I recently stumbled across a video first published by Business Insider in 2017 that was titled “The Earth has so much CO2 that planting trees can't save us” which is illustrative of the type of propaganda that is routinely presented to the public as “settled science.”

Let us start with some known facts:

(1)  The climate is constantly changing and man’s climate signal cannot be detected nor measured against the natural variability of the climate.

(2)  Most climate studies are deeply flawed by the need to use science as a justification for politically-driven public policy agendas. This can be seen in the framework of the United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which cherry-picks published scientific papers to reinforce the need for prompt, expensive, and freedom-altering action to save us from a “planetary emergency.” The framework is extremely based as it seeks answers based on man-made (anthropogenic) causes of warming and, in many cases, excludes or minimizes the natural sources of climate change such as the Sun’s energy output in all spectral energy bands, extraterrestrial cosmic rays, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s orbital dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the deep ocean currents, and the most potent greenhouse gas of all, atmospheric water vapor in the form of the clouds which form a self-regulating feedback mechanism. This bias can also be demonstrated by the funding of institutions, scientists, and projects who meet funding criteria set by the government funders and projects that do not support the thesis of man-made global warming are less likely to b funded.

(3)  Nobody, including the scientists, know what the optimal temperature of our ecosystem should be. The Earth has been hotter, colder, with less atmospheric carbon dioxide and more carbon dioxide. And, we can plainly see the benefits of a warmer, more carbon dioxide-enriched atmosphere as it occurred during the Medieval Warm Period also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly depending on your politics which occurred circa 950 – 1250.

(4)  All evidence of problematic global warming exists within the models which are deeply flawed and require “parametric tuning” fudge factors to produce the desired results. The one exception is a Russian model which appears to produce historically-verifiable results and whose results are substantially less dramatic and extreme than all of the other models.

And, let us consider some of what the clip shows…

The central premise of the clip, that “there's so much CO2 in the atmosphere that planting trees can no longer save us,” makes unwarranted assumptions. One, that it is carbon dioxide that regulates climate change or may serve as a trigger for catastrophic events; two, that the models, which have been proven to be deeply flawed are correct; three, that man can actually influence climate change by implementing public policies and practices such as planting trees; and four, man should ignore historical evidence of previous climate cycles and assume that “this time it is different” without further study or proof. Somewhat paradoxical as the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature which gives rise to the theory that a warming planet allows carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans to outgas and enter the atmosphere.

The magic number…

Where did this magic number of 3.6 ^oF come from? The models, of course. The models which are parametrically driven to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and to then calculate a temperature which might account for such a doubling. This is both deceptive and disconcerting as it is pure conjecture that is not universally accepted science, no matter what the activists, politicians, and pundits might say.

Projections and prophecies…

WILDFIRES

DROUGHT

EXTREME STORMS

The Earth has always experienced wildfires, drought, and extreme storms. Many that are far stronger than what we see today and which occurred before the industrial revolution and the so-called beginning of man’s artificial carbon dioxide injection into the atmosphere.  What the video does not say is that many of the problems, loss of property, and human life are due to siting structures in known storm-prone or climatic danger zones. Of course, the costs will increase as the population density increases, and political contributions of developers to corrupt politicians result in inadequate zoning regulations and building codes. And why, might you ask, do we rebuild storm-ravaged areas in areas with known problems? Now that is something that man can easily change.

There will always be wet/dry cycles. There will always be wildfires, mostly caused by lightning. And it appears storms are more influenced by natural oscillations such as El Nino/La Nina and jet-streams than actual climate change. It is all one interconnected system with its own control and feedback mechanisms. I could make the case that some wildfire damages are more attributable to the environmentalists and their unscientific prescriptions than nature.

What to do… planting trees?

Planting trees would help, but it would not solve the problem.

According to the clip, “In truth, we would have to cover the entire contiguous US with trees just to capture 10% of the CO2 we emit annually. There's just not enough room on this planet to have the farmland it takes to feed the world plus the space to plant the necessary number of trees. In other words, many of us would starve if we tried using trees to solve our emissions problem.”

And, they have no clue how to solve the problem…

Prescriptions that always are about extreme solutions that are based on increasing political power and wealth re-distribution…

And that is how they end the clip: “It’s going to require something drastic.”

Bottom line…

Ask yourself why almost all solutions involve de-growth, replacing capitalism with socialism, population control, and wealth redistribution? Ask yourself what major problems involving nature have the politicians been able to solve with any degree of success? And, ask yourself why the United States of America should lead the global clean-up to the benefit of our enemies China, Russia, and others who will not abide by the mostly ceremonial agreements and accords that are meaningless.

I can understand why the United Nations wants to set themselves about national sovereignty and secure perpetual funding without the need for the contributions of member-states, but why are American politicians so willing to sell out our nation for a scientific hypothesis that exists only in the silicon silliness of flawed computer models? The answer is the true threat facing America: political corruption.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

Reference links…

The Earth has so much CO2 that planting trees can't save us - Business Insider article

https://content.jwplatform.com/players/1SsAisE0-puACk8ZV.html   video