You really have no sense of humor, or irony. And, no, I do not really need to try, since the majority of the issue is one of politics and hysterics, pushed and followed by people who are hypocrites.

Exactly. This is a scientific issue, backed by a plethora of scientific research, but you think it’s political because you don’t understand the science. And then you bring up the tired (and yet unproven) “hypocrisy” red herring. You never talk specifics — just generalize about everyone who understands the science of climate change.

Oh, and explain for me how I have no sense of humor or irony. It’d be one thing if your argument made sense, but it doesn’t. Sure, it seems ironic if you discard the fact that they’re talking specifically about aerosols, which have the opposite effect of greenhouse gases, but that’s the whole point of the article.

So, we apparently want more pollution output for plants to absorb CO2 more efficiently, and since CO2 is now considered a pollutant by the EPA, we need more CO2 out put so that the plants absorb CO2 more efficiently. So, everyone buy a big SUV, crank that AC down to 68, use plastic bags!

Did you read the entire article?

Scientists have known for a long time that aerosols cool climate by reflecting sunlight and making clouds brighter, but the new study is the first to use a global model to estimate the net effects on plant carbon uptake resulting from this type of atmospheric pollution.

Did you catch that? “Aerosols” are the type of pollution that have been linked to the increase in the productivity of plants’ ability to absorb CO2.

No wonder you don’t understand climate change. You can’t even understand a simple briefing on a scientific paper, much less the paper itself. It’s like you’re not even trying.