Hi Seden, can you explain the criteria you use to accept or reject scientific knowledge?
From reading your posts of the past few weeks, it looks as if you accept the science that shows that high CO2 is not likely to limit plant growth, at least not if it doesn't have any flow on effects, like in a controlled field trial or glass house environment. But you seem to reject almost any scientific finding relating to adverse impacts of increased atmospheric CO2.
Is there a particular yardstick you use to judge scientific papers?
