He showed that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually changes plant metabolism and makes our crops less nutritious, with lower levels of zinc and iron.

Actually he is far from the only scientist to show this.  It has and continues to be extensively studied (one example study of many), and is also supported by the geologic record.

Thanks Wat, it's shocking how antiscience and anti-intellectual our government currently is, that scientists are forced to leave government agencies to get their work published.

Not to mention that we always have petty squabbles about which money desperate loons run the country. Why can't we get actual scientists to run countries and have them use actual facts, research and statistics instead of their own needs as a reason to change the world? But then democracy wouldn't allow us to vote on the people that we need, just the ones that we want and the ones that have their own wants. I fear that I'll die in a world plagued by famine and war, as if there's already enough of the two.
[RANT END]

A-L-E-X:
Friday was a truly historic day for the potent new social movement committed to sounding a global alarm about the climate crisis. The Global Climate Strikes, inspired by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, age 16, may end up being the largest mass protest for action on global warming in history. 

What kind of action?  The activists need to be asked, "what is the plan that you all agree on"?  "Listen to the scientists"?  The scientists don't have a plan.  They don't make the decisions.  If they did, the deployment of nuclear power would probably not have halted in the 80's and if it hadn't, carbon emissions wouldn't have been such a big issue today.  Why did it halt?  A few reasons, but a major one was precisely activism, thanks to Greenpeace and others.  It's not the lack of plans that make activists.  People become activists because they don't like the plans for various reasons.  Doing nothing is one plan, but not the only one.

I'm not very optimistic about the climate activism.  Climate change has been overhyped and exaggerated beyond comprehension.  There is a new generation actually thinking that they have no future, or that humans will go extinct, or that wildlife and nature will collapse, unless we do something about climate change.  This is the generation that, according to the very same organisation publishing the climate reports, has the best outlook ever in the entire history of humankind for a long, healthy life.  The greatest threats to nature get ignored: land change, pollution, or simply that humans leave too little to nature for itself.  It's all based on feelings, not rational thinking.  The last thing nature needs is a new generation thinking that nature will get fixed by blanketing the earth with solar panels and wind farms, whilst transforming more fertile landscape for biofuel and ecofood, and by reversing economic growth,  We rather need to produce more with less and leave more of nature for itself.

It's not a very difficult task to reduce carbon emissions significantly.  Nuclear energy is proven.  It's expensive, but still practical and costs tend to drop as technology progresses and deployment increases.  We've already lost decades of progress.  To a large extent due to activism.

Well I find it quite heartening that auto manufacturers are stepping up and releasing many more EVs that travel larger distances without needing to be recharged.  Car companies have said that right now we have 2/3 petroleum powered cars, 1/3 EV/hybrids, by 2030 that will be flipped to 2/3 EV/hybrids and down to zero between 2040 and 2050.  Here in NY no more new housing or buildings will use fossil fuels for heat, nor will there be any new pipelines.  The number of jobs in the fossil fuel industry have actually gone way down (from 89,000 in 2009 to 29,000 in 2019)- I believe that as time goes on, this industry will keep devolving the same way the tobacco industry did- as it becomes more unpopular with time, less people seek work in that field, and the industry collapses quite naturally.  Nuclear fission and eventually fusion will replace it eventually, but whatever we do, it needs to achieve net carbon zero by 2050, that's the time limit that's been set.
https://www.myev.com/research/comparisons/the-longest-range-electric-vehicles-for-2019

The mass extinction event that we've been talking about is indeed due to humans leaving too little land for nature, overpopulation, overuse of pesticides and fertilizers, and our consumerist nature which needs to be curbed.

Actually he is far from the only scientist to show this.  It has and continues to be extensively studied (one example study of many), and is also supported by the geologic record.

Thanks Wat, it's shocking how antiscience and anti-intellectual our government currently is, that scientists are forced to leave government agencies to get their work published.

Not to mention that we always have petty squabbles about which money desperate loons run the country. Why can't we get actual scientists to run countries and have them use actual facts, research and statistics instead of their own needs as a reason to change the world? But then democracy wouldn't allow us to vote on the people that we need, just the ones that we want and the ones that have their own wants. I fear that I'll die in a world plagued by famine and war, as if there's already enough of the two.
[RANT END]

Unfortunately, we seem to be evolving towards an oligarchy or rather, several oligarchies.  The average general public, which doesn't fully understand science, gets influenced by corporate lobbyists, who also use money to influence politicians, and thats how we have a small number of giant megacorporations that rule the world.

Well I find it quite heartening that auto manufacturers are stepping up and releasing many more EVs that travel larger distances without needing to be recharged.

That's great for local pollution, in particular in cities, but the energy still needs to come from somewhere, so you haven't really solved much regarding carbon emissions.  You just centralise the carbon emissions.  In Norway, about 10% of all cars are now electric, and electric cars make up nearly half the sale of new cars.  Here the transition is well underway, but unlike the most of the world, Norway is almost entirely on hydro power.

The number of jobs in the fossil fuel industry have actually gone way down (from 89,000 in 2009 to 29,000 in 2019)- I believe that as time goes on, this industry will keep devolving the same way the tobacco industry did- as it becomes more unpopular with time, less people seek work in that field, and the industry collapses quite naturally.

Absolutely not.  The only way the fossil fuel industry is going away is when cheaper, more abundant energy becomes available.  The demand for energy will not go away.  Energy will not become unpopular.  You need it for everything, including green technology.  Political decisions to restrict production will mainly lead to higher oil prices, making the field even more attractive to work in or invest in.

Well I find it quite heartening that auto manufacturers are stepping up and releasing many more EVs that travel larger distances without needing to be recharged.

That's great for local pollution, in particular in cities, but the energy still needs to come from somewhere, so you haven't really solved much regarding carbon emissions.  You just centralise the carbon emissions.  In Norway, about 10% of all cars are now electric, and electric cars make up nearly half the sale of new cars.  Here the transition is well underway, but unlike the most of the world, Norway is almost entirely on hydro power.

The number of jobs in the fossil fuel industry have actually gone way down (from 89,000 in 2009 to 29,000 in 2019)- I believe that as time goes on, this industry will keep devolving the same way the tobacco industry did- as it becomes more unpopular with time, less people seek work in that field, and the industry collapses quite naturally.

Absolutely not.  The only way the fossil fuel industry is going away is when cheaper, more abundant energy becomes available.  The demand for energy will not go away.  Energy will not become unpopular.  You need it for everything, including green technology.  Political decisions to restrict production will mainly lead to higher oil prices, making the field even more attractive to work in or invest in.

we also have hydro power here in NY.  We had two nuclear plants but for some reason they are being shut down.  I dont think activism did it, the governor issued some sort of statement that they were leaking into local waterways, so I think they were not properly maintained.  I hope they are replaced with more modern nuclear plants that do not cause environmental issues like the one at Indian Point and Shoreham did.

A-L-E-X:
Friday was a truly historic day for the potent new social movement committed to sounding a global alarm about the climate crisis. The Global Climate Strikes, inspired by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, age 16, may end up being the largest mass protest for action on global warming in history. 

What kind of action?  The activists need to be asked, "what is the plan that you all agree on"?  "Listen to the scientists"?  The scientists don't have a plan.  They don't make the decisions.  If they did, the deployment of nuclear power would probably not have halted in the 80's and if it hadn't, carbon emissions wouldn't have been such a big issue today.  Why did it halt?  A few reasons, but a major one was precisely activism, thanks to Greenpeace and others.  It's not the lack of plans that make activists.  People become activists because they don't like the plans for various reasons.  Doing nothing is one plan, but not the only one.

I'm not very optimistic about the climate activism.  Climate change has been overhyped and exaggerated beyond comprehension.  There is a new generation actually thinking that they have no future, or that humans will go extinct, or that wildlife and nature will collapse, unless we do something about climate change.  This is the generation that, according to the very same organisation publishing the climate reports, has the best outlook ever in the entire history of humankind for a long, healthy life.  The greatest threats to nature get ignored: land change, pollution, or simply that humans leave too little to nature for itself.  It's all based on feelings, not rational thinking.  The last thing nature needs is a new generation thinking that nature will get fixed by blanketing the earth with solar panels and wind farms, whilst transforming more fertile landscape for biofuel and ecofood, and by reversing economic growth,  We rather need to produce more with less and leave more of nature for itself.

It's not a very difficult task to reduce carbon emissions significantly.  Nuclear energy is proven.  It's expensive, but still practical and costs tend to drop as technology progresses and deployment increases.  We've already lost decades of progress.  To a large extent due to activism.

How is climate change 'overhyped'? There's some hope but this is still the difference between a decent future and killing plants and causing flooding. And if we want to stop climate change, we still have to help nature. These effects will last so much longer if we just "leave nature to magically fix all our problems in a short time".

What kind of action?  The activists need to be asked, "what is the plan that you all agree on"?

Thankfully it is not up to activists to make a plan (and if they did it probably would be ridiculous or unfeasible), but rather the policy makers (who hopefully fairly represent everyone's interests).  The best way policy makers have for deciding on a course of action is to follow the IPCC summary reports, specifically written for policy makers to get the current scientific understanding of what is happening, and what results would be expected to come from taking various actions, in the most digestible way.

In other words, "listen to the scientists", but the scientists should not tell you what to do, only what you can do, and what the effects of your actions will probably be.

Thankfully it is not up to activists to make a plan (and if they did it probably would be ridiculous or unfeasible),

Many activists are precisely demanding unfeasible results in a ridiculously short time. And then, if policy makers did implement the most effective policies (such as expansion of nuclear power), I foresee a massive outcry, likely to a large extent from the same activists. Activism can lead to action and positive results, but it can go both ways, and in the case of climate change, there is such hysteria creating good conditions for making poor choices.

Again, I think it's a problem that there is a new generation thinking that they have no future unless unfeasible things get done to reduce carbon emissions in a ridiculously short time. Their view on the future if these things don't get done is not scientific, and I think there has been a failure of science communication. There are no doubt many bad scenarios that scientists can't rule out as consequences of climate change, given the right assumptions and chain of events, but that belongs to science fiction, as based on science, but not factual. Science can't rule out that there are aliens visiting earth, wormholes, exotic matter with revolutionary applications, the stuff of science fiction, but this is not what we base our policies on, and if there were a new generation thinking that these things are real or soon will be, it's a problem and science communication has failed. Scientists should not be so willing to accept the many gross exaggerations and far fetched extrapolations in the public related to their field.

Scientists should not be so willing to accept the many gross exaggerations and far fetched extrapolations in the public related to their field.

I don't believe that they do.  My experience is that in last several decades there has been more skepticism or denial of the severity of climate change, or how well we understand it, than of exaggeration of its impact -- though the latter certainly exists and as you say is growing more common in the younger generation.  Politicians and movie stars, some of whom don't understand the science as well as they probably should if they want to speak out about it, are also acting to spread exaggerations.  I think scientists have also been working against deliberate misinformation of climate change, analogous to the almost century-old controversy about leaded gasoline carrying health risks.  So I view the science communication problem as being quite complex, and now there is a growing need to manage both extremes of the misconceptions.

Providing non-scientists with a means of understanding the state of climate science is a big reason why the IPCC reports and their summaries were originally called for.  Unfortunately, I think the problem still runs deeper, in that many lay-people do not obtain their knowledge of science from reputable or primary sources, or have not had sufficient training in how to think critically about information that they are given.  Perhaps this is another failure of science communication, and also science education.

Maybe it's different in the US, more polarised.  There are many ridiculous claims on both sides, and scientists should address both extremes.

One thing for sure is that many scientists wisely avoid going public and getting drawn into a highly polarised debate.  And it's somewhat delicate.  For instance, when Greta speaking at the UN claims that people are already dying, should somebody point out, though that the claim is technically correct since people die every day, that weather related deaths both in relative and absolute numbers have dropped dramatically over the past century, that extreme weather, mainly because of the economic growth she condemns, is much less a dangerous problem now that what it used to be?

Maybe it's different in the US, more polarised.  There are many ridiculous claims on both sides, and scientists should address both extremes.

One thing for sure is that many scientists wisely avoid going public and getting drawn into a highly polarised debate.  And it's somewhat delicate.  For instance, when Greta speaking at the UN claims that people are already dying, should somebody point out, though that the claim is technically correct since people die every day, that weather related deaths both in relative and absolute numbers have dropped dramatically over the past century, that extreme weather, mainly because of the economic growth she condemns, is much less a dangerous problem now that what it used to be?

Quite frankly, I think the exaggeration is justified.  It is needed to motivate human beings to act, which humanity has historically been sluggish in doing.  It's good to see people rise up against corporate entities that have been polluting the environment for decades.  It's being done against the chemical industry too, for damaging the environment with pesticides.  Corrupt companies like Dow and Dupont and Bayer are rightly being sued- which is the only way to get them to behave, so it's good that they are losing billions of dollars for polluting the environment and our food with carcinogenic chemicals.  Frankly, the big enemy of science is corporatism (an extreme form of capitalism.)  We've seen an oligarchical like influence in politics of large companies that influx dark money to get politicians to do their bidding.  Research has shown that income inequality thanks to the influence of the top 0.1% has caused most of the ills on the planet, as well as in human society.  As far as Greenpeace is concerned, they've done good work in stopping hunting of whales and seals in many parts of the world- something I extensively support.  I dont believe animals should be killed for any reason aside from as a source of food- and even that should be limited- considering the negative impact animal farming has on the environment.  It's good to see organic soil farming on the rise also and curbing of the use of dangerous pesticides that are killing pollinators and keystone species.  Fertilizer also needs to be curbed as it is making its way into the ground water and causing massive blue green algae blooms.

I dont believe capitalism to be sustainable or healthy.  Large corporations need to be curbed and regulated because human beings' default position is shortsighted greed.  

Scientists should not be so willing to accept the many gross exaggerations and far fetched extrapolations in the public related to their field.

I don't believe that they do.  My experience is that in last several decades there has been more skepticism or denial of the severity of climate change, or how well we understand it, than of exaggeration of its impact -- though the latter certainly exists and as you say is growing more common in the younger generation.  Politicians and movie stars, some of whom don't understand the science as well as they probably should if they want to speak out about it, are also acting to spread exaggerations.  I think scientists have also been working against deliberate misinformation of climate change, analogous to the almost century-old controversy about leaded gasoline carrying health risks.  So I view the science communication problem as being quite complex, and now there is a growing need to manage both extremes of the misconceptions.

Providing non-scientists with a means of understanding the state of climate science is a big reason why the IPCC reports and their summaries were originally called for.  Unfortunately, I think the problem still runs deeper, in that many lay-people do not obtain their knowledge of science from reputable or primary sources, or have not had sufficient training in how to think critically about information that they are given.  Perhaps this is another failure of science communication, and also science education.

There are other issues besides science at play here though.  The fossil fuel industry (like other corrupt industries- including those involved in ag and pharma), like to flex their muscles.  They've been using civil asset forfeiture to seize people's homes to use their land to build pipelines.  You cant allow this kind of stuff to happen.  Especially since these pipelines have led to dozens of deaths when they explode.  I think the younger generation simply has access to more information than people did in the past and want to do something to change humanity for the better.  That should be supported.

Aside from that, people are seeing the effects of climate change in real time now, as cities along the east coast now regularly get flooded during high tide and air quality is much more poor with higher rates of asthma, farms in the middle of the country are underwater and there are massive fires that are getting worse every year, out west.  I think people are aware of this.  The military is making plans to move installations away from the coast and our states are now banning fracking because of the risk of earthquakes and pipelines and in NY and Fla no new housing can use fossil fuels.

Okay A-L-E-X, I need to remind you again that making many posts in a row is really not acceptable on this forum. Of the six you just posted I'll let you keep the first two.  

It's also not good form to copy-paste a bunch of text from articles.  Nobody wants to read copy-pasted content.  Write your own material, and use links to your sources to substantiate it.

Quite frankly, I think the exaggeration is justified.  It is needed to motivate human beings to act, which humanity has historically been sluggish in doing.

I think many people think like you do, even some scientists.  The main problem is that for a complex problem with extremely expensive solutions, acting for the sake of action likely does more harm than good.  And there are other, greater problems in the world which get neglected.  Then, there are ethical issues about falsely announce the end of the world.

Aside from that, people are seeing the effects of climate change in real time now, as cities along the east coast now regularly get flooded during high tide and air quality is much more poor with higher rates of asthma, farms in the middle of the country are underwater and there are massive fires that are getting worse every year, out west.

Are you able to support any of this with accepted science?