The good of CO2 outweighs the bad

The good of carbon dioxide outweighs the bad, according to a new study by Indur M. Goklany for the The Global Warming Policy Foundation

The good, unfortunately, is not often discussed in the many rants warning about how manmade CO2 will warm the Earth to disastrous levels.

The study concludes, according to Freeman Dyson, who wrote in the study's preface:

First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects ob- served in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial.

Here are the study's major findings:

  1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
  2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
  3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide con- centrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
  4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.
  5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types.
  6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.
  7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environ- mental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming.
  8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere produc- tivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
  9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
  10. Itisverylikelythattheimpactofrisingcarbondioxideconcentrationsiscurrently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the ben- efits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Be predictable. Be the first person to post a comment that the study has no credibility because of who the author is and who funded it. Don't bother discussing any of the substance. Be predictable. And never mind that  global warming alarmists are funded by ideological, political and governmental sources that are caught up with their own biases.

Visit my new freelance writer website at


Leave a comment
  • So 97% of the scientific community is wrong. That takes care of that crisis.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I didn't say they are wrong. But I do have questions about the science, such as how does cloud formation affect global warming? By the way, the figure of 97 percent of the "scientific community" is bogus. Perhaps you meant that 97 percent of climate scientists. Or 97 percent of scientists survey by climate panickers.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    If that percent is wrong, please share the correct percent with your readers.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Wait, you're the one who cited the number. What is your source? As I indicated, I doubt that 97 percent of the "scientific community" agrees. I doubt that 97 percent of all scientists can agree on anything.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    My source, among many, is

    What is yours?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I looked at and didn't find your evidence. It did, however, say 97 percent of CLIMATE scientists, not (all) scientists agree. Try not to be so loose with the claims.

  • fb_avatar

    The 97% is bogus in and of itself..... and science is all about disagreement not consensus.....try "Climatism" by Steve Goreham for an over view of the hoax

  • What about this guy ( He's a scientist and a liberal and he agrees with everything Obama has to say except the part about man made global warming.

    Why is it that this day in age it's a sin to give those scientists that disagree with the foregone conclusion that climate change is man made their due? There is a whole list of scientists, many whom are liberal, that do not buy into the man made climate change argument. The belief that there is disagreement amongst scientists on this topic should mean that I want dirty water/air, and it should mean I'm a right-wing nut. All it means is A) that I've acknowledge there are people smarter than me on this topic and B) all their arguments should be taken into consideration without political pressures and biases before making major public policy decisions.

  • Well said.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: