Except the rate of change in CO2 is far exceeding the rate of change of any compensatory process, and the replacement of natural plant growth with crops leads to excess methane release that more than compensates for the reduced CO2, so yeah. It’s not surprising, but it’s also insufficient.
“””What’s more is that while plants absorb carbon, industrial cropland typically produces more carbon emissions than it absorbs over the long term. “””
> propagandists advancing world views detached from any empirical or rational belief
The linked article is entirely empirical, and frankly seems like a good explainer for the lay public to understand what's happening. Your post seems a little like a strawman. Are you arguing against anything in particular?
> Despite this destruction, scientists keep coming to an odd conclusion: The Earth is growing greener. Not green in the metaphorical “sustainable” sense, but in the literal color green.
But this is something we knew two decades ago when I was a tween — not an “odd conclusion”. (The article implies four decades ago.)
The only way you’d find it “odd” is if you followed The Science(TM) rather than scientific investigation.
You're leaping from those two words[1] to a conspiracy around something you're calling "The Science(TM)"... Again, this seems like a very readable and worthwhile article to me. Explainer articles are Vox's specialty, and this frankly seems like a pretty good one. It's good you were paying attention four decades ago, not everyone was, and it's good that someone is trying to detail this for the people who weren't.
[1] Which can easily be interpreted as "surprising to the reader", which seems not at all controversial to me.
