1/11》 Don't believe the Climate Industry propaganda. Here are some academic papers and articles about what fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and #climatechange are ACTUALLY doing to the Earth:
2/11》 Here's a NASA video about it. It's based on measurements, unlike most of the Climate Industry's "climate impact" claims, which are based on dubious modeling and baseless speculation.
3/11》 The CO2 Coalition's website also has many excellent resources to help you learn about this issue:
The CO2 Coalition is an organization of volunteer scientists, dedicated to combating disinformation about CO2 & climate change, and pushing back against the corruption of science for political & pecuniary reasons.
Many of the CO2 Coalition's members are extremely distinguished. Their newest Board Member is Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate (Physics). co2coalition.org
5/11》 What the Climate Industry doesn't want you to know is that the "major impact" of carbon emissions is POSITIVE, just as the Nobel Laurate Svante Arrhenius predicted, over a century ago: sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
6/11》 Do you know what "FUD" is? It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt."
The "climate crisis" is FUD. The fact that many people worry about it just proves that FUD works.
7/11》 FUD is an old and proven disreputable strategy.
8/11》 The truth is the "climate crisis" is just a marketing ploy. The best scientific evidence and thousands of robust studies show that manmade #ClimateChange is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial. Here are a few relevant papers: sealevel.info/negative_socia…
9/11》 Whenever you find "climate crisis" or "climate emergency" messaging, if you dig, you'll find industry money behind it. It's how they sell the product.
Climate scammers say manmade climate change is a "crisis" or "emergency" for the same reason computer scammers say your computer is infected with viruses: to frighten you into opening your wallet.
10/11》 The Climate Industry's marketing campaign is made easier by the fact that many people WANT to be fooled. Sadly, many people have a psychological need to worry.
11/11》 If you're not one of those people who want to be fooled, I can help. To understand a commercialized & politicized topic like climate change, you need balanced, accurate information:
This resource list has:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sidessealevel.info/learnmore.html
1/11❯ You've been lied to. The impacts of rising CO2 levels are in both the past and the future, and they are overwhelmingly positive. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/11❯ The fact that elevated CO2 is dramatically beneficial for crops has been settled science for more than a century. This was not the "mid 20th century." sealevel.info/ScientificAmer…
@collapse2050 3/11❯ Thanks, in significant part, to rising CO2 levels, crop yield improvements have outpaced population growth.
1/5. Here's what CO2 emissions and #ClimateChange are actually doing to the world's food supply. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/5. The relationship between food (in)security and CO2 emissions / climate change is that CO2 emissions greatly improve crop yields, improve crops' drought resilience, and improve food security everywhere in the world.
2/5. It is suspiciously convenient that the largely undocumented revisions to old data so predictably support the Climate Industry's "hockey stick" narrative.
3/5. A global 0.35°C decline over roughly 30 years is a cooling trend similar in rate to the recent warming trend (depending on which temperature index you believe, of course).
Here's a 1974 newspaper article, with a nice, clear version of the 1974 plot:
The best scientific evidence, confirmed by thousands of robust studies, shows compellingly that anthropogenic warming is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, just as Arrhenius predicted, over a century ago.
2/4≫ For instance, here's a paper about what rising CO2 levels do for wheat:
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric CO2 can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390
3/4≫ The most important impacts of CO2 and climate change are obviously on agriculture, and thousands of rigorous agronomy studies have quantified the large benefits. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@Willard1951 @priscian @DanSull36510584 @DaleGribble_666 @B_Bolshevik100 @AdrianC47C @rob51816708 @Anvndarnamn5 @BradPKeyes @Rosie45703313 @ChrisBBacon3 @bootcanyon @TWTThisIsNow @MartinJBern @Mark_A_Lunn @Data79504085 @ammocrypta @Pow_Pop_Blam @ShroedingerBird @25_cycle @CDCollins5269 @jpgcrowley @PvtMcAuslan @EthonRaptor @Then__And__Now @tim_dunkerton @AristotleMrs @FD2you @Callan23474387 @KCTaz @0Sundance @TheDisproof @BointonGiles @DoesThisW0rk @Climatehope2 @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @JustThi30117912 @paulp1232 @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone @PeterDClack 1/8.》 As it happens, I was part of that 2021 conversation, and I remember it. Zeke effectively accused Spencer of cherry-picking. That was untrue: Spencer used all of the available data.
@GeraldKutney 2/4. The climate debate is about whether calling warm periods "climate optimums" (as scientists & historians have done for over a century) is correct (as I contend), or incorrect (as the climate industry pretends).
@GeraldKutney 3/4. The scientific evidence is compelling that rising CO2 levels, and consequent modest climate change, are both beneficial, just as Arrhenius predicted, over a century ago. Here are some relevant, high quality, papers: sealevel.info/negative_socia…