As a matter of fact I have, though not in a few years. The papers and the commentary are both far less certain in their assertions than you would ever guess judging by the common fervor against "denialists".
>Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding.
No, it's based on studies of modern [0] and prehistoric plants. The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth.
>The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis.
The "rhetoric" I'm spewing is scientifically rational skepticism. The current science as practiced is one sided, primarily because of reactions like yours, which equate differing opinions with heresy. Climate science is far from settled and so called denialism is nowhere near the same level as flat earth/chemtrails/antivax skepticism to which it is dismissively compared.
Also you haven't made a single argument against my point that we are looking at a tiny fraction of a periodic signal and presuming a trend - and that's because there fundamentally is no argument against it.
0. https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-...