...I am going to see what nonsense and misdirection I can find.
For starters, I immediately recognize four hacks: Christy, Spencer, Curry, and McKitrick. Can't wait to see if they blame the Sun, or a communist conspiracy, or just exaggerate the uncertainties or whether they come up with new novel arguments to tell us we shouldn't believe the readily measurable and observable. (Uncertainties is how you know what you are reading is science. Philosophy is where the certainties live.)
Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.
Ah, an unsupported assertion that changes the subject -right in the Forward. Not looking promising, DOE.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity [Section 2.1, Chapter 9]. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise [Section 2.2]
CO2 *can* enhance plant growth...but that requires the other factors such as water, sunlight, etc. to stay roughly the same. Of course, CC is increasing extreme weather event frequency and intensity. Floods, droughts, and other such weather events can negate any advantage from higher CO2. There is also the issue of the quality of the plants...but there are better people than me to speak to that.
Also note that they use "They also make the oceans less alkaline" rather than the shorter "acidify."
Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather [Section 3.1]. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends [Section 3.1].
There it is! It's a conspiracy! They have a paper by a guy. The fact that it disagrees with all the other papers and evidence is irrelevant...to them. They provide no evidence of any conspiracy or any "silencing of other opinions." Instead, they rely on the fact that most people don't know that IPCC reports are consensus reports. (Which is why they frequently understate the problems, imo.) So, the alleged suppression is nothing more than their ideas being rejected. The same thing happens in these reports to those hype CC effects.
Sorry, I ran out of patience when I saw Roger Pielke cited. Folks, this is just the same small group of flat-earthers that have been around for 20 years or more -with a couple of new names added.
I'll try and get back to this later. It's fun, but a bit irritating and tiring. I wish they would come up with some new tricks.
= new reply since forum marked as read