Very interesting, and lends even more argument to the damage that net zero is causing. Good agricultural land, for one, given up for acres of solar panels or wind turbines. Nature needs to be cherished, not obliterated.
Hmmmm not sure about oil fields unless they’re sunflower or rape, and gas? Maybe beans? Meantime, having been part of a farming family though not in the U.K., I have to concede that glass shattered to smithereens and lithium don’t sound like the ideal growing medium.
Good news and should be reported in the news media. However, I have question that I hope someone can answer.
I recently came across Liebig’s Law. I believe he was a 19th Century chemist who discovered that plant growth is not determined by the total amount of available nutrients, but by whichever nutrient is scarcest. Thus? A plant cannot grow beyond the capacity of its limiting factor.
It's called a "limiting factor", and includes water and temperature (climate) as well.
So yea, you can have all the CO2 you want, but it doesn't do any good in drought, flood, cold or a climate that is just too variable for the species to survive reliably.
Quoting the idiot headline "climate emergency fails to materialize" does you a lot of discredit, dude.
I don't recall anyone ever saying there aren't some good things that can come from a warming world. I also don't see people like you acknowledging the difficulties that are being experienced by more and more people.
You whine about people not acknowledging you, maybe it's because you're so busy looking for excuses to deny the harmful effects of AGW (now that you can no longer deny it's happening) that people have stopped taking oyu seriously.
You seem to have an agenda, and when you prove otherwise, you can be seen as a serious player. Until then you're just another denier clown.
You have said nothing useful. Yes, the human factor in today’s climate change is undeniable, but sadly, any studies which show benefits are largely downplayed or just ignored.
I suggest that you study the data produced by Roger Pielke Jnr on his Substack.
Actually, the "greening" is used as part of he mass balance for determining the sources and sinks of various CO2 reservoirs, including our fossil fuel emissions. So no, it's not "ignored". It's just there hasn't been any demonstrable evidence that it's doing any specific good, aside from the general "greening" that deniers like to trumpet.
When you can prove it offsets the calamities that are getting worse, and making lives harder for millions, we can discuss net benefits. So far that ain't happening.
As for net benefits; More evidence of global greening from carbon dioxide fertilisation has been published in the prestigious publication Nature. The research involved 70 experiments and three decades of field data from many locations in the savannah of South Africa’s Kruger National Park. The international scientific team was led by Dr Kimberley Simpson of the University of Sheffield, the paper entitled ‘Increasing CO2 levels fertilise C4 grass production‘. Phys.org reported the study as follows: ‘Rising carbon dioxide is supercharging grass growth in African savannas, study finds.’ The latest study challenges the previously held view that the dominant grasses in the savannah (known as ‘C4’) benefit little from rising levels of carbon dioxide.
"....it noted the risk of increased fuel for wildfires, possible changes to the distribution of foraging animals and that extra grass production may not feed into long-term carbon storage. Simpson commented that: “More grass does not automatically mean more carbon will be stored. The wider impact depends on where the extra grass ends up. If it is eaten by animals or burned in fires, much of the carbon is quickly released back into the atmosphere.”"
This is the same trick employed by Ranga Myneni when he co-published a comprehensive study for NASA in 2015/16 on a greening planet. Substantial greening was observed via satellite over 35 years, 70% of which was attributed to CO₂.
Then with a sweep of the pen the study is condemned:
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."
For which there is little to no evidence, and:
“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
Yes, we understand that optimum plant growth occurs around 1,000 to 1,200 ppm following which the effect is negligible. So planet Earth appears to be less than half way to humans having to hack our way out our front doors through undergrowth every morning.
But these ghouls simply cannot resist the attempt to dynamite their own scientific studies with spurious claims of imminent catastrophe. Indeed, the pile on over the recent Nepal disaster being caused by 'climate change' only for it to be established that it was caused by the glaciers supporting rock structure to have collapsed under the weight of ice.
The problem you have is your "sweep of the pen" contention that atmospheric CO₂ is harmful is not only exposed as nonsense but also the source of that nonsense, the US Obama-era EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) "endangerment finding", has been rescinded by the US Supreme Court.
"EPA’s “Futility” Rationale for Rescinding the Endangerment Finding"
As an additional and independent rationale, EPA asserts that the GHG emission standards under CAA Section 202(a)(1) are futile in addressing global climate change and thus the standards are unreasonable to retain. Specifically, EPA contends that the emission standards have “no more than a trivial effect” on the public health and welfare impacts identified in the Endangerment Finding. EPA argues that even a complete elimination of all GHG emissions from motor vehicles in the U.S. would have a limited effect on global GHG concentrations, and thus, the GHG emissions regulations under CAA Section 202(a)(1) are futile in addressing the identified concern. According to EPA, allowing a regulation’s de minimis impacts on the identified danger would be “unreasonable and impermissible” given the costs associated with implementing GHG vehicle emission standards, thereby serving as an independent basis for rescinding the Endangerment Finding.
The IPCC told us that even under the recently abandoned RCP 8.5 scenario:
"An increase in heat extremes has emerged or will emerge in the coming three decades in most land regions (high confidence)
There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions.
There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations for any type of drought in all regions.
Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remain of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, and sand and dust storms)." (Analysis by Dr. Roger Pielk Jr.)
The IPCC even kindly provides the public with a handy chart illustrating precisely what Pielke describes. (Table 12:12)
Of course, now that RCP 8.5 has been abandoned as "implausible" (https://www.aei.org/commentary/rcp8-5-is-officially-dead/) our attention can turn to the decades-long predictions of increasing frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, which decreased. Then we were told that whilst they were decreasing in frequency, they were increasing in strength, but no evidence of that exists.
Finally, the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season ended with not one single hurricane reported. That's not 'one single hurricane didn't make landfall'; it is, 'not one single hurricane was observed across the entire Atlantic Ocean' by any means.
Wildfires (not yet mentioned). In decline in every region in the world.
Data source: Global Wildfire Information System (2026):
Excellent article. It’s critical to expose the hoax created around CO2. Either with articles like this showing its impact on the planet greening, bigger crops, less infant mortality rate, etc. And/Or, more scientifically, explaining CO2 residual if not negligible (according to W. Happer et al) effect on the warming of the planet’s climate. Most debates ASSUME that there is a need to decarbonise; the while discussion is biased. It’s about time to challenge that assumption based on robust independent science and continue to expose the hoax!
Clearly Kimberley Simpson doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecological succession or the hydrological cycle. Plants using less water, as they don't need to open stomata for carbon dioxide for as long, reduces demand for soil water. The soil moisture enables plant nutrient uptake. That in turn enables the support of greater vegetative biomass which has a cooling effect and also plants will age naturally and eventually die, decompose and increase soil nutrients, organic matter and moisture retention followed progression to the next successional stage of the particular habitat. Its the exact opposite of desertification. Even the plant material consumed in fires will only return part of the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, the rest blows on to the land as particulates in smoke and increases nutrient levels, so there will still be a reduction. The herbivores which consume the extra vegetation which grows are reasonably long lived and so will lock up the carbon in body tissues. In Africa think about Elephants. Also, more abundant food for herbivores means their population increases and supports an increase in carnivores which locks up the carbon for even longer. Humans consumption of the extra crop and livestock biomass do the same. So overall there will be a positive outcome. Afterall, any ecosystem is always in a state of dynamic equilibrium, constantly adjusting to the natural fluxes of nutrients, water, temperature, solar radiation etc just as the earth in its entirety does.
Very interesting, and lends even more argument to the damage that net zero is causing. Good agricultural land, for one, given up for acres of solar panels or wind turbines. Nature needs to be cherished, not obliterated.
Lots of agriculture works just fine, and better, in PV fields.
Now do oil and gas fields.
Hmmmm not sure about oil fields unless they’re sunflower or rape, and gas? Maybe beans? Meantime, having been part of a farming family though not in the U.K., I have to concede that glass shattered to smithereens and lithium don’t sound like the ideal growing medium.
Well mo, but the. There’s not any of that, so it’s just another ABC/denier straw man.
Good news and should be reported in the news media. However, I have question that I hope someone can answer.
I recently came across Liebig’s Law. I believe he was a 19th Century chemist who discovered that plant growth is not determined by the total amount of available nutrients, but by whichever nutrient is scarcest. Thus? A plant cannot grow beyond the capacity of its limiting factor.
Does this hold true today?
It's called a "limiting factor", and includes water and temperature (climate) as well.
So yea, you can have all the CO2 you want, but it doesn't do any good in drought, flood, cold or a climate that is just too variable for the species to survive reliably.
Quoting the idiot headline "climate emergency fails to materialize" does you a lot of discredit, dude.
I don't recall anyone ever saying there aren't some good things that can come from a warming world. I also don't see people like you acknowledging the difficulties that are being experienced by more and more people.
You whine about people not acknowledging you, maybe it's because you're so busy looking for excuses to deny the harmful effects of AGW (now that you can no longer deny it's happening) that people have stopped taking oyu seriously.
You seem to have an agenda, and when you prove otherwise, you can be seen as a serious player. Until then you're just another denier clown.
You have said nothing useful. Yes, the human factor in today’s climate change is undeniable, but sadly, any studies which show benefits are largely downplayed or just ignored.
I suggest that you study the data produced by Roger Pielke Jnr on his Substack.
Actually, the "greening" is used as part of he mass balance for determining the sources and sinks of various CO2 reservoirs, including our fossil fuel emissions. So no, it's not "ignored". It's just there hasn't been any demonstrable evidence that it's doing any specific good, aside from the general "greening" that deniers like to trumpet.
When you can prove it offsets the calamities that are getting worse, and making lives harder for millions, we can discuss net benefits. So far that ain't happening.
As for net benefits; More evidence of global greening from carbon dioxide fertilisation has been published in the prestigious publication Nature. The research involved 70 experiments and three decades of field data from many locations in the savannah of South Africa’s Kruger National Park. The international scientific team was led by Dr Kimberley Simpson of the University of Sheffield, the paper entitled ‘Increasing CO2 levels fertilise C4 grass production‘. Phys.org reported the study as follows: ‘Rising carbon dioxide is supercharging grass growth in African savannas, study finds.’ The latest study challenges the previously held view that the dominant grasses in the savannah (known as ‘C4’) benefit little from rising levels of carbon dioxide.
I don't see anything that supports YOUR claim of "net benefit".
"....it noted the risk of increased fuel for wildfires, possible changes to the distribution of foraging animals and that extra grass production may not feed into long-term carbon storage. Simpson commented that: “More grass does not automatically mean more carbon will be stored. The wider impact depends on where the extra grass ends up. If it is eaten by animals or burned in fires, much of the carbon is quickly released back into the atmosphere.”"
This is the same trick employed by Ranga Myneni when he co-published a comprehensive study for NASA in 2015/16 on a greening planet. Substantial greening was observed via satellite over 35 years, 70% of which was attributed to CO₂.
Then with a sweep of the pen the study is condemned:
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."
For which there is little to no evidence, and:
“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
Yes, we understand that optimum plant growth occurs around 1,000 to 1,200 ppm following which the effect is negligible. So planet Earth appears to be less than half way to humans having to hack our way out our front doors through undergrowth every morning.
But these ghouls simply cannot resist the attempt to dynamite their own scientific studies with spurious claims of imminent catastrophe. Indeed, the pile on over the recent Nepal disaster being caused by 'climate change' only for it to be established that it was caused by the glaciers supporting rock structure to have collapsed under the weight of ice.
Now look for the 2019 study that superseded that one.
With the "sweep of the pen" deniers thought they had an exit card for AGW. Nope.
There are numerous studies since Myneni's which confirm it; there are too many to list, but here are just a few.
2025 - Uncovering true significant trends in global greening
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352938524002416
2024 - The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262#cited-by
2026 - Global greening: Study shows Earth's green wave is shifting northeast
https://phys.org/news/2026-02-global-greening-earth-green-shifting.html
2026 - Rising carbon dioxide is supercharging grass growth in African savannas, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2026-08-carbon-dioxide-supercharging-grass-growth.html
The problem you have is your "sweep of the pen" contention that atmospheric CO₂ is harmful is not only exposed as nonsense but also the source of that nonsense, the US Obama-era EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) "endangerment finding", has been rescinded by the US Supreme Court.
"EPA’s “Futility” Rationale for Rescinding the Endangerment Finding"
As an additional and independent rationale, EPA asserts that the GHG emission standards under CAA Section 202(a)(1) are futile in addressing global climate change and thus the standards are unreasonable to retain. Specifically, EPA contends that the emission standards have “no more than a trivial effect” on the public health and welfare impacts identified in the Endangerment Finding. EPA argues that even a complete elimination of all GHG emissions from motor vehicles in the U.S. would have a limited effect on global GHG concentrations, and thus, the GHG emissions regulations under CAA Section 202(a)(1) are futile in addressing the identified concern. According to EPA, allowing a regulation’s de minimis impacts on the identified danger would be “unreasonable and impermissible” given the costs associated with implementing GHG vehicle emission standards, thereby serving as an independent basis for rescinding the Endangerment Finding.
https://www.kirkland.com/publications/kirkland-alert/2026/03/us-environmental-protection-agency-issues-final-rule
You should reconsider your cult obsession.
Now tell us what the net benefit of all this “global greening” is when compared to the increasing disruption caused to people’s lives by AGW.
What increasing disruption?
The IPCC told us that even under the recently abandoned RCP 8.5 scenario:
"An increase in heat extremes has emerged or will emerge in the coming three decades in most land regions (high confidence)
There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions.
There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations for any type of drought in all regions.
Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remain of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, and sand and dust storms)." (Analysis by Dr. Roger Pielk Jr.)
The IPCC even kindly provides the public with a handy chart illustrating precisely what Pielke describes. (Table 12:12)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf
Of course, now that RCP 8.5 has been abandoned as "implausible" (https://www.aei.org/commentary/rcp8-5-is-officially-dead/) our attention can turn to the decades-long predictions of increasing frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, which decreased. Then we were told that whilst they were decreasing in frequency, they were increasing in strength, but no evidence of that exists.
Finally, the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season ended with not one single hurricane reported. That's not 'one single hurricane didn't make landfall'; it is, 'not one single hurricane was observed across the entire Atlantic Ocean' by any means.
Wildfires (not yet mentioned). In decline in every region in the world.
Data source: Global Wildfire Information System (2026):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-area-burnt-by-wildfires-gwis
Sea level rise? No human-induced acceleration observed. https://globalocean.noaa.gov/the-ocean/sea-level/
Anything else I can help you with?
Excellent article. It’s critical to expose the hoax created around CO2. Either with articles like this showing its impact on the planet greening, bigger crops, less infant mortality rate, etc. And/Or, more scientifically, explaining CO2 residual if not negligible (according to W. Happer et al) effect on the warming of the planet’s climate. Most debates ASSUME that there is a need to decarbonise; the while discussion is biased. It’s about time to challenge that assumption based on robust independent science and continue to expose the hoax!
No hoax, dude. A bit of "greening" doesn't offset the difficulties that more and more people are experiencing from the more chaotic climate.
Clearly Kimberley Simpson doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecological succession or the hydrological cycle. Plants using less water, as they don't need to open stomata for carbon dioxide for as long, reduces demand for soil water. The soil moisture enables plant nutrient uptake. That in turn enables the support of greater vegetative biomass which has a cooling effect and also plants will age naturally and eventually die, decompose and increase soil nutrients, organic matter and moisture retention followed progression to the next successional stage of the particular habitat. Its the exact opposite of desertification. Even the plant material consumed in fires will only return part of the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, the rest blows on to the land as particulates in smoke and increases nutrient levels, so there will still be a reduction. The herbivores which consume the extra vegetation which grows are reasonably long lived and so will lock up the carbon in body tissues. In Africa think about Elephants. Also, more abundant food for herbivores means their population increases and supports an increase in carnivores which locks up the carbon for even longer. Humans consumption of the extra crop and livestock biomass do the same. So overall there will be a positive outcome. Afterall, any ecosystem is always in a state of dynamic equilibrium, constantly adjusting to the natural fluxes of nutrients, water, temperature, solar radiation etc just as the earth in its entirety does.
Has there been any evidence that any of your claims are actually happening?
If they take up less water there is actually LESS nutrition (mineral) uptake.
Oh, the scientist rediscovered the benefits of photosynthesis... And the Watermelons are upset about it... Well, colour me surprised, not!