April 26, 2019
Plants are producing more pollen as a reaction to Global Warming, according to a moron, er, allergist.
Selwyn Duke has the story at The New American:
The newscaster, Sophia Hall, outlined the matter and then played a couple of clips from one Dr. Payel Gupta, an allergist at ENT & Allergy Associates’ Manhattan, NYC office. After mentioning some basic signs of allergies and diagnostic options, Gupta channeled Al Gore and played climatologist, explaining that Global Warming™ was exacerbating the problem.
"‘Climate change and global warming and how that [sic] impacting allergies and essentially, each pollen season is getting a little bit worse because, essentially, the plant [sic] feel in danger of extinction and [are] releasing more and more pollen because they’re worried that they’re not gonna be around for too long,’ she said,” WCBS relates — essentially.
I do not know if Gupta, aside from being an allergist and closet climatologist but not much of a linguist, is also a plant psychologist. But I had no idea the poor flora were agonizing over their impending doom.
I despair of human stupidity.
Selwyn does a fine job of debunking this nonsense. As he rightly points out, carbon dioxide is what plants eat and breathe, and more of it is a good thing from their perspective. So is more heat; plants like warmth, much more than cold. Oh, if the Earth did warm up some Arctic tundra may not persist, but it would be replaced by lusher, more robust vegetation. Plants aren't in panic over a fraction of a single degree of planetary warming. Plants on Earth well predate animal life, and especially human life. They've been through much warmer and much colder periods and gotten by just fine.
Selwyn points out:
CO2, which is supposedly increasing because of globull warming, is not a pollutant — it’s plant food.
This is why, green ones, human botanists kindly pump it into greenhouses. It’s why crop yields are greater when CO2 levels are higher. (Okay, I’m sorry, we do eat some of you. But the flip side is that marketable plants are under no threat of extinction.) It’s also why the dinosaur age, when CO2 levels were five to 10 times today’s, was characterized by lush foliage everywhere.
Also consider the following:
• Climate data appear very unreliable, and many scientists say that the temperature ceased rising approximately 20 years ago. Moreover, one report indicates that Arctic sea ice is the same thickness now as it was 75 years ago.
• The claim that "97 percent of scientists affirm” man-caused global warming was always false. There’s much disagreement on the matter, and, besides, "consensus” isn’t a term of science, but politics.
• Climate models have been consistently wrong, yet alarmists still want them to shape policy. Is this rational? Would you take a "hot stock tip” from a broker who’d been consistently wrong for more than a generation?
(More science-denier-debunking climate realism here.)
In truth, my stationary friends, you should thank us. Astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James warned in 2013 that life on Earth will end because of too little CO2 (in approximately one billion years), as you plants can’t photosynthesize when levels are too low. Moreover, some scientists believe we’re poised to enter another ice age, and most living things — flora especially — fare far better in warmer temperatures. So if the anthropogenic-climate-change thesis were true, perhaps we’d just be forestalling your demise.This is dim-witted beyond words.
35 queries taking 0.3447 seconds, 113 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.