinarily critical of most of Donald Trump's strategies and the way he talks and does business.
He got this one, 100% right!!!
From the standpoint of science, biology, agronomy, the environment, natural resources, pollution, the climate, meteorology, the economy and every realm except for the politics being pushed by one side that HIJACKED climate science almost 40 years ago and even rewrote climate history for their cause.
And for many trillions of dollars in crony capitalism!!
++++++++++++++++
I have to rephrase the crossed out sentence above. Donald Trump got the position right but he's confused about the science. He keeps saying that climate change is a hoax. He gets that exactly WRONG!
Climate change is real. CO2 is a greenhouse gas with physics that cause it to capture long wave radiation that would otherwise keep going straight out to space. Then reradiates it, some of which goes back towards the surface.
There is a hoax though. The beneficial warming and massively beneficial increase in CO2 makes this a climate OPTIMUM by a wide margin for most life.
You want a climate crisis:
Go back to the OLD climate before the Industrial Revolution really kicked in with increasing CO2..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death by GREENING!
long lasting droughts with catastrophic global and huge regional famines!
Here in 2025, we are living in a climate optimum with absolute, scientific certainty!!
Causes and consequences of nineteenth century droughts in North America
https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/nineteenth.shtml
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You want a REAL climate CRISIS?
This is what it looks like:
Can you imagine if this below happened today? It's less likely because climate change and the current climate OPTIMUM is helping to PROTECT US!
The planet had a REAL climate crisis between 1876 and 1878.
50 million people died. 3% of the global population died from that real climate crisis!
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC51F..04S/abstract
The 1876-1878 Great Famine impacted multiple regions across the globe including parts of Asia, Nordeste Brazil, and northern and southern Africa, with total human fatalities exceeding 50 million people, arguably the worst environmental disaster to befall humanity.
NASA EXPLAINS THE DUST BOWL DROUGHT
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html
++++++++++++++++++
Climate change in the United States, with 100% certainty is helping to protect us from widespread severe droughts.
Summer Climate Change in the Midwest and Great Plains due to Agricultural Development during the Twentieth Century
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/17/jcli-d-19-0096.1.xml
++++
We are indisputably living in a climate optimum for most life on this planet(that would still prefer a bit more warmth and a lot more CO2) and for growing crops in the United States!
By metmike - June 7, 2025, 4:56 p.m.
Human emissions of CO2 have rescued the planet from CO2 starvation!
The current level of 430 parts per million is still LESS THAN HALF of the optimal level of life.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
Explore our extensive library of facts and detailed data to empower yourself with knowledge, educate friends and family, and join us in our love for CO2.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/
More on Friday demonstrating how CO2 is going to plateau, then fall, at which time the REAL crisis will begin because of falling, NEEDED beneficial CO2.
There are so many things so darn wrong about the fake climate crisis.
You can go here to read about many of them:
Death by GREENING!
52 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
+++++++++++++
Let me point out what is REALLY going to happen with high confidence:
Fossil fuels are finite. There was only X amount of plants that died while life existed on this planet that got sequestered/buried in the ground and decomposed/concentrated into fossil fuels. At the rate that we are burning them, it won't be much longer before they start running out.
BTW, all the CO2 we've been returning back into the atmosphere was there before as a beneficial gas and the building block for all of life. This scary false narrative of "CO2 is the highest its been in X zillion years" is intentionally meant to make people think there's something wrong with that, instead of receiving it as the profound gift that it's been for life on our massively greening planet.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
+++++++++++++++
Anyways, back to the fact that fossil fuels will be running out with certainty and the horrific disaster that will occur to the planet and human beings when that happens, almost with certainty.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left
We constantly hear that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100+ years and the carbon pollution that we are spewing into the atmosphere today, will be damaging the planet past 2100. Complete hogwash!!!!!!!!!!
Here's an article written by supposedly bright PhD climate authorities that is wrong because they lack objective, critical thinking and I'll show why.
https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now let's look at the last 7 decades when CO2 levels have increased the most. CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere. Obviously, the trend is up but the significant thing to note is the zig zag nature of the increase that corresponds exactly to an annual cycle.
We should compare this graph below to the one above that shows the BIG picture. The one below looks so ominous because it starts EXACTLY when CO2 started increasing a lot (from near CO2 starvation). While the one above shows this increase as just a tiny, beneficial glitch up at the end of a catastrophic plunge in CO2.
If we zoomed in, we would see that CO2 actually DROPS every single year at the same times for numerous months. Can you guess why that is?
Hint: The months when CO2 drops are May-June-July-August-September-October.
The reason is that the INCREASING amount of Northern Hemisphere's plants on this greening planet(thanks to climate change and the increase in CO2) come out of dormancy and gobble up even more than we are putting in at this higher rate.
When they go dormant in the Northern Hemisphere and the growing season takes place in the Southern Hemisphere(which is mostly ocean) there aren't enough plants to offset the CO2 emissions and they RISE even more than they dropped during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. So each year, the difference ADDS UP to the gradually increasing slope we see above.
++++++++++++++++
Now that you understand this basic principle, let's use critical thinking to apply it to the future.
1. Every single year the earth greens up, there are more plants that need more CO2. The earth is greener by close to 30% compared to 100 years ago, BEFORE we enriched it with the additional atmospheric fertilizer. That means that those plants now REQUIRE 30% MORE CO2 than they did before and they can only get it by extracting it from the atmosphere. The graph directly above shows that happening indisputably from May-Oct every year.
2. We are told by one side that models project X amount of warming or X amount of sea level rise or X amount of bad things happening in 2100 and catastrophic by 2150 or sooner based on the models being fed complete garbage from biased scientist who lack critical thinking.
They are dead wrong for 2 different reasons.
a. Fossil fuels will be running out long before 2100. As they run out, the CO2 in the atmosphere will, at first increase at a slower rate, then top out, then be at an increasing deficit. If we do NOTHING, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be dropping at an increasing rate BEFORE 2100.
b. It's complete hogwash to claim the CO2 we are emitting today stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. An actual molecule of CO2 might stay in the air for 5 years or so. However, the amount in the atmosphere is based on how much is added, less how much is taken out (oceans absorb some of that too). We can see exactly how long it takes for that to happen: IMMEDIATELY! Every Northern Hemisphere growing season the atmospheric CO2 goes DOWN because plants gobble up more than we emit out. EVERY year that happens.
EVERY year those plants need MORE CO2 than they did before to survive. EVERY year they pull out more from the atmosphere than they did the years before just to survive. It's the CO2 demand base, now locked into the CO2 fundamental equation needed to determine what will happen when we start running out of fossil fuels.
When we start running out, CO2 emissions WILL be dropping. However, the demand base from the increasing plants will still be INCREASING with a lag time of several years. This will result in CO2 being gobbled up at a still increasing rate, while the amount emitted is dropping.
The inevitable result is that the surplus will quickly turn into a YEARLY CO2 deficit that we can already see happening in the real world during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season.
That's when the real crisis occurs!!!!
In several decades, with the planet having greened up even more and increasing the consumption of atmospheric fertilizer/CO2 by plants there will be 10 billion people to feed on the planet.
https://populationconnection.org/learn/population-milestones/
30% of the plant growth and yields has been coming from the increase in CO2 atmospheric fertilizer. If we took all of that away, for instance and went back to the OLD climate from more than a century ago, 2 billion people would starve within 5 years and food prices would triple because the planet is only able to keep up with the growing populations demand for food BECAUSE of climate change/the increase in CO2.
When fossil fuels start running out, THIS WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN over the course of several decades, starting WELL BEFORE 2100, when we are told that really high CO2 levels will be the crisis.
No they won't. FALLING CO2 levels WILL BE THE CRISIS!
The combination of LESS CO2 emissions from fossil fuels running out and the planets biosphere requiring more each year just to exist and CROPS NEEDING MORE to keep up with the 10 billion people …….will start the biggest crisis that mankind has every experienced.
And it will start when CO2 levels stop increasing and crop yields on finite areas to grow food stop going up as fast as they had been.
After a few years of food: corn, wheat, beans, rice, oats vegetables and even non food crops like cotton seeing massive draw downs that cause tremendous price spikes so that poor people can no longer afford to eat.........the world will suddenly learn its lesson about CO2.
The world will KNOW that the best thing would be to INCREASE CO2 to help reduce the unthinkable, increasing starvation on the planet as atmospheric CO2 drops at an increasingly fast rate.
This is not just speculation. It's exactly what WILL happen if/when fossil fuels start running out. It's based on climate science, plant science agronomy/photosynthesis, human nutrition and biology and the principles of economics and energy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So we should be trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels today but for the exact opposite reason that they are supposedly wrecking the planet and causing a climate crisis.
We should be CONSERVING THEM (and all natural resources) because they are SAVING THE PLANET during this current climate optimum for life on this greening planet.
We should be conserving them so that our children and children's children have the most amount of precious fossil fuels left to keep the CO2 elevated in the atmosphere to sustain enough food to feed 10 billion people as long as possible.
Even then, the crisis IS coming. The only reason that it's been put off so long is..............beneficial CO2 massively increasing food production for humans and all life, along with other benefits from REAL climate change. Every creature on this planet eats plants or something that ate plants. When the inevitable drop in CO2 starts later this century, they will all have less food.
When the CO2 starts dropping, well BEFORE 2100, the world will look at the humans of this current age of the fake climate crisis, in the same way that it looks at the scientifically ignorant humans that thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
CO2 is an invisible, odorless beneficial gas at ambient atmospheric levels which are still less than 50% of the optimal level for life(which is begging for more).
When you SEE images of a smokestack spewing out “something” in an article vilifying CO2 and claiming it’s pollution, you can know what they are showing is NOT CO2.
When you hear the term carbon pollution used for CO2, you can know that the person using it is scientifically ignorant.
There are thousands of things with an atom of carbon in them but none of them are Carbon. All of our food has carbon in it. Broccoli and corn isn’t carbon pollution.
Your wooden table isn’t carbon pollution.
Pure carbon, C is a black solid. CO2 is a gas with 1:atom of carbon bonded to 2 atoms of oxygen.
Calling CO2 carbon pollution would be like calling H2O hydrogen pollution.
Better cut back on drinking water because all that hydrogen pollution if going to kill you
Additional thread on the trading forum:
Overturning the fradulent Endangerment Finding
Started by metmike - Feb. 13, 2026, 2:26 p.m.
Hey Mike,
Last night I quoted most of the 1st 1/2 of your 9:10 AM EST 2/13/26 post with 100% credit to you. Here was poster Charlie’s response:
Per Wikipedia the CO2 Coalition is a climate denial organization funded by fossil fuel interests. The CEO is a former head of the American Petroleum Institute. Sure plant life thrived when CO2 was higher but natural temperatures change occurred slowly which allowed accommodation through evolution. The idea that CO2 is plant food is climate denial myth. High temperature and intensification of precipitation counteract CO2 benefits on plant growth. The plants that thrived under higher CO2 were not the same plants in the same locations as today. For instance, If warming continues the Amazon rain forest and Boreal forests will transition to grasslands releasing large amounts of CO2. The same with animals, cold-blooded reptiles were favored in warmer times. Mammals were all small to shed heat. The bottom 2 links cover past mass extinction events. Notice how many where caused by episodes of volcanic activity that released CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food-why-are-we-still
https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/10-mass-extinction-events-and-what-caused-them
Thanks very much, Larry.
Please pass this response on. I apologize for my initial snide type of remark to start off this post directed, in general at people that label authentic sources of science that disagree with them as deniers.
CO2 below 1,000 parts per million is a massively beneficial gas. To compare it to when CO2 was numerous times higher is a strawman attack (assigning a position or dynamic that doesn't exist now and attacking that position instead of the REAL one).
So what if CO2 was X,XXX+ parts per million in earth's distant past? We are discussing THIS atmosphere where the CO2 has risen from ~290 ppm to close to 430 ppm and will, at the most get to 800 ppm but likely will not exceed 600 ppm. The optimal level for life on earth is ~900 ppm.
And to keep projecting CO2's increase for another 100 years and to keep insisting that the residence time(how long emissions today will stay in the armosphere) is hundreds of years lacks critical thinking based just on how we watch it DROP during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season every year.
Ignoring the fact that fossils fuels are finite and will be running out well before then and the chances of us ever getting over 900 ppm, the optimal level for life/plants/crops is minuscule.
So what if CO2 was XX thousands of parts per million in the past???? If I'm forecasting the weather for February 15, 2026 in Bismark, ND, for instance, I don't use the hottest recorded temperature on earth in a desert in the middle of Summer as an analog!!!!
Let's discuss our atmosphere during THIS recent and future time frame which is the one that matters. The highest reasonable projection is still BELOW the optimal level of 900 ppm.
Regarding all the articles from their so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production. I've read 100 just like it in recent years.
100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. Let's PROVE that below.
With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).
Remember the good old days when they taught this about CO2 as the beneficial gas that it is?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Death by GREENING!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
++++++++++++++++
When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome.
However, we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.
+++++++++++
1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fake beer crisis/Death by Greening!
By metmike - June 19, 2021, 1:25 p.m.
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant and go to it based on its starting letter. Let's pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 290 | 29 | 7 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 47.9% | 70.7% | 80.9% |
| Standard Error | 2.2% | 7.1 | 8.9% |
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
USA Soybean yields in the real world since 1988 have doubled while CO2 increased by 75 ppm(350 ppm to 425 ppm), so we have strong corroborating evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out.
That's ok because we have something that looks almost exclusively at the increase in CO2 and climate change as the main factors.
Planet earth has been a huge open air experiment the past XX years. The objective results are striking. The impacts have been mostly from changes in photosynthesis and changes in the climate.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
To claim that these benefits would be even greater without climate change is to contradict that this is actually the response of the planet TO photosynthesis AND climate change from the increase in CO2. If not for the increase in CO2, then the increase in photosynthesis AND climate change would go away. They go hand and hand. They are both caused by the exact same thing. Human emissions increasing the beneficial CO2 in the atmosphere.
My 3 year old grandson can look at the image ABOVE and tell us which color has increased all over the map. GREEN!
The gray shades were mostly places that had NO DATA and NOT places that did not green up.
Note the tiny % of places that had red colors. In today's fake climate crisis world, the type of reporting from the gatekeepers of fake climate crisis rhetoric would result in them only telling us about the reds, while completely ignoring all the greens.
Instead of listening to the climate crisis propaganda, we should be using our eyes and brains by applying common sense and critical thinking.
++++++++++++++++
In addition:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005584
++++++++++++++
Importantly, the indisputable science tells us that increasing CO2 allows plants/crops to be more drought tolerant(not the other way around). The reason is that plants open their stomata to get CO2 and while doing so, they transpire(lose water from their roots that get it from the soil) As CO2 increases, the stomata don't need to open as wide and this REDUCES water loss from their roots. It's rock solid agronomy/plant science.
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/
+++++++++++++++=
Despite me just PROVING the points with indisputable science above, this is what the very predictable response will be from people that posted to you previously with the same response they gave the first time:
"Those are denier sources"
NASA's satellite study showing the greening of the planet obviously can't be put in that category but CO2 Science and Dr. Craig Idso, an elite authority on plants and the impact of CO2/climate change has been labelled a denier.
Never mind everything he shows is backed up with empirical data and rock solid scientific principles, which is why I use that source(as well as being an atmospheric scientist for 44 years) if he or anybody else, including me contradicts the mainstream view on the climate crisis.........they are discredited as deniers no matter us using 2+2=4 science to prove that 2+2 is not 5, 6, 7 and 8.
+++++++++++++++++
Ironically, the increase in CO2 is PROTECTING crops and REDUCING severe droughts, not the other way around. Droughts and crop failures were MUCH more common with COOLER global temperatures and lower CO2 levels.
You can can take that one to the bank: Droughts and crop failures were MUCH more common with COOLER global temperatures and lower CO2 levels.
We should note that they never go back to the period BEFORE climate change and increasing CO2. They start with the assumption that when we started increasing CO2 and warming the planet..........that was supposedly the PERFECT climate and all data comparisons start then. Any movement up in temperature and CO2 is BAD because it deviates from the PERFECT temperature and CO2 level.
Never mind what the conditions were like BEFORE then under global cooling or the fact that the empirical data/observations of a greening planet completely contradict the extraordinarily bad assumption.
DeathbyGREENING!
Started bymetmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death by GREENING!
By metmike - Feb. 2, 2025, 7:54 a.m.
Here's a perfect example of why they get it so wrong. Please tell me where on this graph below, that the climate change droughts are and where the natural droughts are since the year 2000? Impossible because the pattern is THE EXACT SAME! The MSM, in 2025 tells us that EVERY drought is now caused by climate change to the point that they use the terms interchangeably.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-state-climate-global-drought
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Global cooling and LOW CO2 levels are what INCREASE widespread, extremely long lasting droughts with catastrophic global and huge regional famines!
Here in 2025, we are living in a climate optimum with absolute, scientific certainty!!
Causes and consequences of nineteenth century droughts in North America
https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/nineteenth.shtml
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You want a REAL climate CRISIS?
This is what it looks like:
Can you imagine if this below happened today? It's less likely because climate change and the current climate OPTIMUM is helping to PROTECT US!
The planet had a REAL climate crisis between 1876 and 1878.
50 million people died. 3% of the global population died from that real climate crisis!
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC51F..04S/abstract
The 1876-1878 Great Famine impacted multiple regions across the globe including parts of Asia, Nordeste Brazil, and northern and southern Africa, with total human fatalities exceeding 50 million people, arguably the worst environmental disaster to befall humanity.
NASA EXPLAINS THE DUST BOWL DROUGHT
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html
++++++++++++++++++
Climate change in the United States MIDWEST, with 100% certainty is helping to protect us from widespread severe droughts.
Summer Climate Change in the Midwest and Great Plains due to Agricultural Development during the Twentieth Century
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/17/jcli-d-19-0096.1.xml
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are indisputably living in a climate optimum for most life on this planet(that would still prefer a bit more warmth and a lot more CO2) and for growing crops in the United States!
+++++++++++++++
All my posts use ONLY verified empirical data and scientific principles.
As as atmospheric scientist for 44 year and expert on agronomy/plant science I vigorously fact check every iota of data and constantly fact check myself, practicing the Scientific Method sincerely.
Most people use their "faith" in climate religion and simply go to their high priests to get extremely bad science that contradicts the real world.
There are thousands of articles and experts that show support of a climate crisis which is plenty enough for people to copy and regurgitate and repeat over and over to reinforce their FAITH in the climate crisis belief system.
They are lacking in independent thinking and are just evidence of the cognitive bias in humans which causes us to seek out information that confirms what we think that we know and reject information that contradicts it.
Of course, this makes metmike a climate denier.
Despite my full embrace of climate change and the physics of green house gas warming from the increase in CO2.
And fulling acknowledging that this has led to an increase of almost 2 deg. F in global temperature(mostly in the coldest places of the Northern Hemisphere during the coldest times of year).
Despite me recognizing that a warmer atmosphere DOES hold MORE moisture that is indisputably increasing high end heavy rain events. The overall atmosphere has around 7% more moisture because of climate change. Not 700%, not 70% but 7%. Some of this is GOOD for the planet.
Despite me recognizing that some hurricanes will have MORE rapid intensification because of the warmer tropical oceans during the hurricane season.
Despite the recognition that this warmth is slightly accelerating the increase in sea levels (emphatically rejecting the junk science +10 feet by 2100 projections) and embracing the authentic science/empirical data which has measured around a foot increase the past 100 years but with acceleration and worst case scenario could result in an increase of another 2 feet by 2100.
Despite me acknowledging that some air masses in mid Summer will be slightly hotter( warm humid air is NOT impacted by the warming that much because the radiation absorption bands for CO2 are already saturated from the H2O).
That's why most of the warming is in the cold/dry places.
So despite me embracing all the LEGIT/AUTHENTIC science of greenhouse gas warming from human CO2 emissions from burning fossils fuels, I'm considered a climate denier.
I could also list the many benefits of the warmth to life that OUTWEIGH the negatives listed above to HUMANS in addition to the biggest one from photosynthesis.
Cold still kills almost 10 times more humans than heat and cold kills over 200 times more life than heat. But its getting better thanks to climate change.
It's REDUCED the meridional temperature gradient from warming the highest latitudes which has weakened cold fronts and the extreme weather from them......including reducing violent tornadoes by 50%.
DETECTED tornadoes have increased entirely from technology using Doppler radars that can see the wind and population increase/observations.
Climate change mainly warms temperatures at night. Record highs in the Summer are not keeping up with record warm nights. In the Midwest, climate change during the Summer has actually reduced record high temperatures but that is because of negative feedback being cause by the increase in photosynthesis and greening from tightly packed rows of corn.
Plants capture solar radiation that heats the air and convert it into chemical energy via photosynthesis(sequestering CO2 in the process) as well as transpiring H2O thru their stomata, which helps to saturate the radiation absorption bands that CO2 uses to warm the air, as well as increases low clouds and precipitation from recirculating moisture from the soils, thru transpiration.
++++++++++==
Another point using CRITICAL THINKING about the increasing CO2 and comparisons to a DISTANT past with 10 times the current level.
We are currently at around 430 parts per million and increasing at around 3 ppm/year.
This is 30 parts per million/decade. In 7 decades from now, as we approach 2100 and all these catastrophic predictions should be occurring, that would mean a CO2 level of 640 parts per million.
Remember, the OPTIMAL level for life is indisputably, 900 ppm or more as determined by many tens of thousands of studies of CO2's impact on every plant that exists.
At the same time, keep this in mind:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left
We can debate when peak oil, ng and coal will occur(probably later than predictions) but not that CO2 will ever get above the optimal level for life of 900 ppm in the next century. It's not likely to happen under any scenario.
And that fossil fuels are FINITE and NOT renewable based on archaebotony/paleobotany and geology.
Fossil fuels form from the remains of prehistoric dead animals and plants due to geologic processes.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/distribution-fossil-fuels/
++++++++++++++
So there is an increasing chance that human emissions of CO2 will start dropping late this century. .......no matter what we do
It's at THAT time, when humanity will embrace the REAL crisis of falling CO2 levels and truly appreciate the scientific(political/crony capitalism) ignorance and fraudulence/corruption of the past 30+ years.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/110244/#117897
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/110244/#117898
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/117904/#117921
Chris had said this about CC severely killing off FL Orange industry:
We can still have expanding crop yields on a global basis and also have increasing crop failures influenced by and related to climate change on a regional level. These regional events such as Florida losing 90% of their orange production can have a big impact on the regional economy.
“Florida's citrus industry faces an existential crisis driven by climate-enhanced disasters, causing orange production to plummet over 90% in two decades to its lowest levels in over a century.
Key issues include the incurable citrus greening disease (HLB), exacerbated by rising temperatures and extreme weather, alongside devastating hurricanes, droughts, and severe urbanization.
Citrus Greening Crisis: A bacterial disease (HLB), spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, has infected nearly all Florida groves, resulting in small, bitter fruit and tree death.
Climate Change Amplification: Warmer temperatures have expanded the habitat for the psyllid, while changing weather patterns have brought more intense hurricanes (e.g., Ian, Milton) and severe droughts, which destroy trees already weakened by disease.
Production Collapse: Citrus production fell from ~300 million boxes in the early 2000s to roughly 12-20 million in the 2024–2026 seasons.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-climate-change-drive-syrian-uprising
——————————
So, I then said this to Chris:
Thanks, Chris.
I’ve followed Florida orange production closely since the late 1990s. The 2 main negative factors since then have been Citrus Greening and increased major hurricane frequency during 2004-2024. The hurricane damage was made worse by many of the groves migrating further south to S FL vs C FL being the heart of it earlier. Ironically, they moved further south because of the many devastating freezes of the late 1970s-1980s!
This leads me to say that you left off a major positive factor related to CC: sharp drop in major freeze damage events. During the late 1970s-1980s there were many major freezes including Jan 1977, Jan 1981, Jan 1982, Dec 1983, Jan 1985, and Dec of 1989 (30% losses from this one, alone!). Since Dec of 1989, there has been nothing even close to these devastating FL orange crop freezes thanks in large part to CC, which you didn’t even mention.
——————————
Then Chris responded with this:
Florida's citrus industry, reeling from a 90% decline in production since 1997, is severely impacted by citrus greening (HLB) spread by the Asian citrus psyllid.
The lack of hard freezes allows these insects to survive year-round, sustaining the bacteria that kills trees. Consequently, nearly 100% of Florida's groves are infected, with researchers testing genetically modified trees and, for now, relying on insecticide use.
“Key Impacts of Persistent Insect Populations:
Constant Infestation: The Asian citrus psyllid, which transmits the Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus bacteria, thrives in warmer, milder winters, leading to year-round feeding on tender new leaf growth.
Decimated Production: The inability to kill off the insect population has resulted in the lowest, or near-lowest, orange production in over a century, with 2021-2022 levels dropping to 12.6 million boxes from a peak of 250 million.”
—————
I was going to then say that he still left off reduced hard freezes as a positive effect of CC. But then again, he may have already won this one because of this:
The lack of hard freezes allows these insects to survive year-round, sustaining the bacteria that kills trees.
——————-So, Chris may have me beat with there being no aspect of CC helping FL oranges since the big killer, Citrus Greening, has been made much worse due to the lack of hard freezes caused by CC.
Mike, is he thus right to say that CC has had only negative effects on FL oranges since the lack of hard freezes has lead to Citrus Greening being devastating?
Thanks very much, Larry!
It's not even close:
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_c.php
Increase from +300ppm
| Citrus aurantium [Sour Orange Tree] | 5 | 69.4% | |||||||
| Citrus reticulata [Mandarin Orange Tree] | 2 | 29.5% | |||||||
| Citrus sinensis [Sweet Orange Tree] | 2 | 38.5% | |||||||
| Citrus sinensis x poncirus trifoliata [Carrizo Citrange] | 2 | 40.5% | |||||||
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/c/citrusa.php
+++++++++
Interestingly, WOODY STEMMED plants like orange trees(ALL trees), by far benefit the most of all plants.
This was one of the most widely followed REAL SCIENCE studies on orange trees. the results/empirical data are indisputable:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653502003788
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the citrus greening issue.
It's the old, "climate change is really bad for all good life at the same time that it's really good for all bad life" spin.
Global warming is killing off polar bears, honey bees, penguins, tree frogs, human beings, etc.... but is the best thing that ever happened for rats, ticks, weeds, bacteria. Same conditions but somehow its kills off good life and nurtures all bad life.
CO2 is a toxic pollutant for good life........but CO2 is a beneficial gas for all bad life.
Then, cherry pick only the things that the source wants to use that line up with that false narrative and completely leave out the more numerous things that contradict it.
In this case, hard freezes of the sort that KILL the orange trees.........are actually GOOD not bad because they also kill insects that carry a devastating disease.
And mild Winters are actually BAD for orange trees because they don't kill enough of the insects carrying this devastating disease.
Never mind that in 2026, adaptation used by growers around the world with insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and other advanced technologies is 1,000 times more effective than relying on cold temperature to reduce pests.
And the amount of cold needed to wipe out this pest would kill all the trees, with the pest like returning with the replanted trees.
https://news.ufl.edu/2025/01/citrus-greening-research/
+++++++++++++++
https://www.floridacitrus.org/grower/fdoc-citrus-411/potential-citrus-greening-solutions/
Recent thread on oj:
oj
26 responses |
Started by cutworm - Jan. 15, 2026, 12:52 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/117228/
+++++++++++++++++
Sao Paolo, the number one producer in the world was not as vulnerable to freezes in the past as was the US before global warming.
Going back to the 'old" climate there by killing trees with freezes to kill the insects wouldn't have worked very well with their previous climate
https://citrusindustry.net/2025/09/29/citrus-greening-incidence-increasing-brazil/
++++++++++++
This is a devastating disease like no other and cold that hurts the trees would have reduced its ability to spread for sure. Without climate change/global warming, it definitely would not be as bad.
But the solution is the same one that food growers have VERY EFFECTIVELY used for the last 100 years to massively increase crop production, climate change or not.
Technology and innovation to defeat pathogens, weeds, insects and other elements that hurt crops!
Not even close!!!
With regards to hurricanes:
You are an authority, often showing me things. I'm surprised that you didn't know this.
By Roy W. Spencer | November 4, 2024
https://cornwallalliance.org/florida-major-hurricanes-1900-2024-what-do-the-statistics-show/
More interesting information:
https://www.pickyourown.org/FLcitrus.htm
Top OJ producing counties below:
Florida Hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
The decades with the MOST MAJOR hurricanes to strike the US:
1. 1940's =10
2. 1890's =8
3. Tie 1870's, 1910's, 2000's=7
6. Tie 1850's, 1950's, 1960's =6
Out of the past 170 years of accurate data(17 full decades) on major hurricane strikes, only 1 decade, 2001-2010 made the top 8. This is the empirical data.
As you know, I feel strongly that warmer oceans(by 1 deg. C) do in fact increase rapid strengthening of some hurricanes. By the additional amount of heat that +1 Deg, adds.
Overall, a warmer ocean should also increase the length of the hurricane season.
But there are MANY other factors that dominate for MOST hurricanes, including cycles. We're not experienced global warming long enough to have empirical data to compare the period of x number of decades to the previous X number of decades with a cooler ocean. I suspect that the strongest hurricanes will increase with increasing global temperatures which is what the models project(even though the models are wrong about lots of other stuff-that one makes sense thinking critically).
Mike said:
“With regards to hurricanes:
You are an authority, often showing me things. I'm surprised that you didn't know this.”
—————
Thanks, Mike.
Actually, I did know this. This is what I had said:
I’ve followed Florida orange production closely since the late 1990s. The 2 main negative factors since then have been Citrus Greening and increased major hurricane frequency during 2004-2024. The hurricane damage was made worse by many of the groves migrating further south to S FL vs C FL being the heart of it earlier. Ironically, they moved further south because of the many devastating freezes of the late 1970s-1980s!
——————
I was referring to increased major hurricane activity vs the decades just before 2004, not vs way back in the 1920s-1950s. During the period 1966-2003, there was only one MH on the FL pen., Andrew, and it had only very limited impact on the overall orange crop due to its very small radius of strong enough winds to do damage. So, the lack of damaging ‘canes 1966-2003 allowed the FL orange crop the chance to flourish during the years leading up to 2004. So, my point remains that that the many S or C FL pen MH hits that did lots of damage 2004-2024 (also cat 2 Frances of 2004) was one of the two main negative factors for the orange crop. I didn’t say that that was when the highest frequency of MH occurred although 2004-24 did have plenty of MH (and some large cat 2s like Frances) activity to do lots of damage that hadn’t occurred since the 1960s.
Thanks, Larry!
I understand that point, thanks for the explanation and sorry for suggesting otherwise about your understanding on hurricanes in FL.
So are you saying that the increase in those hurricanes that damaged the orange crop recently were partly from global warming/climate change or were they not from global warming/climate change, which is what I thought this current topic was about?
How the increase in CO2 and climate change is impacting the Florida Orange crop.
My point was/is that the empirical data going back 170 years does not show a trend upward of major hurricanes hitting FL so far during global warming/climate change.
Mike asked me:
“So are you saying that the increase in those hurricanes that damaged the orange crop recently were partly from global warming/climate change or were they not from global warming/climate change?”
——-
Mike,
That’s impossible for anyone to know for sure. I read what Dr. Spencer said:
“there has been a weak upward trend in the decadal totals of major hurricanes striking Florida since 1900” although no increase in avg H intensity.
We both know and you’ve actually stated many times that warmer oceans mean slightly stronger individual storm potential based on logic. I find it hard to believe that some of these bad FL hits during 2004-24 weren’t made slightly stronger due to warmer SSTs caused by a slightly warmer globe. In addition, warmer means slightly higher rainfall potential due to the air holding more moisture. Plus, we have slightly slower avg speed of movement due to slightly slower avg steering winds reduced contrast between Arctic and tropics as you’ve yourself noted.
Also, keep in mind as I already said that the average FL grove was further south during 2004-24 vs the 1980s and earlier because of the many significantly damaging freezes of 1977-89. So, that alone has lead to increased hurricane damage vs had they not migrated further south.
One thing to keep in mind is that we don’t know how GW affects tracks overall, if at all in any significant way.
Thanks, Larry.
In the 1990's, before the internet and our ability to access empirical data became so easy, I belonged to the group that believed in a climate crisis, quite strongly at times.
I was getting Scientific America every month thru the 1980's and 1990's and they were a huge part of the indoctrination.
The IPCC was first shouting the warnings of climate catastrophe!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overturning the fradulent Endangerment Finding
By metmike - Feb. 14, 2026, 8:24 p.m.
I was a scientist and PRACTICING environmentalist(still do). How could somebody like me NOT want to closely align with people that were sincerely trying to save the planet based on science?
What changed?
The internet, that allowed all of us to access millions of times more information than what was available before the internet.
But the internet, actually MULTIPLIED junk science/alarmism about a fake climate crisis even MORE than the authentic science and this indoctrinated countless people into fake climate crisis religion.
Here is the biggest distinction for me.
1. I use the scientific method that constantly questions and fact checks myself and what I believe in.
2. In spite of the overwhelming propaganda that defines this field, there was/is also rock solid, authentic EMPIRICAL DATA available that objective scientists with an open mind could/can use to discern the truth.
3. I gave the authentic empirical data/observations, more and more weighting as it accumulated thru the years and the massively flawed model projections less and less weighting and the message gatekeepers using impossible, high end catastrophe's as their main talking points almost no weighting.
4. In fact, as it became crystal clear that the authentic, empirical data was enlightening open minds about a greening planet, booming biosphere and climate OPTIMUM for MOST life on this planet from massively beneficial CO2, the majority of people had already become indoctrinate into climate crisis religion. Those same people continue to ignore the crystal clear, AUTHENTIC empirical data and instead twist facts like a pretzel to contradict it, greatly exaggerating the negatives of climate change, making me appreciate the actual mindset of those behind the fake climate crisis rhetoric. Attacking me and any source that uses authentic empirical data as deniers (of climate crisis religion). As being paid by the evil fossil fuel industry.
5. When I took over MarketForum in 2018, one of my biggest priorities as an atmospheric scientist was to use it as a tool to speak out and educate people about authentic science on this topic since climate science has been hijacked. That has not changed.
Re: Re: Overturning the fradulent Endangerment Finding
By metmike - Feb. 13, 2026, 2:57 p.m.
Climate history was actually rewritten by the dishonest IPCC, who's reports have been viewed as the climate "bible" for the worlds climate scientists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overturning the fradulent Endangerment Finding
+++++++++++++++
Science corruption
21 responses |
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
I mentioned my subscription to Scientific America in the 1980's/90's as a big part of my indoctrination into the fake climate crisis religion.
EVERY extreme weather event that happens, according to them (and others) is twisted so the climate change caused it. They are just mouthpieces for junk climate science that don't even understand the difference between extreme weather and climate.
I'll repeat the words of somebody that actually DOES understand it:
By metmike - July 6, 2025, 6:42 p.m.
It really boils down to this, once again(CliffMass can be counted on as an elite source for using objective, authentic science)
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The GoldenRule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDENRULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
+++++++++++++++
We just had a recent disaster in California because of an avalanche that has killed 9 people. I figured that if I checked Scientific American, they would do like they always do every time a weather extreme(often that has happened many dozens of times BEFORE climate change) they find a reason to BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE.
Sure enough, they proved me right:
How warm weather helped cause the Lake Tahoe avalanche
Record warmth followed by a huge snowfall led to the recent avalanche that killed at least eight skiers
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lake-tahoe-avalanche-explained-by-warm-weather/
Many scientists expect rising temperatures from climate change to increase dangerous avalanches, Swain says. Though warming may suggest less snowfall, that’s not the entire picture. Lower altitudes are expected to see less snow, but higher elevations could actually see higher snowfalls as temperatures there remain below freezing but warm enough for there to be more moisture for storms.
++++++++++++++++
HUGH???? They just completely contradicted what they have been saying the past 3 decades in order to twist this(lie) in order to blame climate change.
+++++++++++=
The findings come as a flurry of recent studies indicate snowpack across the Western U.S. is substantially declining (Climatewire, Dec. 13).
One recent analysis of snowpack data going back to 1982, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that about 13 percent of all snowy areas in the West have lost large amounts of snow over the last few decades, declining by 41 percent on average.
++++++++++++++
Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com › article › rapid-decli...
Jun 10, 2011 — Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years, according to a new study.
+++++++++++++
Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com › article › dismal-we...
May 14, 2018 — Meanwhile, the Rocky Mountains have faced a similarly dry season. As of January, Colorado snowpack levels were among their lowest in decades.
+++++++++++++++=
One of my favorites from them and others is based on how they twist the warming of the coldest places of the Northern Hemisphere, during the coldest times of year(so the source region for our coldest air masses is NOT AS COLD) is actually causing MORE EXTREME cold. I understand what Arctic Amplification is but the data shows that empirical data is NOT showing more extreme cold snaps.
Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com › article › extreme-c...
Jan 22, 2024 — Extreme cold snaps could get worse as climate warms. Climate instability could be distorting the polar vortex, causing cold air outbreaks.
++++++++++++
Too hot=climate crisis
Too cold=climate crisis
Too dry=climate crisis
Too wet=climate crisis
Not enough snow=climate crisis
Too much snow=climate crisis
Even as global warming has warmed the coldest places at the coldest times of year and REDUCED the meridional temperature gradient, weakening cold fronts, jet streams and reducing violent tornadoes as meteorology 101 tells us should happen.
May 29th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Weather becomes LESS extreme in several realms when you reduce the planets temperature contrast with latitude!
The world averaged SST anomaly for oceans 60N to 60S is nearing a new record high: red is ‘26, orange is ‘25, and the warmest June-Dec are ‘24 and ‘23 (both in gray)(after a sharp rise in March, ‘23 had at the time become the warmest)(‘24 is the one that’s warmest Jan-Jun):
Thanks very much, Larry!
The oceans are the better metric to measure accumulated/rates of global warming because they store 90% of the extra, beneficial greenhouse gas warmth caused by the heating in the atmosphere from increasing CO2 (the result of humans burning fossil fuels).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/sea-surface-temperature-anomaly
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65359-x
Fig. 2: Global trends of global sea surface temperature gradient magnitude (|∇SST | ) and their zonal centroid shifts from 1993 to 2022 from GLORYS.
Fig. 3: Summary of the shift trends of the zonal centroids of oceanic mesoscale activity.
Fig. 4: Surface wind power and baroclinic instability contribute dominantly to the shoreward shifts of mesoscale activity.
