Scientist admits that man is “very good” for plants, animals, and wildlife

  Back in January of this year I wrote a post about the theory that global warming was actually saving the rainforests. Here is a brief and simplified version of the oxygen cycle that I shared with my readers in that post:

  Humans inhale oxygen and exhale a mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Plants and trees “inhale” carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen.

  And I continued with how the global warming alarmists counter real science with their own “science” of global warming:

  While this is a naturally occurring cycle which is necessary to sustain all life on the planet, because the process of oil refinery, as well as other manufacturing, emits additional carbon dioxide into the air carbon dioxide has been ruled to be a pollutant because plant and trees cannot absorb the additional “non-natural” carbon dioxide.  This in turn leads to global warming and if it is not dealt with quickly it will mean the ultimate destruction of the planet. So we are told…

  So basically man is still destroying the planet with the additional release of carbon dioxide which is not natural according to the alarmists and of course they were forced to ignore the story about how it was helping the rainforests because it did not fit their climate models.

  And now another award-winning scientist has come out and stated what I was trying to say in that post when he said man is “very good” for plants, animals, and wildlife. Here is more:

“Well, what I would like to emphasize is that human actions have very large effects on the ecology which have nothing to do with climate. Carbon dioxide is what we’re producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere,” Dyson said. “It happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production.

“So it has many benefits,” Dyson said, “and this is something you have together with the climate effects, which are much less certain. So it’s a question of drawing a balance. I’m just saying I don’t understand it, and neither does anybody else.

“I’m skeptical, because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately, a lot of the experts really believe they understand it and maybe have the wrong answer,” Dyson said.

  He admits that he does not understand it but he also states that nobody does and yet we are continually told the science is settled. If the science is indeed settled was is NASA “adjusting” historical temperatures to make it appear as if the earth is warming? Shouldn’t the “science” stand on its own if it is indeed science? Why does it need the help?

  More and more scientists are calling the theory of global warming nonsense and yet the left continues to say that 99% of scientists agree that global warming is a threat. You would think that as more scientists speak out against the alarmists that percentage would eventually drop if they were being honest with us, but of course they ignore anyone who holds a conflicting opinion in order to keep the percentage the same in their own minds.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium