(The only real current alternative that is rapidly deploy-able to reduce CO2 emissions anyway is nuclear power, which could be a solution but was killed by…the very people now wailing about global warming.)

I suggest you have contradicted yourself.

Otherwise, an interesting article.

Also if this were true why didn’t we see huge problems from the 15th or so century until 1900? In those days if you got warm, had light at night or produced any energy at all you burned fossil fuels. We’re talking fossil fuels to the extent that the worlds major cities were nasty with soot yet the so called “hockey stick graph” showed no significant increases during the period.

Sorry folks I don’t believe a word of it.

Coyote Blog provides of the best summaries I have read recently, criticizing the positions of those worried about global warming. It is lengthy and detailed, but well wort…

You might want to visit the Web sites http://www.co2science.org and
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org. Both of these have links to published scientific data that show some plants grow better in an environment that is rich in CO2. This is no surprise, of course, since plants take in CO2 and utilize the carbon in growth.

That’s your opinion, but many people would disagree. Your understanding of the science and the range of uncertain seems poor. The risks, the warming, and the dangers are well understood by climate scientists.
You’re conflating your confusion and that of the professionals studying this problem, and no amount of using the word “luddite” and links can refute this.