The Definitive Answer: YES! (updated 11/11/15)

Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate CO2?
GWPF Annual Lecture by Patrick Moore “Should we celebrate CO2?”

“Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from 
inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2”. To use 
the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old 
we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards 
the End Times. If that isn’t good news I don’t know what is. You 
don’t get to stave off Armageddon every day."

The ignorance displayed by ‘Climate Change’ activism and activists is staggering to say the least.
All of the illogical hand-wringing and irrational fears promulgated about atmospheric CO2 are laid bare in this important lecture by Patrick Moore, ex-Greenpeace co-founder, PhD in ecology in 1971. In this lecture he lays out the facts about CO2, the lack of correlation with temperature, the precipitous decline since the Cambrian era, its necessity for life on Earth, and how our use of fossil fuels and the release of sequestered CO2 may just have bought more time for life on Earth to continue! The entire lecture is well worth your time to read. He even addresses the Canadian Oil Sands issue, and the benefits of “cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill in history.”

"If we assume human emissions have to date added some 200 billion 
tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, even if we ceased using fossil fuels 
today we have already bought another 5 million years for life on 
earth. But we will not stop using fossil fuels to power our 
civilization so it is likely that we can forestall plant starvation 
for lack of CO2 by at least 65 million years."

Regarding the end of the Carboniferous Era, Patrick says,

"The Devonian Period beginning 400 million years ago marked the 
culmination of the invasion of life onto the land. Plants evolved 
to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood 
which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall, in 
competition with each other for sunlight. As vast forests spread 
across the land living biomass increased by orders of magnitude, 
pulling down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin 
is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed 
the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they 
were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great 
coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon 
continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the 
future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that 
can digest lignin and coincident with that the coal-making era came 
to an end.
There was no guarantee that fungi or any other decomposer species 
would develop the complex of enzymes required to digest lignin. If 
they had not, CO2, which had already been drawn down for the first 
time in Earth’s history to levels similar to today's, would have 
continued to decline as trees continued to grow and die. That is 
until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants 
begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die. 
Not just woody plants but all plants. This would bring about the 
extinction of most, if not all, terrestrial species, as animals, 
insects, and other invertebrates starved for lack of food. And that 
would be that. The human species would never have existed. This was 
only the first time that there was a distinct possibility that life 
would come close to extinguishing itself, due to a shortage of CO2, 
which is essential for life on Earth."

Read the entire text of his lecture here:

Hat tip to WUWT

(Update 11/11/15) White Rot Fungi Slowed Coal Formation

What Is The Real Cause of Severe Weather?

Claims from the ‘Global Warming/Climate Changers’ side of the ‘debate’ about ‘Earth’s climate’ say that a warmer world has more severe weather. This is a misdirect, and is wholly untrue. The main cause of extreme and severe weather is an increased difference between warm regions and cold regions. When considering Earth’s overall climate(the Earth actually has many climates, but that is a different discussion), the warm regions are the Tropics, and the cold regions are the Poles.
It is the temperature gradient between these two regions that dictate the severity of weather in a given location.

Even during intense Glacial epochs, the Tropics remain relatively warm, simply because of their location close to the equator and the fact that they receive more sunlight and hence more warming than do the Arctic and Antarctic, but because of the tight temperature gradient, a cooling overall climate is more likely to have severe weather. In a world where warming was ubiquitous, there would be a decreased Pole to Tropic temperature gradient, and therefore less extreme weather occurrences. Perhaps that is what we have seen with the last few years of very low Hurricane activity especially noted in the Atlantic activity.

Severe weather is more likely to be seen during transitional Cooling periods, as well as transitional Warming periods, but not as likely during the stasis periods between.
Although severe weather can happen anytime conditions are right.

Dr. Tim Ball, Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982, has written a concise article exploring the claim that ‘a warming world will have more severe weather,’ and the historical evidence that demolishes it.

Here are a few teasers, and below is the link to the article by Dr. Tim Ball:

“Every day we hear that storms of greater intensity than ever before are occurring, and it will get worse because of global warming. These claims contradict the current and historic evidence and the mechanisms of formation for mid-latitude…”

“There is no doubt the IPCC set climate research back almost 30 years. They became the central authority on climate change and directed all the focus of research to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

“The IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis says the Polar air will warm more than the Tropical air resulting in increased storminess. In fact, this reduces the ZI and, therefore, the frequency and intensity of storms.”

“Their theory of future increased storminess contradicts the physics of the formation mechanism.”

 See more at:

The Anti-science of Consensus: What Everyone Should Understand About the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [UNIPCC]

“We live in a world in which people are suspicious of politicians, but still respect scientists. Politicians are therefore eager to borrow the prestige of science, to camouflage their own agenda with a veneer of scientific authority.”

1. IPCC is Political, not Scientific.
Since it’s founding in 1945, the UN has been solely a political entity.
So it should be no surprise that the IPCC is not a scientific organization despite their claims that they are.

2. Scientists are not in charge.
“Now if scientists were in charge at the IPCC, at the end of the process these summaries would be written up by a small group, released into the world, and we’d all read these scientists’ unadorned words. But that’s not what happens.” Sure they take input and reports by scientists, but then subject those reports to marathon political sessions of highly detailed, paragraph by paragraph redaction, deletions, and insertions. During these Intergovernmental meetings, they tailor the reports created by scientists to suit the IPCC and by extension, the UN agenda.

3. The IPCC is a template that gets duplicated elsewhere.
The UN uses this same template to deal with other issues they deem globally significant.
“Between 2003 and 2008, the UN sponsored the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAAST). Described as an “IPCC for agriculture,” this effort was led by Robert Watson – who had just wrapped up five years as IPCC chairman.”
“And then there’s the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – aka the IPBES. In the words of the Guardian newspaper, this is an “IPCC for nature.” Robert Watson is involved here, too. At the moment, he’s a Vice Chair. And, what do you, know? This IPCC clone is linked to yet another UN treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

One has to wonder about what gets ignored and left out of the scientific reports that the IPCC summaries are based upon. You can be sure it feeds the unscientific, so-called ‘climate consensus’ viewpoint.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton

All quotes except Crichton, Donna Laframboise, Sep. 1, 2015
Donna is an investigative journalist who has spent the past 6 years examining the climate debate. Read her full presentation to the World Federation of Scientists, August 2015, Erice, Italy at the following link:

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC