Why is this wrong? "CO2 is a blessing for humanity" https://jungefreiheit.de/debatte/interview/2019/co2-ist-ein-segen-fuer-die-menschheit/?

Yes, carbon dioxide is essential for all life on planet Earth. The current level of ~400 ppm is just above the plant starvation level of 150 ppm and it is a scientific fact that at higher levels like the past (4000 ppm) the Earth flourished.

The alarmist political  climate science ignores mainstream physics and ground breaking research in favor of their biased junk science that robs the hard working tax payers of their money. Blaming livestock for climate change and bankrupting farmers is going to produce major conflicts if it continues.

Mother Nature's early onset of a harsh winter in the Northern Hemisphere which has devastated the "bread basket" agricultural areas is empirical proof Mankind cannot control or have influence over the Sun, Galactic Cosmic ray flux, solar and planetary mechanics. Political narcissism is slowly failing. 

Liberals hate facts. Thats whats "wrong"

Thats why they smear any real scientist who disagrees with their American made GW theme.

.

The left is still trying to find just the right line to scaremonger us into global socialism.

https://adage.com/article/industry-insights/renami...

In our ongoing series on teaching deniers how to be skeptics.

First we look at the source.

The Junge Freiheit (JF), "Young Freedom", is a German weekly newspaper for politics and culture established in 1986. It has been described as ultraconservative, right-wing, nationalistic and as an "avant-garde" of the "New Right". (Neo Nazi's)

Then we look at the claim "CO2 is a blessing for humanity"

In the context of global warming, which is what this section is about, , CO2 is a greenhouse gas and without greenhouse gasses the earth would be a giant ball of snow, unfit for humans to live on.  This tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has helped to make the planet about 15C warmer.  And if you believe in god(s), I don't, you could suggest (without evidence) that this is a "blessing" (God's favor and protection).

However we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40% and this does cause the earth to warm even further.  I don't know why any one would be foolish enough to deny that.

As for the article itself, I have no desire to read Neo-Nazi propaganda.  While I believe religion can be a source of kindness towards our neigbours, it doesn't have to be.  Just readVon den Jüden und iren Lügen" by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.  Which led in part to the Holocaust.

People object to being called deniers because they feel they are unfairly associated with holocaust deniers and then they go posting Neo Nazi's sources.

Go figure...

Because what people are doing is cherrypicking the science they want to accept.

Yes, CO2 increases are benefical for plant growth. But you don't get to choose that fact while simultaneously ignoring 150 years of physics and chemistry telling us that if you increase atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet has to warm. This isn't some wild theory ... you can calculate that the CO2 rise will result in an increase in radiative forcing of 0.2 Watts per square metre of Earth's surface per decade. And then people measured it ... and got an increase of 0.2 Watts per square metre per decade. So CO2 has exactly the measured warming increase the laws of physics told us it would.

The point is ... what does a warming world mean for ice, for sea level rises, for ocean temperatures and currents, for precipitation patterns? What does it do to frosts and pests, irrigation and river levels, flowering dates and pollination by insect populations, soil pH and microbial content, migration patterns of grazers, and so on? 

CO2 makes plants good-er is such an over simplification of the issue that it is actually laughable. 

Try telling that to Australians or Bahamans or Californians or the people of Mozambique 

It is not wrong. CO2 is what makes plants grow. The more CO2 there is on the planet, the more plants grow and thrive.

Did you read the article? While my knowledge of German is almost nil, I did use Google Translate to take a look at it.  It begins with Kutschera making a factual error about the 97% consensus number and claiming it started with Cook in 2013. Clearly Kutschera never really looked into that issue at all. You can search Yahoo Answers for "97% consensus" and find questions about it at least as far back as 2009.

Kutschera also says

"I studied biology and chemistry (with a minor in musicology) and then qualified in the USA in the field of biophysics of cell growth (and photosynthesis research). Since the climate of the earth's regions is largely determined by the plants and the physiology of the plants is based on physicochemical principles, I feel competent enough. "

He has this backwards, the climate, to a large extent, determines the plants--not the other way around.  Plants do have an effect on the climate of a region, but not THAT large an effect. It sounds like he misunderstood a concept from climatology.  Traditionally, climatologists (like Koppen) would map the climate of a region using the vegetation that occurred there. Koppen used that in conjunction with measurements of rainfall and temperature to define formulas for determining the climate of the region.

Also, the biophysics of cell growth is not enough to fully understand things like the greenhouse effect and planetary equilibria.

I'm sure Kutschera is competent enough in his field, but his field is not climate dynamics or climate science.

It's a matter of degree. Salt, in small quantities, is good for you. In large quantities it can be fatal. The same is true of water. And carbon dioxide.