REPLY To: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? By Dr Patrick Moore

Climate Change Dispatch, 14 October 2015

https://climatechangedispatch.com/should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide-2/

Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? By Dr Patrick Moore

Dr Patrick Moore's quotes are in bold and sometimes underlined

I am always weary when the first half of a presentation details the supposedly impeccable credentials of the speaker starting from his roots in the Canadian wilderness to becoming a Director of Greenpeace International before finding the true path and leave Greenpeace, making him supposedly a particularly competent person to talk on the subject of global warming. Dr Moore tells us that he left Greenpeace after 15 years as a Director when he realised he was the only one with a Science degree, his decision precipitated by an argument with his Greenpeace Directorship colleagues about banning Chlorine which he opposed vigorously. “My arguments falling on deaf ears, was the final straw. I had to leave. When I left Greenpeace I vowed to develop an environmental policy that was based on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, anti-humanism and fear”.

As a result, Dr Moore’s talk on CO2 and global warming is short compared to his introduction. It is also devoid of meaningful science (if any at all), filled with conjectures to prove his own hypotheses and an outright rejection of the overwhelming and solid scientific evidence countering his arguments. He also does not hesitate to denigrate his opponents stating amongst others: “NASA tells us that “Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature” in child-like denial of the many other factors involved in climate change. This is reminiscent of NASA’s contention that there might be life on Mars. Decades after it was demonstrated that there was no life on Mars”. Demonstrated decades before? Really? Amazing statement when the month before his presentation, NASA confirmed for the first time the presence of liquid water flowing on Mars. Who knows what may or may not be living in that water. Dr Moore then adds: “NASA continues to use it as a hook to raise public funding for more expeditions to the Red Planet. The promulgation of fear of Climate Change now serves the same purpose”. The suggestion by Dr Moore that NASA (who has impeccable scientific credentials) are in “child-like denial” and warning the world about Global Warming to protect their funding and self-interests is downright defamatory. This from the person who states in the same breath his wish of: “developing an environmental policy based on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, anti-humanism and fear”

Likewise in his statement on the IPCC and the Pope where he states: “If the IPCC found that climate change was not being affected by human alteration of the atmosphere or that it is not “dangerous” there would be no need for them to exist. They are virtually mandated to find on the side of the apocalypse. Scientific certainty, political pandering, a hopelessly conflicted IPCC. And now the Pope, spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, in a bold move to reinforce the concept of original sin, says the Earth looks like “an immense pile of filth” and we must go back to pre-industrial bliss, or is that squalor? Is this not sensationalism? The Pope is no expert or a reference on the subject and his chosen culprits misguided, but I cannot flaw him for voicing his grave concern on the state of the environment and changing world climate. Not satisfied with that, Dr Moore adds: “And then there is the actual immense pile of filth fed to us more than three times daily by the green media nexus, a seething cauldron of imminent doom like we are already condemned to Damnation in Hell and there is little chance of Redemption. I fear for the end of the Enlightenment. I fear an intellectual Gulag with Greenpeace as my prison guard”. Such statements are outrageous bordering on obnoxious, false, misleading, and far from conducive to constructive dialogue or debate on the subject.

Let’s not forget that when the hole in the ozone was first detected back in 1979, not many scientists agreed that the minute concentrations of CFS’s released in the atmosphere were responsible. How could it possibly be? CFC’s were used as coolant gas for refrigeration and were a supposedly perfectly inert gas. I would be curious to know what Dr Moore’s position was on the subject then. But that’s an aside. Two scientists who were later rewarded with the Nobel prize for their work on this, demonstrated and proved, that as they suspected, CFC’s were present at stratospheric levels within the Ozone layer, and under intense UV bombardment at these high altitudes, CFC’s broke down into their constituent components, one of which, Chlorine reacted with ozone, thereby destroying the Ozone layer. Without our protection against UV from the Ozone layer life on earth was under direct threat of destruction. The immediate ban and eradication of CFC’s by the world community has paid off handsomely, as indeed the Ozone layer has largely recovered since.

A.??Dr Moore then engages the scientific debate by starting with:

??there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see?. Then to add: “The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory? before concluding: “despite 1/3 of all our CO2 emissions being released during the past 18 years the UK Met Office contends there has been no statistically significant warming during this century?. Short statements that totally contradict solid scientific evidence no less than 3 times. Let’s look at these in turn.

1.???“it would have been written down for all to see”

Figure 1

The amount of peer reviewed scientific literature pointing to global warming is overwhelming as are the scientific publications showing convincing evidence of the possible link between CO2 and this global warming (Figure 1) in comparison to the few publications supporting Dr Moore’s view of no global warming nor any link between increasing CO2 concentrations and global warming.

Dr Moore simply rejects the vast amount of solid scientific evidence/data accumulated these past two centuries with ever more sophisticated instruments including satellites. Data which is far more relevant to the understanding of climate changes than the events dating millions of years from the pasts, with precisions no better than 10’s of millions of years and which Dr Moore utilises to contradict global warming and any link with CO2.

The undeniable and solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer and at an accelerating rate, that sea level is rising, that the ice caps are melting and disappearing, that hurricanes are more numerous, stronger and ever more devastating, that droughts are more frequent and destructive to the environment and to our forests which burn more fiercely every summer. All this is ignored as insignificant by Dr Moore who maintains that the benefits of supposedly greening our planet by the vast quantities of additional CO2 pumped into the atmosphere far outweigh any of these calamities and goes on to say that it likely will save life on earth which without this additional CO2 he predicts, would otherwise (on who knows what evidence) completely vanish in the next 2 million years.

2.????“Slight warming”

Dr Moore describes Global Warming as a “Slight warming” statistically insignificant, rejecting it even in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence proving the contrary, let alone any possible link with the rising CO2 concentration which he sees as no more than “a supposed hypothesis”.

The expression “Slight warming” is quoting Dr Moore himself “not a scientific definition but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for an opinion”. Besides this “slight warming” as he refers is anything but that. Warming is real and enormous and the highest it has been for the past 800.000 years (as we show later).

Figure 2 shows the undeniable increase of temperatures in the last two centuries alone.

Figure 2

Independently as to whether anyone believes in the link between increasing CO2 levels and Global Warming, temperatures rising is irrefutable as shown on Figure 2, something Dr Moore rejects. Not only are temperatures rising but this is in perfect unison and in perfect correlation with CO2 concentrations (Figure 2)

Latest atmospheric CO2 measurements in 2018 show concentrations of 410 ppm, which is significantly higher than anything recorded at any time in the past 800.000 years as seen by the Vostok cores (Figure 3) where CO2 concentrations remained below 290ppm throughout that time span.

Figure 3 - Vostok cores atmospheric CO2 concentrations from present to -800.000 years)

Eight to eleven cycles in CO2 atmospheric concentrations are evident from those cores and it is only at the start of the 20th century that CO2 levels reached 290ppm (Figure 1) and climbed to 410ppm 120 years later due to the unprecedented massive burning of fossil fuel since, and which grows every year. The former U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu goes further, saying that although CO2 is the primary gas greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, if we consider added methane and nitrous oxide released through human activity, the total greenhouse effect rises to around 490ppm CO2 equivalent.

Correlation does not necessarily prove causality, and numerous studies have tried to understand and explain why this near perfect correlation between CO2 and global warming (Figures 2 and 8), removing other effects or factors including solar effects (including the Milankovitch cycles). Richard Muller (2012) states that the correlation between CO2 concentration and global warming doesn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, but adds: “To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide”

Scientific opinion today is largely tilted towards the conclusion that global warming or rising temperatures best fits with the greenhouse effect from rising atmospheric CO2 levels (Muller, 2012) due to the massive and increasing burning of fossil fuels by man. The contribution to global warming from changing solar activity is considered as negligible by most scientific studies.

Figure 4(a)

Figure 4(b)

Figures 4(a) and 4(b) go further back in time than Figure 2 and show (unsurprisingly) a wider scatter of uncertainty in the temperature measurement the further back in time we go. But temperatures from 250 years ago display cyclicity of ~0.5°C from 1750 to 1850 when with the advent of the industrial revolution from 1850 and the increasing use of fossil fuel (essentially coal then) a noticeable rise in temperature was noted and the 25-30 year cyclicity near vanished. By the 1950’s booming world economies and population growth running on the back of ever increasing demand for cheap energy from fossil fuels caused a surge in demand for fossil fuel, which has grown unabated since to the present.

From 1950 temperature and CO2 trends show an abrupt and undeniably sharp accelerating upward trend to the present (2017) as shown on Figure 2. This information comes from an ever increasing number of measurements worldwide, whose reliability and accuracy cannot be contested. A trend that even an untrained eye can see, except Dr Moore who instead sees evidence of “a mini ice age three hundred years ago”.

The latest research from the BEST team confirms that the Earth’s average land temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius since the 1950s, and by 1.5 degrees Celsius over the last 250 years. This is in line with existing records, which put average global land temperature rise over the last 50 years at 0.81 to 0.93 degrees Celsius. This may seem insignificant in absolute temperatures (~1°C), but the added energy to both the oceans and atmosphere is staggering as shown on Figure 5. In barely 20 years (1998 to 2019) the added energy is the equivalent of 2.7 billion Hiroshima bombs and at the present rate of warming it equates to the energy of one Hiroshima bomb being added to our oceans and atmosphere every second.

Figure 5 (Hiroshima bomb equivalent clock is dated 23/1/2019)

3.???“UK Met Office contends there has been no statistically significant warming during this century”

Figure 6

In view of Figures 2, 4(a), 4(b), 5 and 6, coupled to the fact that this century, barely 19 years in age, has witnessed the warmest days ever in recorded history almost anywhere on earth and that these records are systematically broken year after year, Dr Moore’s statement that there is no statistically significant warming this century is incomprehensible in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

B.???Dr Moore’s statement:

“The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory”

Dr Moore accepts a correlation between CO2 concentration and global warming stating: “The Keeling curve of CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere since 1959 is the supposed smoking gun of catastrophic climate change. We presume CO2 was at 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution before human activity could have caused a significant impact. I accept that most of the rise from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions with the possibility that some of it are due to outgassing from warming of the oceans”.

Dr Moore’s arguments to demonstrate that there is no link between rising CO2 and global warming are staggering:

1.???”I will focus on the past 540 million years since modern life forms evolved”.

Heaven only knows the need let alone the relevance of going back to the early Cambrian to talk about present day global warming, especially as conditions (crustal, oceanic and atmospheric) at that time were nothing like today’s. Besides what precision or accuracy regarding the atmosphere and its temperature can we possibly have going back so far. We are after all talking of a few °C’s and ppm concentrations of CO2.

2.???“Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 and 50 million years ago”.

Let’s fast forward to Dr Moore’s explanation, which is still from a very long time ago but not to Dr Moore who says: “It is glaringly obvious that temperature and CO2 are in an inverse correlation at least as often as they are in any semblance of correlation. Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 million years and 50 million years ago. At the end of the Jurassic temperature fell dramatically while CO2 spiked. During the Eocene (56 to 33.9 million years ago) Thermal Maximum, the temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years. This evidence alone sufficient to warrant deep speculation of any claimed lock-step causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Two miserable examples with all the scientific robustness of a house of cards to demonstrate a supposedly reverse correlation between CO2 and temperature. What does it prove? What’s more, it is totally irrelevant in the face of the Keeling Curve which Dr Moore accepts as a fact in his presentation.

Dr Moore explains that temperature variations on earth have always existed going back at least since the Cambrian 540 million years ago when life as we know it first evolved.

Figure 7

If we can believe Figure 7, the cooling and warming cycles occurred at least since the Cambrian with a cyclicity of 50 to 100 million years. From Figure 7 the end of the Ordovician and early Silurian were about as cold as the Pleistocene (if we extrapolate from the Neogene to the Pleistocene not included in Figure 7). The Carboniferous is also shown as a cold period, with glaciation in the second half (Pennsylvanian) when we know plants and trees thrived in hot and swampy areas to later became the Carboniferous coal beds that cover just about every part of the world. All this during major glaciation if we believe Figure 7. We are told that the end of the Pennsylvanian is marked by major cooling and drier conditions (decimation of the forests) with temperatures 10°C cooler and dryer conditions by the beginning of the Permian Period. We see the complete opposite on Figure 7. All this to emphasises that conflicting science does not mean poor or bad science, but looking at trends going back hundreds of million years ago to explain the global warming we’re experiencing today have none of the accuracy or precision required, as we’re dealing with very subtle temperature and CO2 variations. So have no idea on the relevance of this to the debate.

3.???The Milankovitch Cycles

Dr Moore’s assertion that warming and cooling of the atmosphere and oceans is a result of the Milankovitch cycles, and that the changing CO2 levels are due to degassing or gassing of the oceans as temperatures rise or fall as a result is highly debatable and not so self-evident and supposedly so widely accepted as Dr Moore maintains, so much so, that we are spared from any of the evidence that proves this. No mention is even made of volcanic contributions to CO2.

The Milankovitch Cycles supposedly explain climate change as a function of variations of incoming solar radiation, or insolation, which change over the Milankovitch Cycles as the earth circles the sun, and is taken by deniers of global warming due to CO2 as the real reason for cyclicity in global warming and glaciation. The Milankovitch depends on 3 factors each with their own periodicity

Eccentricity

Eccentricity is the shape of the Earth's orbit (from more elliptic to less elliptic) around the Sun. This constantly fluctuating, orbital shape ranges between more and less elliptical (0 to 5% ellipticity) on a cycle of about 100,000 years.

Axial Tilt

The inclination of the Earth's axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth's axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees. Earth's present axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth's seasons changes

Precession

Precession is the Earth's slow wobble as it spins on axis. Precession, has a periodicity of 23,000 years

The 100,000-year problem of the Milankovitch theory refers to a discrepancy between the geologic temperature record and the reconstructed amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation over the past 800,000 years. 100,000-year-problem refers to the lack of an obvious explanation for the periodicity of ice ages at roughly 100,000 years for the past million years (Figure 7) when in reality the Earth's orbital eccentricity makes the smallest contribution to insolation compared to axial tilt and obliquity with their much shorter periodicity.

Here again Dr Moore ignores the scientific rigour he demands from his detractors and notwithstanding the obvious problem (impossibility) of tying the Milankovitch cycles to the 100.000 year glaciation cycles we see on the Vostok cores (Figure 8) he maintains this flawed hypothesis that climate cycles leading to glaciations are due to the Milankovitch cycles.

4.???Rising CO2 concentrations and rising global temperatures

Dr Moore further states: “I issue a challenge to anyone to provide a compelling argument that counters my analysis of the historical record and the prediction of CO2 starvation based on the 150 million year trend. Ad hominem arguments about “deniers” need not apply. I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both. Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet?”

We won’t revisit Dr Moore’s arguments going back hundreds of million years ago which are irrelevant in the debate. We have however shown the undeniable and overwhelming scientific evidence of rapidly rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations these past 200 years, yet Dr Moore has no hesitation or qualms in telling his audience that much of Society has been collectively misled in believing that CO2 concentrations and temperatures are too high and “that the opposite is true for both”. Really? Where is the evidence for this?

C.???The Vostok cores

The Vostok cores are 3300m of continuous core cut in the undisturbed Antarctic icecap. These cores have taken us back 800.000 years in time (Figure 3) but we shall concentrate on the cores and data from the past 425.000 years as shown on Figure 8

CO2 concentrations can be measured directly from the atmospheric gas trapped in air bubbles in the core. Temperature measurements are made looking at isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen between 16O to 18O and 1H to 2H (Deuterium) ratios. In essence, there is less heavy isotopes of 18O and 2H (Deuterium) in the frozen water during cold periods because it takes more energy to evaporate the water molecules containing a heavy isotope from the surface of the ocean that will eventually freeze over Antartica. This process is known as fractionation and temperature dependent. Results from the cores are compared with the isotopic ratio of an average ocean water standard known as SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water) giving a relative temperature difference to the SMOW (today’s temperature) as shown on Figure 8.

The correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures over 425.000 years are undeniable and clearly show 4 major phases of glaciation in that time span. Surely this data it is far more relevant to understanding the temperature cycles and correlations between CO2 and Temperature than going back to the Cambrian or 50 million years ago to explain global warming.

The Vostok core data displays a near perfect correlation between CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperatures for the past 800.000 years, with only the past 425.000 years shown on Figure 8. Regarding the evident correlation as shown by this data, Dr Moore states the following: “Looking at the past 50,000 years of temperature and CO2 we can see that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. This is as one could expect, as the Milankovitch cycles are far more likely to cause a change in temperature than a change in CO2. And a change in the temperature is far more likely to cause a change in CO2 due to outgassing of CO2 from the oceans during warmer times and an in-gassing (absorption) of CO2 during colder periods. Yet climate alarmists persist in insisting that CO2 is causing the change in temperature, despite the illogical nature of that assertion”.

Figure 8 - Note that year 0 is 1995

Terms like “far more likely” is not scientific but rather indicative of a judgment or opinion. Besides our present climatic equivalent correlates far better with the temperature peaks seen at -125.000 years, -235.000 years, -325.000 and -415.000 years, all of which are ignored by Dr Moore

What is evident from Figure 8, is that global warming is extremely rapid and sharp in comparison to the cooling phases leading to the glaciations. It is clear that we are at a peak equivalent junction to what the earth suffered 125.000 years ago, which coincides with maximum and accelerating global warming (we have gained close to 1°C since year zero (1995)), and with CO2 concentrations now at record levels (Figure 8). So for Dr Moore to state there is no temperature or CO2 anomalies, let alone state that neither is high enough is incredible.

In fact Dr Moore considers the recent increase in CO2 concentration (which he accepts both as real and predominantly due to human activity) is a blessing for life on earth, stating as fact “That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than 2 million years from today?. Is this really an incontestable scientific fact? Where does this 2 million years estimate before all life on earth will end originate from.

D.??Global Warming

Dr Moore states: “The IPCC states it is “extremely likely” that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming “since the mid-20th century”, that is since 1950. They claim that “extremely” means 95% certain, even though the number 95 was simply plucked from the air like an act of magic. And “likely” is not a scientific word but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for an opinion” 95% certainty is about as best anyone can prove something. What is Dr Moore’s level of certainty for the 150 million and 50 million trends he is so reliant in his arguments, or the Milankovitch cycles?which he bandies about as undeniable facts.

“I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both” How can Dr Moore in the face of overwhelming evidence backed by huge volumes of data reach such a conclusion, and infer that we are misled and that present temperatures are not too high.

There is no consensus about the variation in sea level since then although many scientists have concluded that the sea level was higher than today during the Holocene Thermal optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago when the Sahara was green. The sea level may also have been higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period. Again how can Dr Moore state this as proven facts when there is undeniable proof to the contrary. Let us look at some facts

1.????????Melting of the icecap

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figures 9 to 11 show the undeniable and accelerating melting of the icecap in Greenland in the past 20 years only

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figures 12 and 13 show the undeniable and accelerating melting of the Artic and Antarctic icecaps again in the past 20 years only. Much the same can be said of receding glaciers almost anywhere in the world

Figure 14

Mean sea level have risen since the 1800’s and is accelerating (Figure 14), yet we are told by Dr Moore on the basis of who knows what scientific facts that “The sea level may also have been higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period”. Fact? Opinion? or hypothesis? Where is the undeniable proof which Dr Moore expects from his detractors?

2.????????Hurricanes and Storms

What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones." So there seems to be some uncertainty.

This graph (Figure 15), also from the Pew Centre, however shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:

Figure 15

Figure 16: History of the tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes (Category 3+) in the North Atlantic derived from the analysis of the National Hurricane Center (Global Warming Art).

Figures 15 and 16 show a clear increase in the number of North Atlantic storms

Hurricane Intensity

Figure 17: Smoothed Power Dissipation Index (dotted line, a measure of hurricane intensity) versus Tropical Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (solid black line). (Emanuel 2005).

Figure 17 shows that Hurricane intensity is increasing, while Figure 18 shows that windspeed in hurricanes is also clearly increasing, in line with the increasing levels of available energy from the oceans and atmosphere to create ever larger hurricanes.

Figure 18: Trends in tropical cyclone maximum wind speeds for different strength hurricanes. Uncertainty range is shown in grey. Solid red line is the overall trend, dashed red lines show 90% confidence range (Elsner 2008).

Figure 19

Without any doubt, as shown on Figure 19, hurricanes are becoming ever more destructive.

E.???“CO2 the Building Block of all life on Earth and the greening of the Earth”

This is beyond a doubt the most outrageous and false conclusion of Dr Moore in his talk. Here he tries to demonstrate the beneficial effect to all living creatures from the rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that we should be grateful for the increasing CO2 concentrations.

“There is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. Tonight I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than 2 million years from today”. How does Dr Moore conclude that human emission of CO2 has already saved life on our planet (he certainly does not explain it in his presentation) and how does he reach the conclusion that without CO2 addition by man, we’d all be dead in 2 million years.

“It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition”. Does Dr Moore forget that before the advent of man and civilisation in the past 2000 years ago, the CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and wherever there was water, fertile soil and some sunshine, forests thrived and covered just about every square inch of arable land on earth. Does not matter what the CO2 concentration is, without water and arable soil you will not “green” the deserts as we are led to believe. CO2 concentration whether at 200 or 2000 ppm was irrelevant to the growth of these forests a few thousand years ago . CO2 is but one of the components for life on earth we all agree, but 200ppm is quite sufficient for plants but only if there is sufficient water, nutrients and sunshine.

Dr Moore’s comment: “We are witnessing the “Greening of the Earth” as higher levels of CO2, due to human emissions from the use of fossil fuels, promote increased growth of plants around the world. This has been confirmed by scientists with CSIRO in Australia, in Germany, and in North America”. Really? No one has yet published a paper stating that with the increase of atmospheric CO2, lawns need to be mowed or edges trimmed more often than before, or that crops are now bigger without the need of additional irrigation or fertilizers.

Dr Moore seems to ignore the worldwide dying of our coral and barrier reefs as waters get warmer and more acidic from this added CO2, something catastrophic in terms of the food chain

What is undeniable too, is that with global warming, icecaps are disappearing, droughts are more common, more extensive and last longer; deserts are expanding with the Sahara alone gaining 100’s of km every year on the Sahel; Crops are failing more often, forests and bushland are becoming drier and susceptible to larger uncontrollable and deadly bushfires every year, Hurricanes are becoming more numerous, stronger and more devastating. As I write today, 25/1/2019, Australia is in the grip of yet another record heatwave, killing swathes of bushland, worsening the drought, destroying crops, not to mention wildlife and farm stock. Figures 2 and 8 should frighten anyone (Pope included) by its trend of accelerating temperature rise. Imagine if in the coming 5 years, a record heatwave and drought was to strike the bread baskets of the world, resulting in massive crop failures, the impact on the world and its massive population would be catastrophic.

But for Dr Moore, none of this is real, statistically significant, relevant or even a problem. Those warning the world about global warning and its consequences are just an annoying nuisance. We should comfort and reassure ourselves and our children that the climate is not warming, and that the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is far more beneficial to us all than rising temperature, dying coral and barrier reefs, droughts, melting icecaps, rising sea level, hurricanes etc.