One of my favorite synonyms for the "climate change' hoax is "the war on plants". Plants, after all, do respire carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, so if the CO2 content of the atmosphere is reduced, that would be detrimental to Earth's flora, would it not?
Consequently, if CO2 levels are higher around the globe, one would expect to see a corresponding increase in plant growth.
And, sure enough....:
A new climate change study seems to suggest that a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has helped plants propagate around the planet. The findings see contrarians (aka climate change skeptics) reasserting their claim that additional CO2 is beneficial for the planet, since foliage harness these emissions for growth. But the researchers behind the study, Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, insist the extra emissions and subsequent “fertilization effect” are more likely signs of a troubled system struggling to adjust.
Desperate spin to deny the unmistakable, commonsensical "settled science" underlying these results they wish they hadn't produced. Although credit where credit is due, at least they weren't buried, like the University of Cincinnati did their embarrassingly pro-fracking numbers.
A tremendous amount of vegetated land has experienced greening, according to satellite data collected and analyzed by thirty-two authors from twenty-four institutions in eight countries. The new greenery is equivalent to more than four billion giant sequoias. If all the extra leaves were laid flat, they’d cover the continental United States – twice! Added CO2 accounts for 70% of that growth, with climate change, increased nitrogen, and changes in land management accounting for fractions each. Despite global temperatures reaching a record high last year, only four percent of the world’s vegetated land has experienced depletion.
Taking that "record high temperatures" bogusity with a pillar of salt, what do these results actually tell us? The answer is precisely the lesson the greenstremists do not want us to learn: That Earth's climate is not fragile, apart from outside influences like the sun. Modern human civilization could not "destroy the planet" (apart from an all-out nuclear holocaust) if tried by simply existing. And the biosphere reacts and adjusts to and, yes, counteracts such minor influences. The atmospheric CO2 levels increase? More vegetation sprouts to absorb it. And what does more plants mean? Cooling to offset the "warming". You know the greenies' paganistic belief that the planet is itself "alive"? Well, here is ironic evidence for that Gaiastic assertion.
Remember the 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Remember how the enviros shrieked that it was going to turn the Gulf and the "sun coast" into a graveyard? Remember how natural bacteria broke down and consumed the slick by the end of that summer? Do you see why I'm asking all these rhetorical questions?
Nature, it seems, is becoming the greenstremists' worst enemy. Or, rather, was all along.
Exit question: Should all these additional flora be clear-cut and destroyed so that global temperatures can resume their "catastrophic rise"?