Link to comment I cited in thread I identified

I said in that thread:

The first part of the video is very good, it highlights the complexity of the issue and the problem with simplistic statements that do not consider all factors.

Yet, it is also clear that the author wants to use his own assumptions to fit his agenda. While the experiment with the beetles and the CO2 enriched plants clearly showed a potentially unexpected consequence, that the beetles enjoyed the lush growth and became more of a pest, this also suggests that in the presence of a chemical or biological or even genetic counter to control the beetles, we would indeed enjoy lusher plant growth with that particular species.

In this case the enriched CO2 can have a range of influence dependent on the pests and the counter measures. A good debunking of simplistic CO2 is all good allegations, but also another example of how enrichment always has to be bad.

Every greenhouse crop everywhere employs active management to elevate the CO2 or counteract its depletion to improve plant growth. This is a fact.

That is the example I said was “cherry picked” in that it is one isolated example that does not apply to all plants and all bugs in all eco systems. Nor does it even employ normal farming practice as a control, which would have been easy to do.

It debunks that CO2 is only good but it doesn’t prove that its only bad. Nor does it address whether the growth would have been greater if the pest was controlled.

I could be wrong Ludwig, and my reasoning could be bad, but it is unfair to say it is an intentional lie. It was also only one of a few examples I gave to back up my assertion.