605
posted ago by AmagingGrace ago by AmagingGrace +606 / -1

Based on empirical data, the world will need more CO2 in the future, not less. Increasing CO2 increases plants water use efficiency and allows more crop production with less water. To feed everyone in the future, we will need higher CO2 levels. And, there is no real evidence that CO2 increases global temperatures (Some models, but they are someone's guess). Your government is promoting the exact opposite of what needs to be done. Your government is using this as a way to get you to submit to their desires and implement "Satans New World Order". I will debate anyone who is serious and has been studying the issue for at least a couple of decades. The University/industry/government complex is controlling this information the same way they have controlled the information on Covid-19, by removing those who speak out against their fraud. I have spoken out at my University and they removed me from my professorship. (At my age, who cares; lol)

Comments (66)
sorted by:
40
Liberty_Prime 40 points ago +46 / -6

I'm not gonna debate you on this, because I've done my own research, and it didn't require 40 years of experience in the field. You're right.

11
Censorddit 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yeah many of us have. You are the climate they want to change is all climate change is about

24
residue69 24 points ago +24 / -0

They're pivoting to nitrogen now.

25
_Sully_ 25 points ago +25 / -0

They are attacking nitrogen because they want to bottleneck the use of fertilizers so they can force in smart farms. All of it is a grand scheme to introduce AI assisted central planning. In their mind communism failed because of the impossibility of central planning done by humans. Everything they are doing is to achieve this goal.

10
peterstrzoked 10 points ago +11 / -1

Its going to be so much fun poking holes in these clowns with our cordless hole punchers

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
15
bangbus 15 points ago +15 / -0

That’s like damned near 80% of the atmosphere!

7
GrayManNumber333 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not that nitrogen. The nitrogen that plants can use.

8
trumpORbust 8 points ago +8 / -0

Plants crave nitrogen -- without all those damn electrolytes

1
yukondave 1 point ago +1 / -0

Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator

10
Bonami 10 points ago +10 / -0

They'll be back

8
GoldenEarz 8 points ago +8 / -0

But excess nitrogen is dangerous because causes it slightly more algae to grow in some small isolated swamplands! (actual reason given by the eu)

21
YaharaRiver 21 points ago +21 / -0

We always knew that CO2 was important and necessary! Thank you for the details

17
Littleirishmaid 17 points ago +17 / -0

Logic!

22
nozonozo 22 points ago +22 / -0

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.

The models add in the extra CO2 but forget to subtract the O2 molecule needed to make it.

Atmospheric density is a more important factor in figuring out how much heat a planet will retain.

Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2 and as Elton sang "in fact it's cold as hell".

9
GrayManNumber333 9 points ago +9 / -0

Not really. All molecules are not the same for holding heat. Doesn’t matter though. We aren’t talking about a lot of CO2 it’s really a trace gas in the atmosphere, not even 2%.

4
notCIA 4 points ago +4 / -0

The best part is that C02 levels have over doubled since the 1800s, but the average temperature has only increased by up to .8 celsius max, as little as 0. That means, if the doomsday scenario of 2.5 degrees of temperature increase resulting in permanent global damage is true, we can increase atmospheric C02 by almost exponentially more than we have and be fine, according to all the current, accepted data.

6
GrayManNumber333 6 points ago +6 / -0

Their models don’t deal with clouds, storms, convection, changes in radiative heating nor particle heating well. But they handle grant money nicely.

4
nozonozo 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm pretty sure CO2 is about .04% of the atmosphere.

4
GrayManNumber333 4 points ago +4 / -0

Something like that. I don’t know the exact number. The 2% I use is from the toxicity concentration for humans. Hence why I said less. But yea, it’s trace concentration. Air is mostly nitrogen, with some oxygen and trace amounts of other stuff.

6
peterstrzoked 6 points ago +7 / -1

The models add in the extra CO2 but forget to subtract the O2 molecule

But how can you subtract O2 when maths are rayciss

5
Uffda 5 points ago +5 / -0

You spelled Maffs wrong.

2
peterstrzoked 2 points ago +3 / -1

Common core fucked me up, my bad

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
14
GaryWA 14 points ago +14 / -0

Current level is about 400 ppm. Those fat tomatoes you get from Canadian greenhouses in February are grown at levels around 1100 ppm. CO2 doesn't become lethal until around 1500+ ppm. If CO2 rises 100 ppm in the next couple centuries, big whup. Lots more food for the Useless Eaters. And I'm not a sciencematist.

9
Meatsuit 9 points ago +9 / -0

Aquascapers inject CO2 into the water in their aquariums daily.

With the C02 level raised to about 10x normal, the water is able to sustain plant growth by more rapidly converting the ammonia byproducts from the tank's livestock.

More CO2 enables more plant and animal life.

https://youtu.be/6YSa6xQSt6I?t=21

9
Artymisfoul 9 points ago +10 / -1

You spelled University and available wrong.

5
alfredbester 5 points ago +5 / -0

lol, I am a Astronot,

5
GoldenEarz 5 points ago +5 / -0

STEM grads are lousy at spelling.

4
AmagingGrace [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

You are correct. Thank you for pointing it out. Missing my spellcheck. Sorry.

8
LoobintheToobin 8 points ago +8 / -0

I’m thankful God has everything handled.

Genesis 8:22 (KJV) “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

8
Sofa_King_Salty 8 points ago +8 / -0

Whenever some greentard tries to argue that we need to reduce CO2, ask them what amount of CO2 (ppm) should we have?

Follow that question with; at what minimum level does all plant life (all life by extention) die?

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
Sofa_King_Salty 2 points ago +2 / -0

My understanding is that at 180 ppm all plants are done.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
8
Mintap 8 points ago +8 / -0

No, Brawndo is what plants crave.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
7
usernamechecksout 7 points ago +8 / -1

Based on empirical evidence…CO2 fake data is just a way for the Government to get you to submit to the satanic NWO…

  • Government Scientist
6
NikolaiVsevolodovich 6 points ago +6 / -0

But I saw a book on amazon that told me based on its title that this is just a far right conspiracy! We need to destroy agriculture and eliminate all fossil fuels or our grand children are all going to burn to death!

(as if all that isn't designed to just kill us before the grand children are ever born)

5
AmagingGrace [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

There are constantly better ways to farm to be more sustainable, but we are doing nothing to the agroecosystem that is not repairable.

2
NikolaiVsevolodovich 2 points ago +2 / -0

The ancient Amazonians had it figured out

6
Lordahdaring 6 points ago +6 / -0

The Skeptical Environmentalist is a must read.

5
Shockthemonkey 5 points ago +5 / -0

Makes sense, the Green New Steal is a sham, it is a way for you to conform to their lies so they can gain more power. The only CO2 they want to remove is you, the peasants.

4
ThomasJackson 4 points ago +5 / -1

Wait till you find out about the pedophilia

4
FreedomDeliveries 4 points ago +4 / -0

do you recommend any specific articles or studies to share and open people's eyes?

7
AmagingGrace [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

Any article on photosynthedic pathways for C3 vs C4 plants will explain the physiology enough to make the mechanisms clear.

1
FreedomDeliveries 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks!

4
notCIA 4 points ago +4 / -0

I, with no secondary education, made this same argument to my leftist friend who is an environmental scienctist and who graduated fully obsessed with man made climate change and all the accompanying assumptions. I told him that CO2 levels are loosely associated with our minor global average temperature increase at best given the current data, deforestation rates in some studies are at net zero when you account for new growth forrests, something commonly ignored under the assumption that they aren't as efficient in things like the carbon cycle as old growth forrests, and I pointed out that the arguements that the ocean is supersaturated with C02 has not only never been proven, but has mostly been refuted if anything.

4
Floridaman6969 4 points ago +4 / -0

Zero Carbon footprint, means death. That's it, the end. They want us dead, and they will stop at nothing to wipe out most of humanity.

3
WhatUCan 3 points ago +3 / -0

It is becuase they are a death cult

2
Jammyjams 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's what it all comes down to. If/when people realize that they really worship Satan, sacrifice kids, molest kids, and blackmail is the currency of power, it will all make sense. They love death, suffering, and evil. Just like the Laura Logan interview, everything they do is to satisfy Satan. They don't think like us.

It's just tough to believe because the evil is so evil, people can't imagine there are other humans out there that can operate at that level of true satanic evil.

Well, I guess Balenciaga is giving normies a taste of what we all know already.

They're making their moves right now.

3
funwithguitars 3 points ago +3 / -0

Rush always said "climate change" was the best catch-all the dem-progressive-communist-fascist fucktards could have ever stumbled onto. Because it gives them everything they want under one issue, power, control, money, agenda 21 or 30, Everyone in big cities , under ccp like control. And an excuse for everything, "people dying from climate change", etc.

3
Voiceofreason72 3 points ago +3 / -0

Say it loud!!

3
Habu 3 points ago +3 / -0

I would like to see you debate Elon Musk.

1
AmagingGrace [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Honestly, Elon is both crafty and intelligent. I am almost certian he knows the true story. More money has been made advancing and/or improving on peoples misconceptions than was ever made honestly providing a true products and services. Agriculture has no choice but to provide a product that keeps people alive, but even then there are crazy marketing ploys that are nonsense from a science standpoint. Once the agricultural product gets to the packaging and processing plant, the real hocus pocus begins. It a good idea to grow your own garden and buy your food as fresh as possible. Cook your meals from the raw products. I am almost certian you will be a healthier person.

3
Anyone 3 points ago +3 / -0

Based.

2
captainbollocks 2 points ago +2 / -0

@AmagingGrace Just for the sake of argument, assuming that the models that predict increasing temperature are correct, what does that do for the amount of available farmland on Earth? Would that be a net loss or net gain of farming territory? If all of that was true, it seems like many colder climates (Canada and Russia come to mind of course) would suddenly have much more viable farm land, and might more than make up for some currently hot territories suddenly being too hot to grow crops successfully.

2
AmagingGrace [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

In the long run, I think it would increase the overall amount of farmland, especially if it were caused by elevated CO2 (It isn't, but for this thought exercise we can pretend). However, warming and cooling are happening simulaneously, but in a geographically scattered patterned. In over 100 sites across the western US, we found a random occurance of warming and cooling, but those statically detectable changes were fairly rare, and likely oscillate around some wide mean. I am just saying the advancement of warming or cooling is not linear in space or time.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
kinghcq 1 point ago +1 / -0

get this man on rogan with a joint and lets fuck shit up.

1
AmagingGrace [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Too funny. Thank you

1
Norwegianskier 1 point ago +1 / -0

Engineer here, not an expert at all.

Would it be possible to create artificial environments with higher efficiancy and productivity by using existing and future technology, like a futuristic "grow house"?

1
AmagingGrace [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, its already being done in greenhouses for many plants. And, of course its being done with C4 crops. C4 crops have a way to load CO2 so the concentration is higher where the active uptake sites gather C. This loading minimizes O2 competition for the sites that occurs in C3 plants. The key is that when stomates open C4 plants pump CO2, so it collects more CO2 per unit of water. When stomates open, transpiration occurs along a vapor pressure gradient -from moist cool in the soil to dry hot in the atmosphere thru the plant. (Desert plants have an even trickier system for gathering CO2. They open their stomates at night and store the CO2 in the leaves until the sun comes up!) Increasing CO2 levels has the same effect on C3 plants. I think the biggest opportunity for agriculture is to improve the number of crop varieties that have C4 and CAM (desert plants) photosynthedic pathways.

1
Norwegianskier 1 point ago +1 / -0

What I think is difficult to accept is that higher amount of CO2 is needed to feed the people. I would assume, without any subject knowledge, that the improvement in production efficiency would outpace population increase.

Another note regarding CO2 levels and food production. A lower amount of C02 would reduce food output, which in turn would make food production more expensive and would harm the very population/demography the green policy advocates want to "protect". If they are correct about CO2 and temperature, increased temperature would benefit the poorer populations. CO2 and water rise is a another topic. Usually the claim is that water rising above x cm/year would impose massive economic loss upon specific strata. However, the predictions is at worst 0,5 m increase in sealevel in 2050 or 1m in 2100. Hardly a massive problem. A dramatic reduction in food production would be a larger obstacle to overcome. Is the predicted lack of freshwater based upon increasing temperature or increasing population density? Is the predicted decrease in food ouput caused by increased temperature or increased production cost?

A lot of assumptions is usually made, unfortunately it might be the same in your field. I do not have enough competance to either argue for or against your position. Nonetheless, interesting thought. Thank you. I will think about it

1
Swaster 1 point ago +1 / -0

One CAN NOT be a Christian and believe in “Climate Change!” God created the heavens a the earth. Including the petroleum within its crust. For the expressed purpose of spreading his gospel throughout all the earth. In scripture it states we are to multiply and replenish the earth. Every advancement in technology has been for that purpose. Including the internal combustion engine.

God in his infinite wisdom knew the cycles of planets. He knew we would require a resurgence of CO2 to proved the food for our growing population, specifically at this moment. So rest assured Peds, God has our back. With all that is going on these days, we need not be afraid. We know the endgame.