1. 

Did you want to post exactly which NASA website said that more CO2 would make plants grow better?

Waiting .....

I thought not.

Because it isn't true -- no NASA website would be that dumb.

It takes an AGW denier to achieve that goal.

As for how 'good' global warming will be, let me know how you like the spike in food prices you're going to see this summer.

https://www.google.com/#q=universities+g...

EDIT:

Zippi62 "people are living almost twice as long since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution .. More CO2 means more energy working."

Yeah, you need selenium too.

How 'bout we send you a jug and you drink up.

Your scenario is actually much more likely, and here is why.

They KNOW that CO2 helps plants. They KNOW that trees grow better with warmer temps, the entirety of their tree ring data is based upon this concept.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, they don't know. The changes to rainfall in various locations they do not know. Everything the warmers use to give little boys and girls nightmares is their guess as to what MAY happen.

What is KNOWN is positive and some of what is guessed is negative.

Hey Dook,

When you say honest scientists, do you mean like the Muller? A staunch warmer who lied and pretended he was a skeptic while publishing the BEST study?

Carbon dioxide can help plants, but only if that is what is limiting their growth. If instead, it is lack of water that is limiting their growth and they are on a portion of the planet that will grow drier with global warming, then clearly it won't matter if there's more CO2 if they wither and die.

On average there should be more water vapor in the air as the planet warms, but water vapor is not the same as precipitation. Some places--even deserts-- have lots of water vapor and almost no rain.

Not according to honest scientists and economists who know what they are talking about.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...

http://realclimate.com/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://www.economist.com/node/18741749

>>I was just looking at the NASA site on global warming.<<

You are either lying or too stupid to understand the words you read. The evidence suggests that you are both stupid and a liar.

=====

Raisin Caine --

>>A staunch warmer who lied and pretended he was a skeptic while publishing the BEST study?<<

Scientists ARE skeptics - Deniers who claim to be skeptics ARE liars (they are also too stupid to know the scientific meaning of skeptic - the same way they are too stupid know the scientific meanings of theory, law, facts, evidence, significance, and even the meaning of science.

They are too stupid know that the scientific method is an epistemology whose most basic assumptions are rejected by their own epistemology. They are, in fact, so stupid that they do not even know they follow an epistemology - or that their epistemology denies the existence of objective human knowledge and believes that all truth and knowledge comes through the acceptance of and devotion to established dogma derived from the mythological beliefs of quasi-historic, semi-nomadic Semitic tribes of illiterate sheep herders who thought that the earth was flat, that the night sky was a cover with little lights put in place by their God, and who had to appeal to that God for a ruling on whether or not is was OK for them to continue having sex with their livestock.

Does it ever enter into the picture for these "climate science dolts" that people are living almost twice as long since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - the beginning of the use of fossil fuels?

CO2 is the basis of all of life here on Earth. More CO2 means more energy working. We need more "bankies" for these over-sensitive, thumb-sucking environmentalist scientists!

Yes. More CO2 means more plants which increase their region's humidity thus manipulates the climate into becoming wetter. http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/....

Your claims and interpretations are not reality.

NASA's 'claims' are based on evidence and science.

If you like warmer climates, move South.

I was just looking at the NASA site on global warming. They contend that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warmer climates. They further claim that the warmer climate will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere, and longer growing seasons. They further state that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere will make plants grow better.

So, is this much feared global warming actually the earth renewing itself? Will deserts start to shrink? Will the earth become a more lush environment? If so, then the greenies are shooting themselves in the collective greenie foot, right?

What about my scenario is less likely than the doom and gloom predicted by the popular science/politics?