From William Happer and Harrison Schmitt at the once-but-no-longer respectable newspaper known as the Wall Street Journal...
...
For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit.
...
Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.
If you have no idea why the nonsense above --- beloved by the fossil-fuel industry, assuredly, but embarrassingly shameful when offered in an op-ed by the WSJ --- is "dangerously wrong," as Phil Plait at Slate describes it, see his response to it, which begins like this...
After reading dozens, hundreds, of such mind-numbing articles, I think we’ve found a winner. One that is so sweepingly wrong and based on such a ridiculous premise that it’s weapons-grade denial.
Plait's response is worth reading in full if you are unclear on any aspect of the issues here about which the WSJ --- now owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp --- is hoping to hoax you in support of doing nothing to fight climate change. But this particular passage of his is particularly on point: "They claim that CO2 is just a natural and 'harmless byproduct of nature', which is bonkers; try living on Venus to see why."