"Takup of CO2 by " missing mass" is growing exponentially"?!! "Biokinetics dominates the mechanism"? Huh?!! The which does what?!!

I question the 23% more biomass claim. In fact I question everything Dr Bunger claims! This the sort of unsubstantiated drivel that fact-busting think-tanks produce.

Actually I think I want a second opinion on all of these alleged "facts" because I'm beginning to suspect Dr Bunger has a wholly different notion of what is a fact than I do.

Yes, Taswegian. Fully 2/3s of the planet is ocean. Of the remaining 1/3, enormous areas like Antarctica and the various deserts support little or no biomass, and previously biomassive areas like the Amazon are being destroyed at incredible rates.
Rebuttal of this argument is just two words:
Ocean Acidification.

MIKK gets my vote. Because climate modelling is so complex, it's open slather for sceptics and vested interests to discredit IPCC projections. The non-experts are surely better advised to go with the vast concensus than with mavericks who say it's business as usual. The bit about 23% bio-mass increase got me too--where the hell's that happening? Are not the vast tracts of cleared forest visible from space? Also, in the business as usual scenario how is this explosion of plant life to deal with rapid and radical changes in temperature and rainfall while they're lapping up the CO2? Only species hardy enough to cope (weeds and humans) would prosper, surely.
I hope the author is right, but I'm not willing to bet the bank on it!