On hundred years ago, Scientific American relied on empirical data. Based on experimental evidence and hundreds of millions of years of earth history, they published this article explaining why increased atmospheric CO2 levels would benefit agriculture.
“Fertilizing the air with carbon dioxide to promote plant growth
ONE of the principal constituents making up the body of a plant is carbon, representing about one-half of its organic substance. The opinion that this carbon is derived from the soil has long been abandoned, modern investigation having shown atmospheric carbonic acid to be absorbed by means 0f the chlorophyll 0r green matter of the leaves and decomposed into its elements, the carbon, in conjunction with the root sap and atmospheric m0isture, being worked into organic compounds.
Whereas atmospheric air at present is relatively poor in carb0nic acid, of which it contains only about .03 per cent, at an early period in the development of our planet, when this was covered with the luxuriant forests our coal deposits are derived from, it comprised incomparably greater quantities of this gas. This fact suggested the idea of heightening the fertility of the soil by increasing its carbonic acid content and thus producing conditions resembling those of antediluvian ages.”
This view has been confirmed by lots more empirical data since the 1920 article.
But now Scientific American no longer relies on evidence, and instead promotes baseless speculation by people whom they call “experts.”
Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life.
The greatest expansion of life on earth occurred when CO2 was at its peak 540 million years ago.
Plant life thrived when CO2 levels were much higher during the early Carboniferous Era. That is the reason we have our current coal beds, which are sequestered CO2.
Scientific American is rejecting basic science which has been known for centuries, and replacing it with mindless and inflammatory anti-science propaganda.
In 2012, Scientific American said that the scientific community had a range of opinions about when Arctic sea ice will be gone, ranging from before 2015 to “by 2030 or 2040.”
If we look at the actual trend in sea ice data since the start of MASIE records in 2006, the Arctic won’t be ice-free for 270 years.
Based on the summer minimum extent over the past 14 years, the Arctic won’t be ice-free for 214 years. The “experts” being quoted by Scientific American are simply making numbers up.
Our top experts said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2008.
And President Obama’s science adviser predicted ice-free winters.
…if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.
Scientific American has tried to erase the history of the 1970s global cooling scare, saying that it consisted of nine paragraphs in Newsweek.
There are tens of thousands of newspaper articles and other publications from the time which discussed this – here are a few of the them.
Front Page of the New York Times, July 18, 1970. US and Soviet scientists were worried about Arctic cooling and expanding Arctic ice, and wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading coal dust on it.
The Director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his leading scientist were pushing global cooling.
Climate experts wanted to melt the Arctic to stop global cooling.
In this 2015 article they claim the Little Ice Age was started in 1492 by Christopher Columbus killing native Americans and enslaving Africans. Impressive how many politically correct themes they packed into a single piece of politically motivated junk science.
Moving to a different topic, on September 15, 2020 Scientific American published this article praising the “science based” approach of New Mexico Governor Wuhan Lujan – i.e. lockdowns, masks, deprivation of freedom, work and income, etc.
Cases immediately skyrocketed after article was written.
The reality is that Scientific American is no longer a scientific magazine, and has been taken over by propagandists pushing a political agenda intended to destroy America.
via Real Climate Science