The latest news about the lack of evidence of anthropogenic global warming has the carbon cult on the verge of being banished to some desert island.
When they get there, the cultists will find the plants there growing better thanks to the small increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by man.
That's the opinion of Princeton physicist William Happer, with whom I often talk on the subject.
In this piece in the Wall Street Journal, he argues that while the negative effects of CO-2 remain unproven, there's plenty of evidence for its positive effect on plant growth:
The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.
The subject of CO-2 takeup by plants is a fascinating one. It was explored at great length by Happer's fellow Princeton-dwelling physicist, Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study.
When I interviewed Dyson, he pointed out that the effect of CO-2 on plant growth needs to be further studied.
He also pointed out that all of those computer models showing catastrophic climate change due to CO-2 are full of "fudge factors." The actual problem is far too complicated to be easily assessed, he said.
That's now real scientists think - not like climatologists.
Read the above piece in full. And then ponder deeply the curious fact that the "green" movement actually opposes something that helps green plants.
And ask yourself why the mainstream media keep referring to carbon dioxide "pollution" when carbon dioxide is a perfectly natural and indeed indispensable part of the atmosphere.