The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.
One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.
Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.
As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.
All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!
If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.
Okay, first of all... humans require oxygen, not CO2. Second... when you exhale, you also produce carbon monoxide... Likewise, so does an internal combustion engine. Carbon monoxide is poisonous but it's not CO2.
Normal CO2 in the atmosphere is not harmfull to humans. OSHA doesn't consider it a health risk until it surpasses 5,000 ppm... a level we will never reach in our atmosphere. And even then, it's only a minor risk with long-term exposure because it displaces oxygen.
What CO2 is totally harmless to is plants. They thrive on it! It's what all plants need! They LIKE to have bout 600 ppm. We currently have about 400 ppm. Now, let's do something with these numbers to illustrate your idiocy.... not that it needs illustrating, but this will be fun....
You eat three meals a day... 21 meals per week. Let's say that we cut your diet back to only two meals a day and told you that you need to actually cut that back to 1 meal a day to "save the planet" ...would you be cool with that? You'd probably scream that you're starving to death already by cutting back just one meal, much less two. Yet, that is exactly the argument you are making for the plants. You'd rather starve innocent plants so Al Gore can buy a new private jet.
