By Brad Friedman on 5/13/2013, 6:05am PT  

From William Happer and Harrison Schmitt at the once-but-no-longer respectable newspaper known as the Wall Street Journal...

Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
...
For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit.
...
Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.

If you have no idea why the nonsense above --- beloved by the fossil-fuel industry, assuredly, but embarrassingly shameful when offered in an op-ed by the WSJ --- is "dangerously wrong," as Phil Plait at Slate describes it, see his response to it, which begins like this...

I see a lot of pretty amazingly bad global warming denial online. It ranges from mildly cherry-picked data to such baldly transparent garbage that you have to wonder if the person who wrote it can possibly, actually believe what they are saying is true.

After reading dozens, hundreds, of such mind-numbing articles, I think we’ve found a winner. One that is so sweepingly wrong and based on such a ridiculous premise that it’s weapons-grade denial.

Plait's response is worth reading in full if you are unclear on any aspect of the issues here about which the WSJ --- now owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp --- is hoping to hoax you in support of doing nothing to fight climate change. But this particular passage of his is particularly on point: "They claim that CO2 is just a natural and 'harmless byproduct of nature', which is bonkers; try living on Venus to see why."