“The thinking error that makes people susceptible to climate change denial”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/03/the-thinking-error-that-makes-people-susceptible-to-climate-change-denial/

    Mike Maguire

                Reply to             Dennis Gerald Sandberg        

        May 3, 2023 7:53 pm        

“However, the current warming is on par with nothing humans have ever seen, and intense warming events in the distant past were planetwide disasters that caused massive
extinctions – something we do not want to repeat”

Too late. We’re already repeating warmth similar to the previous warmings that, before climate science was hijacked were known as climate OPTIMUMS for life that flourished because of them.
Medieval Warm Period
Roman Warm Period
Minoan Warm Period.

However, we have a ways to go in order to warm the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere up to Holocene Climate OPTIMUM temperatures between 9,000-5,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher during the optimum than now. Northwestern North America reached peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, but the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than now.[9] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than now.[10]

Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

History books and authentic climate science tells us with certainty that humans existed during all those previous warmings………..and they did much better because of it. 

This guy tells us that following authentic, proven history and science is flawed thinking but his laughably extreme, manufactured junk science(fiction)  is supposed to be proof of that?           

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!  LOLOLOL

7 Foods That Climate Change Could Make Disappear

Jean,

This guy is just reporting/reading information that came from somebody else.

The source of the information is either scientifically ignorant or blatantly dishonest.

The dominant factor by a wide margin has been the massive benefits from CO2 as an atmospheric fertilizer that's causing the planet to green up in a huge way, which includes bin busting food production across the board.

A person with very little science training but willing to fact check this could debunk this crapola pretty easily. So the ones passing this on WANT to believe it because they are clearly not checking to see if its authentic.

DeathbyGreening:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

Carbon dioxide fertilization
offsets negative impacts of climate change
on Arabica coffee yield in Brazil

http://www.esalq.usp.br/departamentos/leb/eventos/Thesis_Report_-_Fabian_Verhage.pdf

The model was run for the 42 municipalities
from 1980 to 2010 with interpolated climate data, and from 2040 to 2070 with climate data projected by five global circulation models according to the RCP 4.5 scenario. The model projects that yield lossesdue to high air temperatures and water deficit will increase, while losses due to frost will decrease.
Nevertheless, extra losses are offset by the CO2 fertilization effect, resulting in a net increase of the average Brazilian Arabica coffee yield of 0.8% to 1.48 t ha-1 in 2040-2070, assuming growing locations and irrigation use remain the same. Simulations further indicate that future yields can reach up to1.81 t ha-1 if irrigation use is expended.

++++++++++++

The law of photosynthesis is agronomy/plant science 101. CO2 is the building block for all life and currently is only 50% of the optimal level in the atmosphere.

The report that you showed is pretending photosynthesis doesn't exist to make anti science assertions. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/87562/#87890

Hi Wayne,

Sorry for not answering earlier, just noticed this.

Glad you asked. Every time that I review this for somebody else, , I often learn a new item that I didn't know before.........and there's still tons more to learn about this for me. 

Here's the science.

As a general rule(each plant is different) for every 5 ppm increase in CO2, that plant will experience around a 1% increase in growth. Going from 300 over a century ago to the current 420 parts per million is an increase of 120 ppm. Divide that by 5 and you get 24%.

Each plant is different. Woody stemmed plants and C3 plants tend to benefit the most from increasing CO2.

One of the biggest benefits to higher CO2 actually occurs when plants are stressed by heat and drought. For instance, the stomata located on the underside of leaves, opens to intake CO2. When this happens, the plants lose water thru transpiration. Elevating CO2 levels allow the plants to get their CO2 without having to open the stomata as wide......thus conserving moisture/water.

These principles have been well known for decades but are completely hidden from the discussion by message gatekeepers.

This is a good discussion of that effect:

CO2 Enrichment and Plant Nutrition

https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/

This thread also discusses it, shows proof and several links, including one  to access massive data(the most online) with thousands of plant studies under elevated CO2 conditions.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

Effect of high concentrations of CO₂ and high temperatures on the physiology of Mexican cocoa

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667064X22000598

High temperatures negatively affected the photochemical activity and decreased the ability to dissipate energy. The increase in temperature at lower [CO₂] was detrimental to growth in both clones. However, elevated [CO₂] minimized the negative effects of increasing temperature on growth in both cocoa clones. 

Effect of elevated CO₂, high temperature, and water deficit on growth, photosynthesis, and whole plant water use efficiency of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00484-019-01792-0

However, the relative response of cocoa seedlings to [Elevated CO2-ECO₂] in improving Pn, leaf Ψ, biomass, and WUE was greater under 50% FC compared to plants at 100% FC suggested additional advantage of [ECO₂] to cocoa under water limited conditions.

Effect of High Concentrations of Co2 and High Temperatures on the Physiology of Mexican Cocoa

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4090392

The results show that the physiological effects generated by elevated [CO  2  ] could reduce the negative impact of increased temperatures, increasing the tolerance range of cocoa in the future.

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                                                                                                                                                  

This tells us that there were 238 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 48.3% from all those studies. 

The individual studies are listed below that. 

USA Soybean yields in the real world since 1988 have almost doubled while CO2 increased by 85 ppm, so we have strong corroborating evidence. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's use the plants this guy reports will be getting wiped out by climate change

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/c/coffeaar.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/c/coffeaar.php

300 ppm below represents and INCREASE of 300 ppm CO2 over the ambient level.

       Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:

For a more detailed description of this table, click here.

Coffea arabica [Coffee]     

Statistics                                                                                                                                        

Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:

For a more detailed description of this table, click here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/theobromac.php
Theobroma cacao [Cacao Tree]     

Statistics                                                                                                                                                  

+++++++++++++++++++

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/p/prunusa.php

Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:

For a more detailed description of this table, click here.

Prunus avium (L.) L. [Sweet Cherry]    

Statistics                                                                                                                                        

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WOW, over 400 studies on rice!

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php

     Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:

For a more detailed description of this table, click here.

Oryza sativa L. [Rice]

Statistics                                                                                                                                                  

There's nobody in the media reporting these results or about the real world boost in crop production EVERY YEAR because of climate change and the increase in beneficial CO2!

MIKE: "This guy is just reporting/reading information that came from somebody else.  The source of the information is either scientifically ignorant or blatantly dishonest."

PERSONALLY, I 'BLEVE IT'S SUMMUVEECH.    

I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT A SCIENCE BOOK AT ANY GRADE LEVEL EBEN LOOKS LIKE, MUCH LESS THE CONTEXT OF ONE.  IMO, THEY'RE BEING TAUGHT UTTER NONSENSE ~ AND... IT'S SHOWING. (I DO HOPE MOST OF THE STUDENTS ARE TOO "DUMB" TO LEARN WHAT'S BEING TAUGHT TO THEM.  LOL)

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE LAUGHTER EMITTING FROM A STUDENT THAT IS "SMART" ENOUGH TO FALL FOR THIS JUNK, AS THEY READ THE BOOKS WE LEARNED FROM?

SAD ~ SAD ~ SAD

When my grand daughter was real young, I taught her about gardening and did counting games and songs with her.

8 years ago, when my grand daughter was in 3rd grade, my wife said…….they‘re teaching her that carbon dioxide is pollution at school….what are you going to do?

not much you can do. Maybe your own kid I could try to  tell them otherwise. 

when she was in 5th grade, I was a guest talking about climate change to 3 classes combined that were studying it in science.

when i started taking about photosynthesis and the key role that CO2 plays, making plants grow bigger and faster, with more food because of it….. the science teacher said out loud “Wow, I never thought of that!”

i will also state that I know many dozens of wonderful teachers at 5 schools where I’ve been the chess coach for 2 decades.

we live in a great school district too.

teachers  get a lot of blame for things they can’t control because it comes from home.
I think it’s an extremely honorable profession and almost all of them are sincerely dedicated to educating NOT indoctrinating children.

sure, their personal views would have to come into play at times. Regardless, if they are passing something along, most would consider it enrichment of their education.
The fake climate crisis is one area that I will say is an exception to that And not really the fault of teachers.

7 Foods That Climate Change Could Make Disappear

Jean, I was looking at that video again.

This is exactly what's wrong with our world today.  Taking a technological advancement like this..........the ability to create an impressive, convincing video presentation and putting it on the internet to steal peoples intelligence/poison their brains for an ideology.

This is the complete opposite of the scientific method or authentic science.

It's DISinformation/propaganda and the source is the Weather Channel.

I noted around 15 years ago, they vastly changed their programming.........suddenly going climate crisis mode with frequent  extreme climate, intentional sensationalism of weather replacing their previously, less entertaining but accurate coverage of authentic, real time weather.

One can guess that this was done to boost ratings and because management had/has a political ideology they want presented. 

This guy noticed too:

Hey Weather Channel, what’s up with the political stuff?

https://www.villages-news.com/2019/10/31/hey-weather-channel-whats-up-with-the-political-stuff/

+++++++++++

I have some personal experiences with the Weather Channel that go well beyond  just sharing the same profession, as a meteorologist.

When I went to school at the University of Michigan, I expected to enter the work force as a meteorologist at the NWS after graduating  with a 4 year Atmospheric and Oceanic science degree in 1981.

However, in 1981 the Reagan administration had put a freeze on hiring all new federal employees and that impacted hiring of meteorologists at the NWS.

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/memorandum-directing-federal-employee-hiring-freeze

January 20, 1981

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Subject: Hiring Freeze

I am ordering today a strict freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees to be applied across the board in the executive branch.

This action is necessary because the national budget is out of control. Estimates of Federal spending for fiscal years 1981 and 1982 have -- in a single year -- increased by $100 billion.

Last July, during my campaign for the Presidency, I pledged that we would take this action as a first step towards controlling the growth and size of government and stopping the drain on the economy by the public sector.

Imposing a freeze now can eventually lead to a significant reduction in the size of the Federal work force. This begins the process of restoring our economic strength and returning the Nation to prosperity.

MORE LATER TODAY