Plants love CO2, which acts as a fertilizer.
Thank you for bringing up, early in your response, the 97% figure (regarding published climate…
Wake up and Smell the Apocalypse
3

You really don’t know a thing. CO2 does not “act as a fertilizer.” CO2 is the basic element of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Here’s what one educated “skeptic” (Jack Barrett, note he doesn’t deny the basics, as he was able to calculate at least some effects of CO2, but still much less than we know today) writes about the claim of the deniers that “CO2 is good for plants”:

“Most vegetation grows more quickly with higher concentrations of the gas. But, many experiments have shown that there are limits to such growth enhancement. The two limits are the higher temperatures produced and the lower availability of trace elements essential for growth. Adaptation of vegetation to higher temperatures and lower concentrations of essential elements in the soil is limited and in the long term is not beneficial to growth.”

“Maximum temperatures for vegetation growth lie between 20°C and 30°C and global warming is reducing the area of land that can be used for efficient food production. The beneficial effects of CO2 increases are limited by the very slow production of the essential trace elements required for plant growth, so the present modest enhancement cannot be expected to continue and will level off in the future.”

Barrett is a good example of the person who actually tries to learn. He has Ph.D. in chemistry (if I remember correctly), but in 1994 he understood less about how CO2 makes the Earth warmer than Nils Ekholm in 1901. At least a few years ago, that is, after 20 years, Barrett finally published a book where he also directly demonstrates that the effects he denied in 1994 exist. He calculates them personally. Unfortunately, I don’t expect him to live long enough to learn to understand the feedback models which he still doesn’t understand.

I’m giving you an example of this guy to tell you that I see how hard it can be for you to even understand the basic arguments, as even some people with Ph.D. need too much time to learn enough to do their own calculations and prove to themselves that their initial “intuition” was wrong.

H.L. Mencken, from 1925, again:

“The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex -- because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious. So on what seem to be higher levels. No man who has not had a long and arduous education can understand even the most elementary concepts of modern pathology. But even a hind at the plow can grasp the theory of chiropractic in two lessons. Hence the vast popularity of chiropractic among the submerged -- and of osteopathy, Christian Science and other such quackeries with it. They are idiotic, but they are simple -- and every man prefers what he can understand to what puzzles and dismays him.”

The modern variant is: “No man who has not had a long and arduous education can understand” all the subtle aspects of modern climatology. “But even a hind at the plow can grasp” how to deny global warming: “it’s not warming / OK, it’s warming but not because of humans / OK, it’s because of humans but it will be good for the plants / OK, it won’t be good, but it won’t warm too much / OK, I don’t understand the models therefore they are wrong / OK, I’m not skeptic anymore.” Barrett is at this penultimate stage, still not understanding the models, but accepting all the stages before, you are still at he second, as far as I understand?

Like what you read? Give ȷ.ȷ. a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.