Harrison Schmidt, Will Happer explain why more CO2 is better for plants

Last-man-on-the-moon Schmidt and Princeton physicist Happer write:

Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity…

Read more at the Wall Street Journal ($ubscription required).

8 thoughts on “Harrison Schmidt, Will Happer explain why more CO2 is better for plants”

  1. If you dispute the information being presented, then by all means let’s hear it. But ad hominem attacks are neither useful nor relevent.

  2. Howdy Janice
    I just want to make the point that, if appeal to authority is a fallacy of Gore’s team (and it sure is), then it’s a fallacy for us as well. I do not mean to dismiss anyone’s knowledge or even opinion — I have lots of opinions on topics where I lack credentials. But no one appeals to me as authority for some reason…

  3. Over the years, I have tricked AGW people with the following question: “Wouldn’t it be great if we could eliminate all the CO2 just for one year and let the earth return to normal?” They always enthusiastically agree.
    Then I explain that if all the CO2 was gone, all the plants would die, all the animals would die and all of us would die.
    Then they get angry.

  4. Well, aside from walking on the moon, Dr. Schmitt has a PhD in geology. You are right, that still isn’t plant science or ecology. However, just knowing a few biographical details about a person is also not enough to completely dismiss their opinions. If a person pays attention throughout their life, by the time they are in their 70’s they probably have accumulated some vast knowledge about a number of subjects. On the other hand, does a person really need any college education at all to know that increasing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases the rate of plant growth? Because even an illiterate person, but one who happens to work in an industrial greenhouse, knows that fact. For all that anyone knows, it could be that Dr. Schmitt has simply spoken to a number of people that work in industrial greenhouses.

  5. These may be great men and knowledgable on the subject — I’m ready to believe they are. However, walking on the moon is not in itself a qualification in plant science or ecology, nor actually is a doctorate in physics.
    On the other hand, they’re a lot closer than failing divinity school, scraping by with a Poli Sci degree and a law degree, and then losing the presidency. But let’s be careful about the border between showing an individual is qualified and appeal to authority.

  6. Dr. Schmidt sits on the board of the company I work for, and I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person. He is a great man and I too applaud his honesty.

  7. Glad to see this boldy stated by Names. I am a lowly nobody but have been repeating this to anyone who has the open-mindedness to hear me out.

  8. Having written two books on the subject of growing plants it never ceases to amaze me that the total ignorance of the ‘greenie – lefties’ who obviously have no idea of the cycle of life which starts off with CO2/water and the energy of the sun – lose any one of those three items and life ceases to exist. I applaud this man for saying it as it is (No opinions here this is well proven fact) It is little wonder then that I and many others are ‘gob smacked’ at the all so obvious ignorance of so many ‘so called’ scientists who conveniently completely overlook this basic fundamental, of life on this planet. I challenge any one of you ‘warmists’ out there to logically dismiss this basic fundamental

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.