“Wouldn’t you think those Global Warming “scientists” would know this?”
They know it, most discount it.
They know Greenhouse growers get fantastic results with Co2 levels nearing 1600ppm (4x what we have now), but they rig up studies refuting what’s known and proven in the commercial growing world, for example:
An oft repeated Stanford study did an “open air” experiment by increasing ambient co2 and found no positive effect.
But when one delves into the study, you’ll find they purposely scuttled the co2 effects by overwatering their crop because in the future “global warming will cause more precipitation”.
When everyone and their uncle knows with higher CO2 levels, you water your crop LESS not more.
Meanwhile in the real world: It (higher co2) makes crops drought resistant, saves water and irrigation bills.
OTOH, Donohue 2013 was a study showing that anthro CO2 is greening the planet by 11%, the effects are particularly noticeable in and near the deserts of the world.
You are obviously a student of this subject.
The sources you referred to lead me to believe that the earth is more than capable of compensating for our puny anthropogenic contribution to the atmosphere. I suspect that Nature throws a volcano or two at us when it senses a deficiency in CO2.
I wish experts like yourself had a bigger voice on this debate, but I know political powers have their ways of only choosing “scientists” that are telling the right story. (And if they can’t find enough who are willing, they can coerce or buy the remainder.)