Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect. Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere. Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make. The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there. There is no evidence that Venus started out this way. But it certainly is this way today. So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!

That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.

How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

 

[orogenicman]

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence? You'll have to explain that to us someday. And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution. If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2? Eh?

Now this is particularly troublesome to me.. Because we've been over this before..
Do you remember me posting the chart for Total Solar Irradiance from 1700 to present? And then complaining about the ever-present ploy that Warmers have been taught of SHIFTING the conversation to "standard cyclical changes" involving only the latest couple sun spot cycles??

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..

Remember THIS? from a mere week ago???

Now you also may remember, you or OroMan posted THIS ----

And I told you that the IPCC HAD to under-rate the increase in Solar forcing.. So they lowballed the number.. That number for solar forcing should be AT LEAST .3W/m2.. (making TSI jive with the IPCC start date of 1750 -- but ignoring thermal inertia since heating now can FOLLOW power increases by several decades)

But instead -- they posted charts of SUN SPOT NUMBERS instead of TSI to justify the fraud.

I asked you and Oroman to justify this IPCC manipulation.. There was no response. Can't be a response. Because they are playing a false narrative.. This is NOT a case of my "brushing up on accuracy and resolution".. 0.3W/M2 is kinda hard to LOSE in a chart as simple as that.. Aint it??

The "Church of Man ******* the Climate" says that no forcing that hasn't changed in 20 years should be included in the analysis.. But all that scripture is changing now that the TEMPERATURE hasn't moved in 10 years or more.. So SUDDENLY -- the Warmers are discovering energy HIDING in deep dark places and the DIFF. btwn Power and Energy..

Turns out -- that applies to ANY radiative forcing.. Including solar. The fact that TSI "leveled out" 15 or 20 yrs ago doesn't matter any more -- because "climate science" just got smart enough to NOT EXPECT instanteous forcing of temperature..

When you can tell me WHY the IPCC rigged that chart --- I'll rep you and thank you..

Til then, try to listen to what your NEW best buds are telling you on USMB and try NOT to confuse our inputs with any OLD skirmishes you might have had on previous boards. I certainly don't want to be misrepresented again in that fashion..

Except that I did NOT post that. Do I need to remind you of what I did post?

 

[orogenicman]

So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!

That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.

How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.

How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.

You're the one who fears such a thing, so tell us the level we must avoid, before it is too late for our children, and their children?

 

[Old Rocks]

So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!

That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.

How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

The man to answer that question, as well it can be answered at present, is Dr. James Hansen, as he has done extensive studies on the atmosphere of Venus.

However, what makes you think that the amount of warming has to reach that point before making a significant impact on all of our lives? If you were to do some real research, and not just flap your yap, you might learn what the scientists are stating are the likely consequences at present. And their past estimates of the consequences have been far too conservative. The Arctic Ice is where we expected it to be in 2050 to 2080.

 

[Old Rocks]

James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned | robertscribbler

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned | robertscribbler

Total carbon emissions in 2012 (including non CO2 sources) was 45 gigatons. But on the path Republicans set, this level of emission will look minor. Peak emissions would probably pair with peak human civilization at some time around 2050 near 80-90 gigatons per year. At this point, emissions are put in check by mother nature’s outrage at our insults. By 2050, the ‘burn everything’ strategy put in place by Republicans and enforced by conservatives around the world has resulted in near 600 ppm atmospheric CO2.

Our only chance is if the Dems set us on a path of massive nuclear power plant construction.
Think of all the jobs we could create, and we could stop the oceans from turning into battery acid.
Stick it to the Republicans, go BIG NUKE, before it's too late.

 

[gslack]

Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence? You'll have to explain that to us someday. And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution. If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2? Eh?

Now this is particularly troublesome to me.. Because we've been over this before..
Do you remember me posting the chart for Total Solar Irradiance from 1700 to present? And then complaining about the ever-present ploy that Warmers have been taught of SHIFTING the conversation to "standard cyclical changes" involving only the latest couple sun spot cycles??

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..

Remember THIS? from a mere week ago???

Now you also may remember, you or OroMan posted THIS ----

And I told you that the IPCC HAD to under-rate the increase in Solar forcing.. So they lowballed the number.. That number for solar forcing should be AT LEAST .3W/m2.. (making TSI jive with the IPCC start date of 1750 -- but ignoring thermal inertia since heating now can FOLLOW power increases by several decades)

But instead -- they posted charts of SUN SPOT NUMBERS instead of TSI to justify the fraud.

I asked you and Oroman to justify this IPCC manipulation.. There was no response. Can't be a response. Because they are playing a false narrative.. This is NOT a case of my "brushing up on accuracy and resolution".. 0.3W/M2 is kinda hard to LOSE in a chart as simple as that.. Aint it??

The "Church of Man ******* the Climate" says that no forcing that hasn't changed in 20 years should be included in the analysis.. But all that scripture is changing now that the TEMPERATURE hasn't moved in 10 years or more.. So SUDDENLY -- the Warmers are discovering energy HIDING in deep dark places and the DIFF. btwn Power and Energy..

Turns out -- that applies to ANY radiative forcing.. Including solar. The fact that TSI "leveled out" 15 or 20 yrs ago doesn't matter any more -- because "climate science" just got smart enough to NOT EXPECT instanteous forcing of temperature..

When you can tell me WHY the IPCC rigged that chart --- I'll rep you and thank you..

Til then, try to listen to what your NEW best buds are telling you on USMB and try NOT to confuse our inputs with any OLD skirmishes you might have had on previous boards. I certainly don't want to be misrepresented again in that fashion..

Except that I did NOT post that. Do I need to remind you of what I did post?

LOL, forgot who you were again?

Flac was talking to ABraham. See we know this because the quotes are between flac and abe... Not you.. Sothanks for clarifying that you are also ABe socko...

 

[Abraham3]

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values. We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.

 

[orogenicman]

How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.

You're the one who fears such a thing, so tell us the level we must avoid, before it is too late for our children, and their children?

Whether or not I fear it is irrelevant to the fact that you are willfully refusing to answer my question.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Image if all the time and effort the denialists spent pretending to be climate experts was spent on - ANYTHING - else? The pyramids of Egypt could have been rebuilt a dozen times over by now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.

You're the one who fears such a thing, so tell us the level we must avoid, before it is too late for our children, and their children?

Whether or not I fear it is irrelevant to the fact that you are willfully refusing to answer my question.

You're obviously the expert, how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

Tell me, unless you don't know.

 

[orogenicman]

You're the one who fears such a thing, so tell us the level we must avoid, before it is too late for our children, and their children?

Whether or not I fear it is irrelevant to the fact that you are willfully refusing to answer my question.

You're obviously the expert, how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

Tell me, unless you don't know.

That's a very good question. So when are you going to respond to it with an answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whether or not I fear it is irrelevant to the fact that you are willfully refusing to answer my question.

You're obviously the expert, how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

Tell me, unless you don't know.

That's a very good question. So when are you going to respond to it with an answer?

I'm not pushing AGW, you are.
I'm sorry you don't know how close we are to a runaway greenhouse effect.
I hope your next post doesn't kill the planet.

 

[orogenicman]

You're obviously the expert, how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

Tell me, unless you don't know.

That's a very good question. So when are you going to respond to it with an answer?

I'm not pushing AGW, you are.
I'm sorry you don't know how close we are to a runaway greenhouse effect.
I hope your next post doesn't kill the planet.

Right, so what you are saying is that your only point in coming here is to troll. Got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a very good question. So when are you going to respond to it with an answer?

I'm not pushing AGW, you are.
I'm sorry you don't know how close we are to a runaway greenhouse effect.
I hope your next post doesn't kill the planet.

Right, so what you are saying is that your only point in coming here is to troll. Got it.

I want to learn. Teach me.
At what point will our evil CO2 cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

Help me, so I don't turn Earth into Venus.
You're our only hope.

 

[IanC]

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

Very well. From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney general’s fraud probe ‘harassment’". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.

Are you coming back on this one?

Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits. Anyone could make a joke piece on the absurdity Of it, using only peer reviewed published papers.

Two examples from your list jumped out at me. First, Mann was investigated but key issues were left unanswered, Cuccinelli was correct in trying to get them addressed. Climate science would be better off if it was held accountable.

Second, Chris Mooney was mentioned. He is a political writer with no background in science yet he was put on the Board of Directors of the AGU!

$10K going to skeptics gets scrutinized and publicized. That doesn't cover the expenses of a single delegate for the annual junkets to exotic destinations for the IPCC. Perhaps the warmers should study the methods of skeptics to see how to get a bang for the buck because we are changing public opinion on a shoestring budget. Of course the massive and faulty exaggerations of the warmers is doing most of the work for us.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits.

Define "just about"

 

[IanC]

Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits.

Define "just about"

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

Edit- itfitzme probably loves that one because the correlation is so high. By his criteria it has been proved to be the cause even though it is patently absurd.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits.

Define "just about"

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.