Have you ever heard the term “Trust The Experts”? This is where we find ourselves, listening to so-called experts that depend on grant money and acceptance into peer-reviewed papers as long as they go along with the narrative mostly based on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). While there has always been scientists all over the world poking holes in the IPCC reports, we are seeing a vast number of award winning scientists coming forward to speak out against this ‘climate disaster’ narrative in the past few years, but why are their voices not amplified? Why are they not covered by Mainstream News?
I think many people can surmise as to why their voices are being ignored by the media and politicians alike. Imagine if these well renowned scientists were listened to, what would happen? It would be pretty safe to say that 90% of current bureaucracy and policy would grind to a halt, from 15 minute cities, to the carbon tax. Maybe it is time to inwardly reflect on this thought, or on why a gas so fundamental to life was chosen to be vilified?
Despite the prevailing pessimism and a tendency to overlook the fundamental principles learned in grade 8 science regarding life on Earth and its sustenance, there is a persistent tendency to vilify a gas crucial for life creation. This surprises numerous scientists globally. The CO2 Coalition’s researchers have amassed a wealth of papers presenting alternative viewpoints from top scientists in various fields, often overlooked by mainstream news. But because ALL policy in North Cowichan and other areas must go through the climate lens, this topic must keep being spoken about.
Excerpt from co2coalition.org: “For the last 140 million years, CO2 levels fell precipitously & steadily to within about 30 ppm of the 150 ppm “line of death” below which plants can’t survive. Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores and much longer-term data going back 140 million years (Berner 2001) show an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. The release of carbon dioxide by the use of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse.”
“CO2 is a particularly ridiculous choice for a ‘pollutant.’ Its primary role is as a fertilizer for plant life. Currently, almost all plants are starved of CO2. Moreover, if we were to remove a bit more than 60% of current CO2, the consequences would be dire: namely death by starvation for all animal life. It would not likely lead to a particularly cold world since such a reduction would only amount to a couple of percent change in the radiative budget. After all, a 30% reduction of solar radiation about 2.5 billion years ago did not lead to an Earth much colder than it is today, as we earlier noted in connection with the Early Faint Sun Paradox.” -Richard Lindzen’s paper: An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative – Published by the Global Warming
Policy Foundation – September 22, 2022