@IBergwiesel @Dardedar @rahmstorf @IngersolRobert 1/5 Yes, that sorry article is 100% nonsense.
It's not peer-reviewed, not based on anything peer-reviewed, not about a study, and not even written by a scientist. It's by a free-lance journalist, who didn't even understand enough about her topic to know who to interview.
@IBergwiesel @Dardedar @rahmstorf @IngersolRobert 2/5 That pathetic article is based on mere interviews, not on experiments, measurements, or peer-reviewed papers — and she didn't even interview agronomists!
@IBergwiesel @Dardedar @rahmstorf @IngersolRobert 3/5 The fact that @SciAm publishes such drek is proof of how far they've fallen from their glory days, as a once-prestigious scientific periodical.
Over the last six years their circulation has declined over 29%, and over the last 13 years it declined 48%. It's easy to see why.
@IBergwiesel @Dardedar @rahmstorf @IngersolRobert @sciam 4/5 My hypothes.is annotation of that pathetic article is here:
hyp.is/pTg6fhEXEeqNPk…
Click on each highlighted part of the article to read what's wrong with it, in great detail.
@IBergwiesel @Dardedar @rahmstorf @IngersolRobert @sciam 5/5 Agronomists have conducted THOUSANDS of rigorous studies, measuring the benefits of eCO2 for crops. All major crops benefit from eCO2, most of them dramatically.
It's settled science. Benefits of eCO2 for crops have been known to science for >100 yrs.
tinyurl.com/1920sciamCO2
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.