No, because he didn't know in 1938 that we would be on a path not just to doubling CO2, but to quadrupling it.<quoted text>
He also said that increasing C02 was beneficial, "poses no threat, and wonít bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict."
Accept that? Or do you prefer your cherry-picked conclusion?
Even at his low estimate of climate sensitivity, he would have recognised the danger at that level outweighed any benefits.
Science moves on; denial doesn't.