Bagua,

I see in the last thread here, that you argue that the “CO2 is plant food argument is facile”. But it is not taken as such by the denialist crowd. Just because it is easily debunked does not mean that many in the opposition cling tight to it. That’s part of the point. Exposing it exposes the lack of science and logic on the denial side. What other points do you think remain unaddressed?