Dont plants eat co2 and expel o2. More co2 more o2 surely. Better for them. Better for us. Aint god great.

The Donolley's and Dr Soon seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that modern scientific journalism has something remotely to do with science. Michael Crichton's comment on 'sientific concensus' is relevant here. 'if it is consensus, it isn't science. Period.' The climate catastrophe narrative is needed because too many livlihoods depend on it and politicians will have to admit that the massive investment in 'renewables was an appalling squandering of public money. It is driven by the sunken investment fallacy, so now scientists are grasping at straws to 'prove' the narrative by suitable manipulation of the data, just as once upon a time people squinted through telescopes to see canals on Mars (to conform to the consensus opinion of the time)