/sci/ - Science & Math

Lol no.

>>16017513
Thanks for your opinion, Patrick Moore, famous Canadian industry consultant and former activist.

Nutritional quality goes down accordingly. Life needs elements besides C, after all.

>>16017513
Science deniers will say you're wrong.

>>16017584
>Nutritional quality goes down accordingly. Life needs elements besides C, after all.
No longer a problem since those nutritional bottlenecks were removed with industrial processes to create fertilizers.

>>16018407
Lol no.

>>16018407
plants that grow faster as a result of increased access to atmospheric CO2 also root deeper for the same reason. as a result they have greater access to natural soil nutrition than they would in a lower CO2 environment and become more nutrient rich.

>>16018750
>source: my ass

>>16019073
which is the healthiest tree?

>>16019646
All of those trees have had every limiting factor except CO2 tended to. That doesn't mean that CO2 improves plant growth in the average case. It just means that given the appropriate amount of fertilizer you can get some extra growth by adding CO2. This shouldn't need to be explained to you. A plant growing in a field or forest experiences very different conditions than a plant in a greenhouse.

>>16017513
i have the theory dinosaurs died out becouse the co2 was falling and the plant food supply wasnt enough anymore to sustain such large bodys

>>16019646
This fake picture again? The tree on the far right was given fertilizer and is a completely different species than all the other trees in the photo.

>>16019670
No only the tree on the left was fertilized

>>16019688
Lol no.

>>16017513
Only assuming than heat stays bearable and that droughts aren't a problem.
Doesn't happen in the real world.

>>16019712
>heat, droughts
Only localized.

>>16019719
Photosynthesis breaks down at 120 degrees, which is where the Earth will be by 2030. So goodbye biosphere.

>>16019719
Localized randomly. That means crop failures become significantly more common and there will be fewer ways to protect your crop from failure.>>16019719

>>16019721
>120 degrees, which is where the Earth will be by 2030
Climate alarmism without supporting data

>>16019732
Random, localized crop failures serve as perfect regularization/selective pressure for crops to evolve.

>>16019739
>Crop failures are a good thing because even though none of the crops survive and even if they did they wouldn't be used for seed, somehow this will represent a selection pressure and in a few thousand years maybe that will be a benefit!
This is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

>>16019738
Denialism funded by oil companies.

>>16019766
kys climate cultist shill. You absolutely worthless cunts have been wrong every time.

>>16020077
Take your meds.

>>16019766
>its a conspiracy!!!
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will allow nature to thrive in ways that no human or any other creature has witnessed in over 20 million years.
Anyone who would complain about that hates life.
Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause all the numbers on picrel chart to double as well.

>>16020275
It's a well documented disinformation campaign with a very clear paper trail. You are either a shill or a useful idiot.

>>16020413
Take your meds

>>16018401
he is wrong tho. An increase in global CO2 will cause increase in global temperatures. Most food is grown in the tropics, and they're pretty close to the max temperature for most of the crops grown there. Even 1 or 2 degrees change will render huge regions unarable. The final result of increase C02 is decreased food production. They don't teach this in middle school tho.

>>16020931
>An increase in global CO2 will cause increase in global temperatures
no it won't
co2 isn't a greenhouse gas, thats already been conclusively proved.

>>16017513
yes, just inhale more of the gas that makes you retarded, wouldn't want you getting smart. now buy more oil

>>16021734
Good thing CO2 is a trace gas that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere.

>>16021734
CO2 is plant food so it will never rise above 600 ppm. Higher CO2 concentration = higher plant activity = more plants = lower CO2 concentration. It's a dynamic balance.

>>16021931
>it'll totally stop at 600 because… it just will, ok??

>>16021934
The higher it goes the larger the downward pressure is. It hasn't gone above 600 ppm in 5 million years. Recorded human history is like 5000 years.

>>16021936
just because it's never gone higher doesn't mean it can't

>>16021940
It's up to you to prove that it CAN go that high, since your faction is the one asking for change.

>>16021945
it's up to you to prove that it wont go that high, since your "faction" is the one causing the issue

>>16021959
Prove there is an issue?

>>16021971
right here >>16021734
see also all the lung cancers from all the toxic shit your overlords want us to keep breathing so they can keep making money

>>16021974
How is increased CO2 concentration an issue when CO2 is plant food?

>>16021981
because it makes you retarded, but you're already too retarded to understand that apparently

>>16021992
It only makes you retarded above 1000 ppm. We're only at 400 ppm.

>>16022002
>It only makes you retarded above 1000 ppm
wrong
>We're only at 400 ppm.
yeah so why do you protect the "people" that are causing the constant increase we're facing
>inb4 noooo you don't get it it's gonna stop at 600 because i said so

>>16022004
>noooo you don't get it it's gonna go to 600 because i said so

>>16021992
>CO2 makes you retarded
you should check out the tremendous disparity between urban and rural CO2 levels sometime.
once you're aware of it you'll stop listening to urbanites and recognize that they're all retards

>>16022002
It doesn't. Try taking an IQ test in a CO2 enhanced greenhouse and see how much worse you do. Theres no difference. The people who work in those places wouldn't be able to do their work if CO2 has the effect that the hysterics claim it does. Or they'd be working in hazmat suits.

>>16019670
Source?

>>16019663
Trees breath CO2. Trees are carbon based lifeforms, as are we all. We all get carbon from the carbon cycle. CO2 is a vital component in this. This has been established scientific fact for the best part of a century. If you wish to overturn it you need to provide sufficient evidence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
>The Greening of the Earth
Green area on the Earth has increased by 5% so far this century mainly due to the influence of additional atmospheric CO2, this is the equivalent of an additional Amazon rainforest having been added to the planet.
Global warming hysterics are upset about this.

>>16025907
Co2 is a leftist lie.
Spewed by communist corporations.

>>16025907
Good link, its insane that people complain about CO2

>>16021734
urban zones like the one where you live already have daytime co2 levels far in excess of 600ppm, yet you still choose to live there.

>>16028453
are urbanites all morons becuase of the high CO2 levels in urban zones?

>>16028808
More like all rural chuds are retards due to lead pipes throughout red states.

>>16021931
>CO2 is plant food
ya and oxygen is animal food
You're a fucking retard. You need to be ridiculed and told to shut the fuck up at every opportunity

>>16028827
You don't breathe oxygen...?

>>16028812
>muh red vs blue
>>>/pol/

>>16029656
Red: pro-science
Blue: anti-science

>>16028827
>bro just put an oxygen mask on and you'll grow bigger
kek

>>16028827
>what is photosynthesis

>>16017513
>14 billion dinosaurs can't be wrong.
Kek.

>>16030764
This is how far the global warming cultists have to go to protect their absurd death cult belief system, they have to deny all the most basic science. Not just photosynthesis, but physics as well

>>16028812
>t. co2 poisoned urbanite retard

>>16029075
>>16030598
>>16030764
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought respiration was the same as ingestion

>>16025907
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/humans-are-officially-greening-the-earth-is-that-a-good-thing/

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon

>>16032738
Photosynthesis is also respiration.

>>16032907
It's not both at once.

Isn't nitrogen the limiting reagent in farming?

>>16032993
Depends on the soil, but yes. Nearly all yields are limited by available nutrients which typically means nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

>>16019721
Photosynthesis stops at 86ºF leaf surface temperature in C3 plants, and 114º-116ºF in C4/CAM plants

>>16033009
Photosynthesis stops at 50°F too. Earth's average temp is 59°F. If anything Earth should be warmer, not colder.

>>16017513
Is not the only chemical we dump inside earth borders

>>16033023
Why do climate change alarmists focus on CO2 then?

>>16017513
There is literally zero upside to increased CO2. The current atmospheric balance and the current climate are perfect and any change is bad. Stop spreading misinformation.

>>16033027
>The current atmospheric balance and the current climate are perfect and any change is bad
Prove it

>>16033025
brainwashing

>>16033027
Earth is dynamic. Rapid changes are not exceptional. More CO2 is better. Now come back after researching meltwater pulse 1a and let me know what you found out about sea level rise.

>>16033240
Take your meds. The Earth is not an entity and every rapid change in climate is accompanied with mass extinctions.

>>16033246
We're overpopulated. Controlled mass culling is long due

>>16033250
That is very different from unmitigated climate change. Go back to /pol/.

>>16033264
It's not unmitigated. Earth is a dynamic system that corrects itself. Higher CO2 concentration = higher plant activity = lower rise of CO2 concentration.

>>16033264
Did you even do your homework on meltwater pulse 1a? Any upcoming sea level rise is entirely unremarkable.

You know what causes mass extinctions? Habitat loss, lack of wildlife corridors and polluted water ways. Global warming is darn right good for the environment compared to any one of those three other issues. But your not screeching about them are you. No, you are a tool of the globalists a useful idiot who will gladly let them use carbon as a tool of oppression to hand power from the populous to the elites. Today they are working diligently to make small farms unviable in Europe, tomorrow you will buy all your food from the mega corps and you will pay the prices they demand or you will starve. Gates ranch cattle, $50 a burger.

>>16033273
Wrong. Would you like to try again?

>>16033283
Go back to school chud

>>16033282
Nobody is talking about sea level rise. Take your medication and come back with a real argument.

>>16033285
So you don't want to try again? I accept your concession.

>>16033292
Prove him wrong

>>16033288
Nice deflection

>>16033288
Sea level rise is the only practical downside of global warming. Island nations that will flooded.

After all far more people die from cold temperatures than hot ones. More land will be made arable in the north than what is lost. Plants will thrive and so will the entire food chain on down with more CO2. The only small downside at all is sea level rise.

>>16033297
It's a nonsense claim with no evidence. The burden of proof is on him, or you if you want to champion his argument.

>>16033300
The irony. Who is talking about sea level rise?

>>16033303
Non sequitur and irrelevant. Sea level rise is negligible and the rest of wat you said was bullshit. When are you going to stop making shit up?

>>16033314
Not an argument. Youve been wrong all thread and refuse to actually argue any point.

>>16033334
Non sequitur. Would you like to try again?

>>16033335
>when you don't have an argument but want to autistically post anyhow

Brother, I am going to bed, good night. You will eventually accept that global warming is a scam to control you though carbon. But it is OK, you don't have to accept anything tonight, I was once where you are.

>>16033340
I accept your concession. Next time try using evidence to back your arguments.

>>16033341
Logic > data provided by untrustworthy sources.

>>16033343
Non sequitur and you haven't provided either. Would you like to try again?

>>16017513
No, raised CO2 level leads to scientist genetically engeneering algae in ocean, that abosrbs all CO2, halting food production.

>>16020931
The heating effect of co2 diminishes almost entirely over 400ppm.
We already maxed it out.

>>16020931
>. Even 1 or 2 degrees change will render huge regions unarable.
not my problem

>>16021992
people will adapt to such conditions
besides, dysgenics is far more a threat to our intelligence

>>16021974
>so they can keep making money
You buy their shit. If you dont want them to make toxic shit dont pay them to do so. You socialists are fucking retards.

>>16025927
Statist, not communist. Govt ensures they keep their position.

CO2 absorption window is already 90% saturated at 100 pm. More CO2 won't affect greenhouse effect. You can stop being a dumb faggot now.

>>16033288
Ah yes the classic game of "But no scientist said X".
What matters is what the public are being told. They are being told endlessly by your crowd things like "sea level rise will kill us all" "the world will be an iceball by 2010" "the world will be a fireball by 2030" "if we dont stop this one amazon tree frog dying out we'll explode".

This is what the public is told, so these arguments are what is relevant to the discussion. Your team constantly plays bailey with these arguments, and when questioned on them, yo retreat to your motte of "But no scientists said X".

>>16033710
Take your meds. Sea level rise is measured in millimeters per year and the only person who brought them up ITT is you. It's not an issue and you know it which is why you're trying to use it as a straw man. Why are climate change deniers incapable of arguing in good faith?

>>16017513
Increasing Co2 increase plant productiom but decreases nutrition density. Co2 is not a nutrient. It actually makes plants worse food. You`ll learn about this in high school.

>>16017584
If you starve a plat of CO2 it will form its cells entire out of zinc, vitamin C and assorted micronutrients. Full spectrum nutrition

>>16033798
Shut the fuck up, no one wants to argue with you. SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>16033702
>You buy their shit.
i don't.

>>16033983
Vast overwhelming majority of environmentalists, along side the rest of the population, do. It's highly unlikely you're telling me the truth. Fact remains your kind blame the "evil capitalists" yet are the ones paying them to do what they do. Worse, you demand the govt bans the capitalists from doing what you pay them to do. It's idiocy only a leftist could come up with.

>>16033798
Ridiculous statement. You're doing just what I said you vermin do in >>16033710, motte and bailey nonsense.
>Why are climate change deniers incapable of arguing in good faith?
Disgusting subhuman leftist. It cries out in pain as it strikes you.

>>16033983
>i don't.
This is impossible. You cannot exist in the world and not use coal or petroleum products. Doesnt matter if you walk everywhere, your shoes are made of petroleum products

>>16033971
>>16033996
Take your meds. Only climate change deniers bring up sea level rise and they do it as a straw man because it's negligible. Why don't you talk about ocean acidification, or the polar vortex destabilizing, or changes in weather patterns that are causing drought? Could it be because you don't actually care about the issues and you're looking for a way to try to "win" the debate?

You are a cancer on society.

>>16034004
Neck yourself statist filth.

>>16034005
Take your meds and stop hiding behind straw men.

>>16034004
>Only climate change deniers bring up sea level rise
I didnt bring up anything, Shut the fuck up, stop talking about the climate, you are not welcomed here. If you still want to talk about it go meet people that think like you, go to some stop oil meetup.

Increased CO2 levels will cause more spike protein rna machines from the vaccines to kill sheep and marxists

>>16034007
Take your meds and stop hiding behind straw men.

>>16034006
see
>>16033710

>>16033710
see
>>16034009

>>16017584
No it doesn't, healthier plants produce healthier food.

>>16034500
Plants in higher CO2 environments root deeper so they have access to more of the soil micronutrients and moisture they need. You can see the effect in >>16019646 pic, the high CO2 tree also has longer needles and thicker green growth

>>16019663
>All of those trees have had every limiting factor except CO2 tended to. That doesn't mean that CO2 improves plant growth in the average case.
It means CO2 improves plant growth in cases when other resources are available, which is a significant proportion of cases (especially in regards to modern agriculture) so it does improve plant growth in the average case.

>>16021734
And this is why big cities shouldn't be allowed to vote, they are all degenerate shit holes.

>>16035149
>which is a significant proportion of cases
Wrong. Agriculture is a tiny fraction of the plants on Earth and if most of them had all the nutrients they needed then eutrophication wouldn't be a thing.

>>16035190
>Agriculture is a tiny fraction of the plants
2% of plant biomass and 12% of land (38% with pastures included).
But if I mentioned agriculture in parentheses it's not to mean that it was the only case in which CO2 would help, just that it was the case that is most relevant to our interests, and where it would help especially, because we can add fertilizers where they're needed.

>>16035222
>But if I mentioned agriculture in parentheses it's not to mean that it was the only case in which CO2 would help
That is actually the case. CO2 will not green the Earth.

>>16035238
Its already done that, so you're clearly wrong, dumb and gay.

>>16035222
>2% of plant biomass and 12% of land (38% with pastures included).
those numbers are all wrong

>>16036244
No it hasn't. China and India are greening the Earth. Say thank you.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>16037408
No they aren't.

>>16037510
https://foreignpolicy.com/2007/02/15/china-spray-paints-a-mountain-green/
Thank's China!

>>16037528
>foreignpolicy.com
CIA propaganda

>>16037538
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/world/asia/14iht-green.4590765.html

>Ctrl+f "meds"
>7 results
Get some new material, retard. You're as bad as the redditor who replies "lol no". Likely enough even that you're him.

>>16037512
yes they are

>>16019646
Its amazing how doubling atmospheric CO2 far more than doubles a plant's productivity.
since plants are 3 dimensional objects, doubling the CO2 makes the plant 800% more productive.
the people who are around in 100 years are going to witness the most explosive and rapidly growing nature that any human or any other creature has witnessed in over 10 million years.

>>16037647
Take your meds.

>>16037528
>>16037541
Not an argument. CO2 is not greening the Earth. We've used satellites to check.

>>16033025
Because it’s released by all economic activity, which means declaring it a threat let’s them guilt trip everyone, seize control of the entire economy and give fat subsidies to their cronies for white elephant green tech. The “climate crisis” is a Trojan horse for “climate justice”, ie left-wing policies. If it was about the environment they’d focus more on forever chemicals, but since we could phase them out without ending capitalism they’re not useful.

>>16040775

>>16040693

>>16041977
See
>>16037510
It's human activity. Not CO2

>>16040693
>CO2 is not greening the Earth.
It is, the sahara is receding

>>16042031
thats why the greatest greening is taking place in the most remote regions where nobody lives, such as north eastern russia

>>16043234
Exactly

>>16017513
>greatly increase food production
Imagine you were vastly wealthy. You have all the man-made material things to live a comfortable life, all of your basic and intellectual needs are met. What is left that you want? Probably beauty, you want a long unspoiled beach, an expanse of forest to explore. You want animals and plants to be in their natural state. You want the humans around you to be beautiful and intelligent.
90% of humans are definitely not beautiful or intelligent. They hunt and kill animals (not a bad thing in itself, but there are only so many sustained by the environment). They chop down and burn the plants. They clear the forest for logging. They take up space and leave plastic on the beach. They wear shitty clothes, despite the fact they could afford nicer ones. They have no taste, they make no attempt at bettering themselves.
Add on top of this ethnic hatreds not described here, and you have an extreme situation.
Can you see? Really you want them gone. Not dead, but just gone.
You are the carbon they want to reduce. It does not matter if you are in fact beautiful or intelligent, you are collateral.

>>16041352
>>16043983

>>16042040
That's the result of human efforts.

>>16043234
Why would you try to put a forest in the middle of a city, retard?

>>16017584
>Nutritional quality goes down accordingly
Citation needed. Plants to not accumulate minerals because it is somehow amuisng, they do it because they need th eminerals for the metabolism and growth.

>>16044216
plants that grow faster due to growing in a CO2 enhanced environment also root deeper, which means they have access to more soil micronutrients in a CO2 enhanced environment

>There was an Ice Age when CO2 was 5,000 ppm.
how did that happen if CO2 is really a greenhouse gas?

>>16045721
Because CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

>>16017584
Yep, it basically makes plants obese.

>>16020931
Wouldnt the parts of the world further north(canada, russia, alaska) just become suitable for farming and compensate for that?

>>16047743
no it doesn't

modern plants have smaller stomatal pores we would have to genetically alter them to make them larger to take advantage of ultra high CO2 concentrations like ancient plants did

>>16048071
sorry, decrease not increase. duh.

>>16048071
they just don't open them as wide when theres more co2 available. thats why plants require less moisture in high co2 environments, because less moisture evaporates via those pores.
you're talking about plants that already grow fine in co2 enriched greenhouse environments, they don't need any help, they've already evolved to survive in environments with varying levels of atmospheric co2, they go though highly varying co2 concentrations in the air on a daily basis

>>16017513
>it was fine in the mesozoic, it will be fine now
picrel is the mesozoic

>>16046407
tsmt

Who cares about plants? I eat meat.

>>16040065
Right, increasing atmospheric CO2 is good news for the environment

>>16044007
Having trees in a city does a very nice job of mitigating urban heat bubbles, pollution. Urbanites would be better off with more them, they're shooting themselves in the foot with their livid hatred for all things natural.

>>16040065
>since plants are 3 dimensional objects, doubling the CO2 makes the plant 800% more productive.
you didn't show your work
and in any case that's wrong
0/10

>>16051167
NTA but
>The fresh weights of leaves and stem tissues were largely higher in the 800 ppm group, at 43.86 and 77.09 g, respectively, when compared with 12.97 and 11.24 g, respectively, in the 400 ppm group.
11.24g vs 77.09g isn't far off an 800% increase

>>16020106
2 more weeks

>>16051147
Trees =/= forest

>>16021934
>chart explaining exact measurements from 6 gorillion years ago
holy moly I fucking love science!

>every climate alarmist in this thread
post a timestamp of your rural home or stfu

>>16021934
>source: http://propaganda.climate.zog
yep, thats and unbiased source of information if i ever saw one

>>16051520
>>16052587
noooooo data that would lower daddy big oil's market value!! it must be fake!!!!

>>16051514
Trees = forest

>>16033970
source?

>>16051514
If you get enough of them you have a forest.

>>16021934
>cut down all the trees and kill all the wildlife
>wtf why isn't the co2 going down???
Jesus, the globalist retardation really is on another level

>>16053697
>>16053731
Not quite. You should read up on what makes a forest a forest. As is you can't see the forest for the trees.

>>16053904
>you should read *source i was gullible enough to trust* or you're wrong
whats it like having no critical thinking ability?

>>16055141
Most people are low IQ, critical thinking ability is something that only exists in a small fraction of the population. Those people don't know what its like to not have an intellect since they've never had one.
>but I did have breakfast this morning

>>16055141
>>16055851
t. Retards who think tree farms are forests

I bet you think public parks are forests too.

>>16056306
>but I did have breakfast this morning

I think its really nifty that not only are oil gas and coal excellent power sources, but they also enrich the atmosphere with plant food. Its almost as if god exists and he is rewarding us for being productive.

>>16021959
There isn’t a single person on the planet, not causing the issue Dipshit

>>16032998
No its sunlight if your soil isn’t shit
>t.gardner

>>16047918
It will take hundreds of years to build the soil

>>16017513
Buteyko show than cells need more CO2 because the ideal conditions were in the cambric period, then megafauna or gigant insects before dinosaur extinctions is explained as atmosphere had more CO2.
Then Climatic change is a hoax for World Governments control the population.

>>16058516
No it wouldn't, southwestern Alaska already has some of the best agricultural soils in the world, but no climate to make of it

>>16058414
Exactly, moron. Most of the soil on Earth doesn't have a gardener dumping fertilizers on it.

>>16057269
Learn what a forest is before you try to sound smart

>>16060688
>but I did have breakfast this morning

>>16061792
Filtered.

>>16060617
That green section is optimum for plants that evolved initially in much higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and later acclimatized to very low concentrations of CO2. Once the atmosphere gets into the 1000ppm range those plants will start to evolve back to being able to gobble up CO2 at even higher rates and their optimal levels will increase to 2000 or 3000ppm

>>16062470
Nonsense.

>>16061821
>but I did have breakfast this morning

>>16060617
how come everything on the planet didn't die back when CO2 levels were much higher than they are currently? why didn't global warming kill everything?

>>16064511
It did. The world was a wasteland devoid of life during the Permian, which is the last time when CO2 was this high.

>>16064522
lol

>>16017584
I hope this was sarcasm

>>16017513
Why do these people omit solar activity when making such claims?

>>16066153
is this bait, this is like boomer facebook shit

>>16066486
you just posted evidence of wind-turbines killing birds
>2017
>7 years of building more wind turbines
>true estimates of bird mortality are difficult to determine and estimates aren't available for some human-caused sources, such as habitat loss
>wind turbines being erected in bird habitats

you're so up on the windmill hugging koolaid chugging parade you can't see what's right in front of your face

>>16066497
multiply the number of windmills and their respective deaths by 100
aaaaand we haven't even surpassed collisions with electrical lines

>>16066497
also in terms of habitat loss, wind turbines are built on farmland, moorlands or the ocean
not on freshly cut forest

>>16066503
Wind turbines disproportionately affect large predatory birds, raptors, that have much smaller populations than the birds most of your statistics account for.
Which is more disruptive to an ecosystem? Losing 1,000,000 sparrows or 1,000 eagles?

>>16066508
>farmland, moorlands
IE the primary habitat of raptors.

>>16066508
anywhere there aren't lots of people is birdland, you fucking low IQ environment destroying nigger
the data is completely ignoring ocean windmills anyway so it is irrelevant to this discussion

>>16017568
>>16017578
We are made of carbon. Plants grow from breathing CO2. The more CO2 the bigger the plants get. The more the plants grow, the bigger the animals grow that eat them. This is all common knowledge. Animals were bigger in the past when there was more carbon in the food chain (See: dinosaurs). Recently, science has been rewritten to say that the reason they were bigger was because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere.

The claim made by the OP is supported by common knowledge, accepted science facts, logic and evidence from the fossil record and ice cores. If you wish to say that trees and animals don't get bigger with increased CO2, then you need to provide the sources which overthrew the original consensus. If you don't have that, you can safely be ignored. Also, prove that it is oxygen alone and not CO2 that makes plants and animals grow bigger.

>>16066522
>>16066524
true, but its cheaper, and easier to convince people than nuclear power

>>16017513
>we know the end of the world will take place in 600 million years when decreasing co2 levels will mark the end of photosynthesis
>the sun's increasing luminosity coupled with there being nothing to replenish oxygen will result in a runaway greenhouse effect
>end of the world by way of venus 2.0 and shutting down of plate tectonics/magnetosphere
>so-called climate-activists want us to worry about only the former form of "global warming" instead of realizing the role we must play in mitigating celestial effects
???????????????????????????????????????????????
shouldn't we be keeping a steady supply of both O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere right now whilst mitigating industrial pollution and uncontrolled economic growth/consoomerism/overpopulation? I was told we were already seeing desertification become a natural issue on top of countless extinctions that might be important to the food chain

>>16025907
>Green area on the Earth has increased by 5%
Is this by planting trees in an already green area though? If total green area is decreasing due to desertification, then this is going to be only taking shit from remaining non-forested land.

>>16033935
funny how nobody in the thread is replying to this

>>16025927
>communist corporations.
Americans really are brainwashed.

>>16033935
>your low carbon potato has 250kcal of starches and 15% of the RDA of vitamin b1
>my high carbon potato has 600kcal of starches and 15% of the RDA of vitamin b1
Lower nutritional density isn't the end of the world if its because the food is so much more energetic but otherwise adequate in nutritional content.

>>16066653

>>16067080
kek

>>16066647
you got ignored because your post is stupid and clearly fake

>>16067805
Sure, kid. You know google is free, right?

https://lamont.columbia.edu/news/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9003137/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30108-1/fulltext..

https://www.the-scientist.com/as-carbon-dioxide-goes-up-plants-nutrient-content-declines-70720

>>16066647
Climate change deniers don't engage with anything outside of their script. They don't know how to respond to CO2 decreasing the nutritional quality of plants so they pretend the post doesn't exist.

>>16021645
Prove it. Show me

>>16033282
There still needs to be governmental regulation to stop any of this shit you fucking idiot but your retarded ideology makes you fundamentally incapable of perceiving this because the solution goes against your ideology

>>16034007
You are experiencing cognitive dissonance you stupid faggot animal

>>16041352

Damn That’s crazy the solution to the problem is still the same

Billions must die

The environment is being destroyed and whether or not c02 is the cause, human activity is destroying habitats and fucking up the ocean and poisoning us and the only solution is a disruption of industry which will need to be implemented by a sort of government and doing so will vastly reduce the human population so you fucking retards have no argument

climate change worshipper shows their true colors in this thread
hates people and wants authority over you

>>16068343
Most of humanity is going to die one way or another. Taking control of it so it is less bad than it inevitably would be otherwise is the only ethical thing to do. You are retarded and worthy of hatred. You are a stupid and evil animal that needs to be put down. You do not deserve life and have no self awareness. If I could look inside your mind and map out your belief system I could prove that you agree with me and want me to kill you and don’t even realize it because you’re so stupid like a dog.

>>16068343
If you’re using your freedom to destroy the planet you do not deserve it and you are infringing upon the rights of everyone else on the planet you stupid fucking cunt. I hav the right to kill everyone like you in self defense

>>16068390
>>16068565
You sound like a jew

>>16068645
If the Jews are down to murder your faggot ass I’m signing up. But it won’t be murder and you know that.

>>16069241

>>16068311
>i am the savior of mother nature
>i am the protector of planet earth
you have a narcissistic personality and a messiah complex