The Wall Street Journal's defense of CO2 is 'monumentally naive'
A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide” suggests climate change isn't a problem because plants need CO2 to grow.
Phil Plait at Slate calls it "monumentally naive"
That might work in a small greenhouse or in a lab, but on a whole planet you’ll run into the fact that the ecosphere is incredibly complex. That extra CO2 means a lot of extra heat, and that will have all sorts of ramifications.
Sure, growing pineapples in Toronto might be fun, but what do you think will happen in Kansas when the summer heat gets cranked up to broil, and changing weather patterns dry up all the rain for a few months at a time?
Ryan Chittum at Columbia Journalism Review says it is "rock bottom" for the paper:
"I’m still trying to reattach my jaw after reading this..."
Noting this wasn't published in The Onion, Joe Romm calls it a new low:
Schmitt and Happer say our current CO2 levels are “low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history,” they pine for the days when “Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more,” and note that commercial greenhouse operators boost CO2 levels to ”1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.”
The recent scientific literature is beyond crystal clear that 1000 ppm — which is where we will end up this century if we listen to disinformers like these two — would result in multiple, simultaneous catastrophes for humanity, including widespread Dust-Bowlification.