Rising CO2 in the atmosphere is not the problem most say it is!

This is a work in progress, i.e. very much incomplete

So, rising CO2 in our atmosphere, is supposed to be a problem. I say "It's not". Before you write me off, let me ask you, can we reason together about this? In order to reason, we need to temporarily cast aside (not away), our objections. At that point we can look at different views, see if any may possibly be valid, see if maybe we got it wrong, spend some time thinking what is actually correct and then work towards forming our own opinion, not one we have been fed to believe.

Discourse on potted plants.
I've been a wholesale nurseryman for a number of years. Everyone knows that if you put a plant in a pot with a reasonable media, it needs water to grow. The next thing it needs is a source of food, and another is to place it in a warmer environment like a tunnel house. The last thing you can do is to inject dangerous levels of CO2 into the tunnel and you will get a huge increase in growth. With the increase in growth comes an increase in transpiration and a corresponding increase in the amount of oxygen they produce. Satellite photos of increases in the health and growth of aspen forests in the US clearly document CO2 increase has helped over time.

Discourse on Organic vs Inorganic chemistry
What element decides if a molecule is organic? It is the carbon. Ah but that is different to CO2 you say. OK what is CO2. It is a carbon atom bonded to an oxygen molecule comprising of 2 oxygen atoms. When fed to plants, the carbon is taken up by the plants as a fertiliser and the O2 released. The addition of energy from the sun helps to convert the carbon into carbohydrates. Also see the next paragraph.

Discourse on CO2 levels during the Jurassic
Today we are seriously concerned about rising CO2 levels. 400 ppm is seen as very dangerous for the planet. Yet when we look at the data available on the CO2 levels during one of the most lush periods in our history, the Jurassic, we find a CO2 level of 6,000ppm. Yes you read right, that is 15 times higher than it is now. I believe the reduction in CO2 caused the reduction in the lush growth and is far more likely to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs than the other theories currently suggested. No food, no dinosaurs.

Discourse on CO2 trading schemes and how this is a new way for the rich to make even more money
The Extinction Rebellion movement has been hoodwinked into believing that the increased CO2 levels are harmful to the planet and the best way is to reduce carbon emissions. Nothing could be further from the truth. This supports the "idea" of a carbon trading scheme, whereby one company trades their increase or decrease in emissions with another company. There is a LOT of money to be made if such a scheme ever gets put in place.

Discourse on why environment matters and why we should be involved but on our guard.
I am not saying stop fossil fuel use. But I am saying we should stop the willy nilly burning of fossil fuels that give off other dangerous pollutants and rather, find cleaner ways to use the remaining fossil fuels. This makes sense in your pocket too. I've owned dozens of cars in my lifetime but my favourite had a 3 cylinder, 0.6L motor. I owned in for 14yrs. I thrashed that little thing and it ran on the smell of an oily rag. The fossil fuels were once alive, probably all at the same time. The destruction of rain-forests and the deforestation going on around the world is of far greater importance. Without vegetation, the carbon in the atmosphere cannot be used.

Discourse on the results of data modelling being presented as "facts".
Real science is provable and repeatable, theoretical science on the other hand is just that, theory based on many presumptions and biases of the researchers involved. When the only way to get funding is to be involved in the whole "climate change" debate with scarier and scarier predictions that "everybody" agrees with and if you don't you don't get published. What sort of science is that? When you hear the words "The science has consensus" it becomes belief that nothing else can be said. You should always run from people like that. When mainstream science believed the world to be flat, you could not argue. The same is happening now.

References to come.