Based on:
(1)
Thousands of experiments with plants and CO2 enrichment
(2)
Many decades of greenhouse owner experience with CO2 enrichment
(3)
About 45 years of pleasant global warming, since the mid-1970s:
The social cost of carbon (CO2) is obviously negative.
I
would not try to place a number on it, but if someone much brighter
than me did the calculations, it would have to be to at least three
decimal places.
Real science requires three decimal places and 97% confidence.
Two decimal places and 96% confidence is just junk science.
The current social cost of carbon numbers have no decimal places -- they are pulled out of a hat (or from two feet lower).
They are meaningless green junk science propaganda to justify the green socialist agenda.
Note: Your editor attended the Rodney Dangerfield School of Comedy, where he was awarded the "Student Who Most Looks Like Rodney Dangerfield Participation Trophy"