Repeat after me. “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life.”
That’s the message the CO2 Coalition, a new, independent, nonprofit group, is working to drive home. The coalition members include scientists and public policy analysts, who have set out to explain how additional levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are actually beneficial.
But, wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be concerned about carbon dioxide emissions? Isn’t planet earth warming up at an alarming pace? At least, that’s what’s been widely reported in mainstream media outlets. But, as it turns out, the climate models that predicted dangerous levels of global warming have been woefully inaccurate. Here is how the CO2 Coalition answers questions about “scary predictions.”
“Your grandchildren will be fine. Over the past two decades, computer-based climate models have predicted much more global warming than has been observed. The real “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” which is the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1°C, some three times smaller than most models assumed. Using these much smaller climate sensitivities, which are drawn from careful and long-running observations of the natural world, the projected warming will be moderate and beneficial for the foreseeable future.”
The problem here is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is heavily reliant upon mathematical models that have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. Moreover, models are not substitutes for actual scientific observations. Satellite measurements, for instance, of earth’s temperatures point to stable and even flat temperatures.
This is what the CO2 coalition tells us about those climate models:
“Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong. Over the past two decades, the global warming predicted by climate models has mostly failed to materialize. The real “equilibrium climate sensitivity”—the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2—is likely to be about three times smaller than what the models have assumed. Observational data suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels will increase the surface temperature by about 1° C, not the much larger values that were originally assumed in mainstream models. Using these much smaller, observation-based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.”
But what really stands out above all else that the CO2 Coalition is trying to convey are the beneficial aspects of CO2. While the public has been programmed to believe that increased carbon dioxide emissions are somehow dangerous and destabilizing, in reality, the recent rise in CO2 levels will actually benefit animal and plant life over time. That’s not what the centralized planners and regulators in government agencies want to hear. But it’s what the CO2 Coalition is now telling the public.
CO2 increases can be expected to “boost farm productivity, improve drought resistance, bolster food security and help create a greener, lusher planet.”
The coalition does support “cost-effective” methods of controlling dangerous and hazardous pollutants that originate from fossil- or bio-fuel. But the regulatory schemes that have been hatched to control CO2, appear to be rooted more in politics and less in science.
What’s needed is an informed, dispassionate debate about what the real threats and challenges are to humanity. The CO2 Coalition could play an instrumental role here, if the media is willing to provide coalition members with the same platform they have offered up to global warming alarmists who continue to misinform the public. We’ll see.
Kevin J. Mooney, Investigative Reporter for Political Storm in Washington D.C.