Here we go again, “We’re all in big trouble”: and it’s all because of that evil carbon dioxide (CO2). I would like to point out an excellent example of hyperbole displayed in paragraph five of the front-page item of today’s Frederick News-Post under Seth Borenstein’s byline. “The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy,” my emphasis.

Back in the Dark Ages when I was in grade school, I learned that we “animals” breathe in O2 and exhale CO2. The plants (for those unaware of it, these are also a source of food) “breathe in” CO2 and “exhale” O2. Commercial greenhouse operators have been deliberately elevating the green-house CO2 levels to increase their production of plants. The plants “love” it.

Please, can somebody explain to me how increasing CO2 will harm “plants and food”?

John C. Vaughan


(32) comments

That guy

There's a popular meme that's been circulating on Facebook over the past few months, which says something to the effect of "It's incredibly difficult to have a conversation about a topic with someone when their opinion is so incredibly wrong and ignorant that it would take a college level course to explain to them why they're wrong."

This is apparently one of those instances. If you're not a climate scientist, or haven't studied climate in some capacity, you don't know what you're talking about. If you ARE a climate scientist, why do you disagree with over 99% of your peers?


Such total absolute ignorance


I never understand the folks that get their climate change information from Dennis Avery, a food scientist and vaccination information from Dr. Jenny McCarthy, actress from such movies as Scream 3 and Santa Baby..


Let's not forget Dr. McCarthy's publications in the foremost scientific journal...Playboy.


She did make a couple of good points.


Here John, read this. And then issue a retraction letter and apologize for spewing fake climate change news.




Great, another anti-climate change letter from a simpleton. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas in excessive quantities, which we have thanks to humanity’s massive release of sequestered carbon in oil and coal reserves. So the temperature has actually risen as expected. What he totally ignores is plant physiology. At prolonged excessive temperatures (usually above 86 degrees) plants begin to shut down photosynthesis. It’s a defense mechanism when it gets too hot. Crop yields begin to decline, which is then further exacerbated by the resulting drought. So no, carbon fertilization is a sham argument. Then, on the other side of the drought equation is that eventually the excess heat energy that’s stored in the oceans is released in super storms and record rainfalls that swamp crops and flood cities. In a nut shell, the spike in CO2 caused by human consumption of sequestered carbon is wreaking havoc on Earth’s climate and none of it is good for plants, animals, or us. The author has no idea what he’s talking about.


Letter writer makes a good point about plants using CO2 to grow and produce O2, but ignores the issue of climate change and the effects it has on plants. Hopefully, we can adjust to it and even benefit from it in some places, but for the most part, it will have deleterious effects, even on plants. Canada is looking better and better, especially if Trump is re-elected... because he does not want to plan for or reduce climate change - perhaps because it is inconvenient or because he loves messing with people who think they are smarter than him.


John, Please let us know if we have answered your question. Sorry if some here may have been rude or impatient.


Do you really think anything will change his mind, .03? The tenor of his letter was rude. I’m pretty sure he was asking a rhetorical question.


Matt, It makes me feel good to take the high road occasionally. Chag Sameach.


[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup] Three.


You are right, three.[thumbup]


Lo khol yom po-rim, Three. 🤒




I suggest the author read the research and factual information regarding CO2 and educate himself before spouting nonsense. NASA is a good source of information.


John, if you have to ask that question it's obvious that you haven't paid attention to how our weather has been affected.


This is an ignorant letter to be featured at the head of the letters section. I say "ignorant" instead of "stupid" because the writer clearly doesn't understand the range of the facts of the subject he addresses. Carbon Dioxide in ever-increasing quantities will overwhelm the capacity of earth's plant life to process it. The nutritional value of food crops decreases as their growth is spurred temporarily by increased carbon dioxide. Excess carbon dioxide is the chief contributor to global warming. And on and on. The writers takes a very very simple approach to addressing a complicated problem. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, direct and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (The Sage of Baltimore)


John, CO2, or carbon dioxide, is the number one contributor to the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect is the Earth’s natural process of trapping gasses in the atmosphere in order to warm the Earth. The far majority of environmentalists think it is the cause of the changing climate. The natural process is not harmful, but because of the excess emission of greenhouse gasses by humans, it has become harmful.

The Earth is trapping too much gas in the atmosphere, which gradually warms the Earth. That’s the issue.


Can’t wait for Boyce to chime in..he is a self-proclaimed expert.


And Boyce is good. Please don't be jealous, Bunny.


I think Bunny's issue is that Boyce reads science articles. So boorish, when political pundits can tell us all we need to know.


threecents, [thumbup][thumbup]


And BunnyLou, you have no clue.


Matt, are you saying Bunny Lou without a clue? It rhymes, I like that.[thumbup]


BunnyLouWho? Wasn’t she in a Grinch movie?


Don't even have to be an expert. Just have to be aware.

Boyce Rensberger

Ha. I came here to comment and saw that many readers already had made the points I would make.

I don't claim to be an expert, just one who, since the 1980s, has read many scientific articles on the subject and interviewed many scientists who collect data and analyze it.

I will repeat an offer I first made years ago on this platform-- I will be happy to meet anyone (over coffee or beer or whatever) who wants to discuss this issue and talk about the evidence for our respective opinions. I cling to the belief that a grasp of facts can lead to sensible opinions. My e-address is boycerensberger at gmail.


Very thoughtful of you Boyce. Still I wonder, in this case, if it would work.

Boyce Rensberger

Probably wouldn't work. Studies show (there I go, citing damned evidence again) that hearing evidence that refutes one's opinion simply drives many people to stiffen their position.


Be glad you're a plant. You will have plenty to eat. Provided no one burns you down for the ashes, that is.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.