The Carbon Dioxide Scare Is Gradually Dying. By Peter Clack:
Harsh climate scenarios have spent decades painting Earth’s likely future landscape as dystopian, dark, barren and forbidding.
Yet, recent physical data argues exactly the opposite. Instead of plunging the planet into chaos, it’s becoming eye-catchingly greener — and CO₂ is the key. The formal models predicted a scorched planet, but NASA satellites unleashed a world that is biologically thriving. This silent miracle of global greening isn’t some theory, it’s the physical reality captured by the orbiting space platforms; MODIS instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.
This is how these jarring narratives have been unfolding:
- Official Climate Narrative: Rapid, systemic desertification and global canopy loss due to rising temperatures.
- Hard Reality: Persistent structural greening across more than 30% of the global vegetated area over the last two decades.
- Official Climate Narrative: CO₂ acts strictly as a destructive atmospheric pollutant driving extreme weather.
- Hard Reality: CO₂ is plant food, driving down stomatal conductance, making plants use water more efficiently and expanding the leaf area index
- Official Climate Narrative: Global food supply chains are on the verge of climate-driven collapse.
- Hard Reality: Agricultural yields bolstered by CO₂ fertilisation are expanding green cover in semi-arid zones like the African Sahel and Western Australia. …
Higher, more robust CO₂ is not a death sentence — which is what they argued. It allows vegetation to open their pores (stomata) less, yet absorb the same amount of carbon. This drastically reduces water loss through transpiration. It’s why the world’s arid desert regions are blooming and the fragile living desert is raging into life — plants are also becoming more drought-resistant. …
A vividly coloured renaissance is dutifully taking place, sweeping away all doubts.
Global greening in action near Bega, NSW
[Left-wing] Vox with a BOMBSHELL admission in the wake of the demise of RCP8.5. [the alarming official climate scenario that was recently officially dropped as too unrealistic]:
“Those numbers shaped a decade and a half of climate journalism, including a lot of my own when I covered climate change at Time magazine. I didn’t always know — and didn’t always communicate — that the scenario behind the most apocalyptic, attention-getting findings was largely an attempt to imagine how bad things could get, not a true forecast. But I wasn’t alone. RCP 8.5 was a frequent background presence in climate journalism.”
Commenters:
I appreciate the honesty here, but there were plenty of people (like me) who have been saying this for decades. We were called climate science deniers by the press. We told the truth. We were attacked for it. Now people act as if it was not obvious at the time. …
It was absolutely obvious at the time that scientists were using fake models to scare people about climate change. That’s the truth, and every person who participated in that charade owes a lot of apologies to the people who they smeared. …
The worst consequence of their alarmist reporting is 15+ yrs of horrific energy policy like RPS & net zero that cost Americans billions of dollars. Democrats, NGOs, and media all championed the “energy transition” to save the planet. I have no sympathy for lazy reporting. …
“I didn’t always know” is a bold-faced lie. Every climate journalist could have looked at the data and seen what a scam the hockey stick was from day 1 — they just didn’t want to.
Around 1 in 3 liberals think the world will end in 10-15 years because of climate change.
It’s a big problem that tons of climate journalism/ discourse has consistently used the worst case outlier model and presented it as a prediction of what was most likely to happen. But as it stands, even the worst-case scenario is being radically adjusted down. Hopefully climate journalists/ advocates don’t just adopt the next worst-case model and instead discuss the most likely scenarios modelers have painted.