We need to replenish world CO2 sources...

Here's me worrying about global warming, and apparently carbon dioxide levels are really low, and the world is actually in danger. All those poor plants out there need CO2 to survive. We shouldn't be reducing the amount of carbon dioxide we produce, we should be increasing it to help give them more vital food.

That's what CFACT are proposing. And I'd just like to thank their sponsors for generously supporting the good work they do. Exxon Mobile have given them millions in the past, and the heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortunes supports them to this day.

Let's just put aside the fact that plants survived for a couple of billion years before animals evolved, and were doing quite nicely until humans appeared.

And let's ignore the human impacts on deforestation and desertification first as direct results of slash and burn, intensive farming and animal husbandry. And by "husbandry" I mean breeding animals, killing their predators and letting them consume resources over large areas, often running wild in ecosystems where they have never been indigenous. Also let's ignore indirect effects, like Lake Chad drying out and shrinking to the size of a pond, which probably resulted from global warming. Clearly these are not threatening those poor plants that we must protect.

This carbon dioxide is really good for the planet and we need to get it's levels up.

Why look at the world through rose-tinted spectacled when you could look at it through oil-stained ones instead!

---

When I was checking their website, it came up with a "site security not trusted" message, which to be honest is the least of its problems. It led me to the below survey, copied from their site without permission. I may use it in my classes next semester to demonstrate how to make leading questions which combine and confuse multiple issues and skew survey results.

2014 National Global Warming Survey

Instructions: Please answer each question by clicking the box next to the appropriate answer.

Do you believe that human activities are making the weather a threat to mankind’s survival?

Yes, and we must counteract it by any means necessary.No, this issue is over-hyped.Not sure.

Do you believe that the available scientific evidence supports a theory of humans causing global warming?

Yes, the science is settled and the debate is over.No, the science is flimsy and far from settled.Not sure.

Do you believe that the government should impose costly new laws and regulations to try to halt the progression of alleged catastrophic climate change?

Yes, catastrophic climate change is real, and our government must attempt to stop it. If that means imposing new laws and regulations that drastically increase energy prices, then that’s what we must do.No, these new laws and regulations would have a disastrous effect on jobs and our economy, and the notion of “man-made global warming” has never been scientifically proven, nor is it a serious threat.Not sure.

Are you willing to pay dramatically more for everyday expenses like gasoline, electricity, and food to support “Green” energy and the alarmists’ case for global warming?

Yes, paying more for everyday needs is the cost of saving our planet from a climate change catastrophe.No, with current advances in technology, we can responsibly steward our environment while at the same time paying the same or even less for our everyday needs.Not sure.

Do you believe that the United States has an obligation to “lead by example” in combatting climate change by capping industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and “greenhouse gases”?

Yes, we must take the first step and limit carbon dioxide emissions by factories and power plants to head off this planetary emergency.No, especially since nations like China and India aren’t making emissions cuts and such limits will hurt our economy, increase manufacturing and power costs, and kill jobs.Not sure.