Alex Jones commonly tries to claim that raising atmospheric CO2 is unambiguously good because it increases plant growth. He then lies about solar, wind, and nuclear, while claiming coal and oil are harmless.
There are real pros and cons to all of these technologies, but the space of real climate discussion is so polluted by people lying about CO2 that it prudent to preempt any known conspiracy theories.
I would argue that is controlled conditions as I called out earlier. In the context the implication is wild plants. Yeah, absolutely some plants grow better in high CO2 environments but who has studied this and what were their results?
“Wild plants” - riiight
The answer, of course is that it does depend, and you still need nutrients and water and light to increase as the CO2 increases for all the cellular automata to ramp up together, also c3 vs c4 plants which are efficient at different temperatures , 25vs35c but in general, a warmer wetter world has more bio mass, see: rainforests. That isn’t to say that climate change is good since moving farmland is bad. Coastline loss is worse and creating fertile soil (eg in the north) takes thousands of years. Not to mention a billion people living in places that will become too hot for humans
Ah, that clarified who you meant by the conspiracy theorists. My first reading was that you meant the "global warming conspiracy theorists" and their "tiny rise in CO2". I've heard rightwingers sincerely talk about those things.
There are real pros and cons to all of these technologies, but the space of real climate discussion is so polluted by people lying about CO2 that it prudent to preempt any known conspiracy theories.
I would argue that is controlled conditions as I called out earlier. In the context the implication is wild plants. Yeah, absolutely some plants grow better in high CO2 environments but who has studied this and what were their results?