The fact is often omitted because people use it to erase the problem. Is it worth submerging a large area of Bangladesh for a very slight global increase in plant growth?

In particular there's a faction of people who use "CO2 is plant food" to argue that it cannot be harmful, that reduction efforts would be wrong, etc.

For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence.

And also, the whole discussion branch nearby on the greening effect of small increases in CO2 is really missing the point, and is completely ungrounded in any science. There is a whole literature out there on how significant this effect is relative to other effects of rising CO2! (Spoiler: it is not that significant.)

> For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence.

So you disagree with the grandparent post's statement that "But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message."?

There are plenty of large, prominent climate activist groups making prominent public statements. I've never heard a single one of them discuss this aspect. (Contrast with scientific papers, many of which do mention it and which are not what we were talking about).

The place to start would be: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/

The key phrase you're looking for is: CO2 fertilization.

Activists often think it's okay to lie to advance their cause.

Well, obviously. Look at how many lies we take as fact in order to get through any modern discussion on politics and public policy.