Wolfgang Cramer
CO2 coalition sponsored article in The Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change
“This article recycles old tropes such as “it’s been warm before”, “CO2 levels have been higher in the past” (millions of years ago!), “CO2 is plant food”, “warming is good for ecosystems/humans”, “so far impacts are small, so they will remain small”, etc. All these pseudo-arguments have been addressed many times before (see examples here, here, and here). This article is clearly motivated, misleading and biased.”
EPA’s Scott Pruitt incorrectly suggests climate change might not be “a bad thing”
Claim:
We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends. I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that is necessarily a bad thing.
Commentary in The Australian ignores evidence and misrepresents research while falsely claiming humans are not responsible for climate change
“Yet another in the exhausting heap of opinions choosing not to engage with evidence, while still expecting readers to believe inaccurate and baseless claims. It is baffling why publications such as The Australian wish to promote opinions that are both not well-argued and demonstrably not based on fact.”
Wall Street Journal op-ed on economic consequences of climate change found naive by scientists
“This is a very simplistic, almost naive op-ed on climate change impacts. Some assertions such as the one about CO2 being good for plants demonstrates that the authors do not know or understand how increasing CO2 is good or bad for plants, they are just repeating something they heard.”
Analysis of "The Phony War Against CO2"
“The article speaks about scientific questions under an “opinion” banner—as if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. For the major final conclusion “With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met.”, there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literature—it is pure fantasy.”
Wall Street Journal op-ed ignores evidence of negative impacts of increasing CO2
Claim:
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has helped raise global food production and reduce poverty.