Fake science

CO2 isn't the only substance being released into the atmosphere. also, there is such thing as too much CO2. plants can't consume all of it.

William Happer

looked the guy up. he's basically being given money by the oil industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

Glad you looked him up. Does oil make his findings wrong? Does getting money to promote man made climate change make is a fact? Check out Patrick Moore, for more facts.

"Does oil make his findings wrong? Does getting money to promote man made climate change make is a fact?"

kind of does when other scientists are not getting paid and telling different findings. there was a futurama clip i would've brought to the table if i could find it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

"According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[3] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson"."

"facts"

one of imgflip's favorite buzzwords.

Moore left Greenpeace when there weren’t any scientists left in the organization. Eisenhower farewell address warned of “The Military Industrial Complex” and paying scientists to support certain findings exclusively. These turned out to be today’s Deep State and climate change hoax scientists.

you had me until you mentioned the "Deep State." why would the military industrial complex, considering that Lockheed Martin's machines need diesel fuel to operate, be paying scientists to tout the existence of climate change? or are these mental gymnastics?

The Ike speech mentioned both. Not necessarily working together. Both as threats to the Republic as we knew it.

if anything, Ike's probably part of the deep state since he was lobbied into building freeways using the tax dollars of railroad companies

There's this new thing called Google on this other new thing called the interwebz on this other new thing called computers.

Just type in a simple statement such as "do plants need less water with more co2" and it gives you thousands of results.

Since you're a typical liberal that doesn't like to do your own work, here's one of those results

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-plants-don-t-just-grow-faster-with-more-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=More%20CO2%20generally%20leads%20to,less%20water%20consumption%20in%20plants.

telling people to research something isn't an argument.
4qmjif.jpg (click to show)

i even looked up the scientist that the OP suggested to Melody. is "go do research" really your best argument when it only brings up cases against you?