Studies Show That Global Warming is Good

With an approximate 925  million people suffering from hunger and malnutrition in the World one would assume that their health should take precedent over stopping global warming. That is the basis for Sherwood Idso‘s argument that global warming is, in fact, a good thing.

He does not adhere to the usual debate over whether or not Global Warming is occurring. He argues that increased CO2 is key to

A seated, listless child, who was among many k...

crop fertilization that sustains biodiversity and averts worldwide famine, and since Global Warming increases CO2 it helps reduce starvation.

If Global Warming was reversed by environmentalists and Barack Obama’s alternative energy plans one would expect to see a proportional decrease in available resources. Thus leading to resource wars between struggling leaders in attempt to save their nations.

Such an assertion requires extraordinary research and credible sources. After further research (AKA reading the first line on Idso’s Wikipedia, link here) it came to my attention that Idso’s “research” organization, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, had received donations from Exxon Mobil.

So, just how powerful are corporations? Powerful enough to fund research projects as credible as a creationist argument.


21 Responses to Studies Show That Global Warming is Good

  1. imbrocata says:

    No bias here at all.. move along;-) Nice post.

  2. gigoid says:

    Thank you! I chuckled out loud for a full minute when I read the title of this post, and couldn’t wait to read what it said. When I found you had already found the fatal flaws, it was still cool, and I’m still chuckling over this nincompoop. Great word,eh, just made for folks like this “scientist”…. not to limbaugh you, but ditto the above comment… nice post,,,, 🙂

  3. tobeforgiven says:

    I’ve been reading your blog for a couple days. I found your first couple posts interesting, and was impressed that someone so young seems to understand how to think.
    However, in your last few posts I am seeing you slip a bit.

    Now it’s easy to post lots of stuff that you, and many others think are silly (as I agree this is also silly), and then calle it “a pathetic arguement”. But you should never discount anything until you do the research.

    The great thing about the internet is that you are always confronted with new ideas. The bad thing is that often we accept those ideas or deny those ideas without really studying them.

    So if your going to do something like this please give me proof. (More than just two articles that cite the same study). Take your time, and you will learn a great deal.

    You moved on quickly from your last post about planned parenthood after accepting what the commenter said as truth, though he (gigoid) cited nothing to support his claim.

    Take the time to learn, and challenge yourself.

  4. willtellsall says:

    Enviro-statists have but one goal. To subdue the citizen through over regulation… faulty information or not.

  5. It is fascinating to watch each new incarnation of the denialist gambit. More fascinating still to see how successful these guys have been in selling this junk.

  6. That’s true. But global warming will also result in rising sea levels, and with most big cities situated around and on the coastline, Sydney, New York etc.
    The millions of starving children who may die, are well-over balanced by the millions of coastline living people, who also happen to harbour most of the worlds technology, intelligence, and resources.
    The environment will also suffer a lot more with a warming climate.

    • Ethan Hill says:

      Oh, they have an argument for that too! they say that it will melt ice caps which will increase trade routes and food distribution. I am skeptical of that especially because food distribution could solve hunger now, but a few too many world leaders/rich men are very greedy.

      • willtellsall says:

        Fact: Over the earth’s history there have been countless climate changes completely out of the control of any “man-made” gas.

        Fact: “Global Warming Science” has been proven manufactured and fraudulent on several occasions. Other claims of global warming have solid science behind them.

        Fact: Man made gasses have been shown to create additional factors that contribute to “global warming”.

        I wont cite these facts because no matter what side of the debate one is on… if they have done their homework they know all of this. It would be very smart of every person to pay attention to their “carbon footprint” [though I cringe using that phrase] if not for the preservation of their own “little” environment only.

        The problem with “environmentalism” is it’s a mechanism for SOME to gain control over large swaths of people “for their own good” or for the good of the “environment”. The previous gentleman who asked you to please look at all sides had a point but there are so many sides to the environmental “issue” that is easier said than done. Think about this:

        How does the EPA effect brushing your teeth?

        The water to one’s faucet is regulated on several levels by the EPA. The toothpaste is regulated by the FDA beginning with the location the vitamins and minerals in the product are sourced and on nearly every single level of the manufacturing, transportation, and even sales (packaging regulations). The type of material the tube is made out of is regulated by the FDA in order to determine and control it’s “environmental impact” when discarded. Every single step in the life of a tube of tooth paste is regulated by the EPA.

        The counter argument is always “we need the EPA or companies would run wild and destroy the environment”. True. There is no argument supporting the alternative because we know that when many are left to their own devices… they have no accountability. The problem with the EPA is when it becomes a massive leviathan that can be used to regulate the citizen NOT the environment… and that is definitely the case today some 40+ years after its creation. The agency touches every single step of the life of a tube of toothpaste including the water that comes out of one’s faucet… think about how the EPA is involved with drinking water if you like mental torment.

        Anyhow, when one considers the United States government “consumes” 25% of EVERY dollar that is earned in this country, it becomes disconcerting to learn about how much fraud and waste their is the government. On top of that another 11% of every dollar goes to government regulations. Regulations have become another way of taxing the citizen, controlling the citizen, and violating the citizen’s private property rights with no recourse on the part of the citizen. Not every time mind you, the EPA does good, but there have also been countless egregious violations of citizen rights based on “crazed” EPA agendas.

        Environmentalism is an onion with many layers and one must wade through a lot of “pollution” from all sides in order to see the real picture.

        Now, as far as your blog goes I was under the impression that is was a quick opinion piece not a researched editorial. Maybe I was under the wrong impression BUT if you are in need of some good resources and tips/tricks for finding solids original sources/cites I would be happy to provide you with many resources I have found invaluable. Sure, I said many things in this response that can be challenged but didn’t feel the need to cite because this is an opinion to your blog and following commentary. Of course I would be more than happy to provide cites and even happier to be challenged. Keep writing… there’s not enough of us. Pls excuse any errors as the only editing I completed was a quick spell check

        Will Tell

      • Nate says:

        Hi Will,

        I think you make a great overall point. Personally, I’m not as bothered by government regulations, especially when I think about things like the Ohio River Fire. It would be great if we lived in a society where everyone acted responsibly and we could trust businesses and individuals to do the right thing — but since we don’t live in such a world, I view regulations as about the only alternative. It seems like you do too, though we probably have different thresholds about what constitutes over-reaching.

        But as I said, I think your overall point about doing the hard work to be as fully informed as possible about the issues is spot on.

      • Yes, a few extra trade routes may be good, but the consequence of a few extra trade routes is the loss of millions of people living on coast-lines.

  7. Nate says:

    That picture just kills me.

    Nice post though — I’ve really enjoyed your blog so far.

    • willtellsall says:

      Thanks Nate I appreciate the feed back. I’m a chronic pain patient (seventeen year career chronic pain patient on levels most pain management specialists consider “one of thier worst cases”). A few years ago I decided to write a book on how I am able to walk through hell with a smile on my face. This desire eventually turned into WHY I have been forced to live in pain unnecessarily for seventeen years. The NARCOTIC that finally helped me was available when I was hurt in ’95 (rollover, ejected from full size truck at 100mph, and crushed by truck… 35 day coma, never supposed to survive much less walk again) and I’m actually on half the dose I was prescribed three years ago.

      I turned down narcotics for twelve years after originally being dubbed a drug seeker 1 month after my release from a 6 month hospitalization. I was destroyed physically but cast aside like I was nothing. The following twelve years I was accused of drug seeking multiple times even though I was demanding to be fixed w/o tolerance building narcotics. I had to figure out why. My search led me to the 1914 Harrison Anti-Narcotics Tax Act and a century long war on pain patients and those who treat them. All due to govt. regulations [ton of info at if interested… especially on ASSET FORFEITURE which is a narcotic agent’s tool to destroy medical professional without regard and removing their ability to defend themselves financially… all on a HUNCH]. Since then my research has been ongoing for two years and as someone who believes very strongly in the image the founding fathers painted I am very disturbed by the behind the scenes roadblocks the average citizen encounters on a daily basis due to govt programs overreaching their intended limits. My point for Ethan was the environmental issue is especially convoluted. Thanks for the response Nate!!!

      Will Tell

  8. azleader says:

    Idso’s point is well taken.

    Even if it were possible for humankind to reverse the effects of global warming, its doubtfull there is the collective global political will to do so.

    For proof just look at the debacle of the Kyoto Protocol and how that is playing out.

  9. Tyson Adams says:

    The scary thing about this rubbish on CO2 is that people actually believe it. We even had people calling it plant food. As a plant scientist I’m constantly busting this myth.

    I’d really like to introduce an idiot detector test for anyone making public comment. This test would basically be the equivalent of passing high school science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: