The paper is so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response. Indeed, being an alumnus of Princeton University and having devoted my career to study of climate change science, preparing a response almost seemed an obligation.However, allow Eli to provide shorter versions to some of Will's questions as Dr. McCracken does on a paragraph by paragraph basis with cites.
1. Is the climate change community really off on a “climate crusade”?
You appear to be confusing climate science with Marc Morano.
2. Is CO2 a pollutant or a vital molecule for life on Earth—or both?
Is poop a pollutant or a vital agricultural material?
3. On what basis is EPA moving to regulate CO2?
Law, see Court, Supreme: rulings of
4. Isn’t CO2 a nutrient for plants?
5. Don’t we really want to have a higher CO2 concentration?
6. Wasn’t the CO2 level actually nearly too low?
7. Won’t more CO2 be beneficial?
8. How high can the CO2 level be without impacting human health?
350, maybe 450, except for anorexics who will have a short, happy time.