# Post Analysis: @robinmonotti, "I LOVE CO2" (Aug 29, 2026) Back to [[Users/@robinmonotti/robinmonotti-x-profile|@robinmonotti profile]] · [[Users/@robinmonotti/Chronological List|Chronological List]] · Topic: [[Topics/Climate Change Science and Policy Debate/Climate Change Science and Policy Debate|Climate Change Science and Policy Debate]] · Related: [[Users/@robinmonotti/Post Analyses/Post Analysis - robinmonotti on CO2 as Fertilizer not a Pollutant (2026-09-07)|CO2 as Fertilizer]] · [[Users/@robinmonotti/Post Analyses/Post Analysis - robinmonotti on Global Warming Saving Lives (2026-09-14)|Global Warming Saving Lives]] · [[Users/@robinmonotti/Post Analyses/Post Analysis - robinmonotti on Clouds, Albedo and the CO2 Greenhouse Theory (2026-09-27)|Clouds, Albedo and the CO2 Greenhouse Theory]] > [!info] Why this one > 12,038 views and 367 likes, the highest-engagement original climate post in this backfill. It packs several claims already checked later in September into one "no downside" argument. ## The post **Monotti** · Aug 29, 2026, 6:21 AM CDT · [link](https://x.com/robinmonotti/status/2093660309118497222) · 12,038 views · 367 likes · 174 reposts · 31 replies · 15 quotes · 30 bookmarks (at collection) *An attached graphic reads "I ❤️ CO2" in white on black, the heart a green leaf. No other claims are in the image.* > I LOVE CO2! 💚 > When you understand that CO2 is beneficial to all life on planet Earth, that vegetation loves it, as well as plankton and phytoplankton, and that our greenhouse gases are 95% water vapour, and that CO2 at current concentrations or higher has negligible impact on temperature compared to water vapour or indeed compared to albedo cloud cover variations and solar cycle trends which cause the warming itself, of which CO2 is just a result. And that life adapts faster to increases of temperature & CO2 than in decreases in either. That many more people die of cold than hot temperatures anyway, so there is no downside to more CO2. Then you will love CO2 for the rest of your life! ## Claim-by-claim check | # | Claim | Verdict | Evidence | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | CO2 is beneficial to vegetation, plankton and phytoplankton | ✅ / 🟡 | The fertilisation / greening effect is real ([NASA on Zhu et al.](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/)), as already checked in the Sep 7 fertilizer note. It is not the whole story: nutrient and water limits, heat and ocean acidification cut the other way. "Beneficial to all life" overreaches. | | 2 | "Our greenhouse gases are 95% water vapour" | ❌ | Water vapour is the largest single contributor to the *natural* greenhouse effect, typically about 50% (with clouds another ~25%) in standard breakdowns, and about 60% in older clear-sky accounts (Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). CO2 is on the order of 20–26%. [MIT Climate Portal](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-when-water-vapor-much-more-common-greenhouse) is a clear summary. 95% is a recycled exaggeration. Water vapour is also a *feedback*: its amount is set by temperature, not a control knob humans set. | | 3 | CO2 at current or higher concentrations has "negligible impact on temperature" compared with water vapour, albedo and solar cycles; those "cause the warming itself, of which CO2 is just a result" | ❌ | CO2 forcing has been measured directly (Harries 2001, Feldman 2015, Kramer 2021), as already cited in the Sep 27 albedo note. Water vapour amplifies a CO2-driven warming; it does not make the CO2 forcing negligible. The "just a result" line is the ice-core lag talking point checked in the Sep 2 ice-core note: a lag at the *start* of a deglaciation does not make modern industrial CO2 a mere by-product of warmth, and today's orbital setup would, without the extra CO2, point toward cooling. | | 4 | "Life adapts faster to increases of temperature & CO2 than in decreases in either" | 🟡 / ⚠️ | A fair point in the narrow sense that past coolings (ice ages) were harsher for many ecosystems than mild warmings, and that CO2 fertilisation can help some plants. It is not a licence for "no downside." I did not re-open a specific paper for the "adapts faster" wording ⚠️. | | 5 | "Many more people die of cold than hot temperatures anyway, so there is no downside to more CO2" | ❌ / 🟡 | The first clause matches a real finding: Zhao, Gasparrini and colleagues (2021, *The Lancet Planetary Health*) found cold still associated with more deaths than heat. The slogan "no downside to more CO2" does not follow, and was already rejected in the Sep 14 "global warming saves lives" note: heat-related deaths rise with warming, the net effect is not "undisputed" benefit, and CO2 has other costs (extremes, sea level, acidification). | ## Overall verdict **❌ / 🟡 Plant fertilisation is real, and cold still accounts for more temperature-related deaths than heat. "Greenhouse gases are 95% water vapour," a "negligible" CO2 effect, CO2 as "just a result" of warming, and "no downside to more CO2" are false.** ## What's left out - The 31 replies and 15 quotes were not collected ⚠️. - I did not re-calculate Kiehl & Trenberth or Schmidt et al. 2010 line by line; the ranges above are the standard published breakdowns ⚠️.