In 2013, astrobiologist Jack O'Malley James predicted that visible life on Earth would become extinct because there was too little CO2 in the atmosphere. No, that's not a typo. O'Malley James explained that gas levels will eventually decrease over time (levels during the dinosaur era were five to 10 times higher than today). Eventually, it gets so low that plants can no longer photosynthesize and, of course, the food chain collapses. And I'm sorry, but unless you're a microbe, you're not going to be the “last man standing.”
Oh, and why not restructure your investment strategy in light of this eventuality? Don't decide, “I'm going to die tomorrow, so let's eat, drink, and be merry.” O'Malley James says this deadly carbon starvation won't be upon us for another billion years. And of course, this helps explain why politicians don't talk about it. (We're a little past the time they're concerned about: the next election cycle.) And the good news is, it's nothing to worry about. We will no doubt destroy ourselves long before then, in other, perhaps novel ways.
C.D.S.
But as for the author of our death, is it due to global warming due to carbon dioxide? Mainstream media says yes. In fact, carbon dioxide has become the Donald Trump of the gas world and many people are suffering from CDS (Carbon Derangement Syndrome). Consider the following creepy headline.
“Trees and land will absorb almost no carbon dioxide by 2023, a new study warns.”
(Incidentally, if the trees are on strike, that would be another indictment of the Biden-Harris administration.)
However, that article was published 5 days ago. However, just two days ago, something like this happened.
Climate models fall short because plants absorb 31% more carbon than expected.
And the day before the latter had the following title:
“Surge in global greenhouse gas emissions”
(In other words, “follow the science.” Be prepared to pivot at really short notice.)
But are CDS guaranteed in the first place? Should we be concerned about how much CO2 is produced or absorbed? In no small part, American Thinker (AT) published last Friday's “Simple Facts In an article titled “Debunking the Climate Change Hoax.''
very malevolent gas of life
AT presents 5 CO2 myths with counter-arguments on the site. The first one (all quotes/emphasis are AT):
CO2 is the climate “control knob.” This proved to be ridiculous. CO2 only makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere, while the atmosphere is 96-99% oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapor, which is a much larger determinant of temperature, varies between 1 and 4%. But what determines temperature more than anything else? Changes in Earth's solar orbit (obviously). NASA also acknowledged this.
Second:
CO2 is harmful. Wrong! CO2 is a nutrient for plants. Humans breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants do the opposite. It is a scientific fact that higher CO2 levels promote plant growth. This is essential to continuing to feed the world's growing population and is one of the reasons our planet currently supports 8 billion people.
In fact, botanists actually inject gas into greenhouses because this gas promotes plant growth. Additionally, the earth has actually become greener over the past 35 years due to rising CO2 levels.
(Note: To the surprise of scientists, Australia's Great Barrier Reef has also experienced rapid growth recently. Importantly, not all environments are doom and gloom.)
What are the actual CO2 levels?
Then there's the third myth.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are at historically high levels. Again, that's not the case. In fact, our carbon dioxide levels are at historically low levels. Before the Industrial Revolution, the fundamental starting point for climate hysteria (often cited by climate hysteria), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 290 ppm (parts per million). Plants begin to weaken (die) around 150ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently approximately 420 ppm.
In the time of the dinosaurs, gas levels were around 3600 ppm, about 8.5 times higher than today. This at least helps explain the abundance of green foliage that covered the earth at the time.
Next, AT cites an article by Armstrong Economics about the paternalist's sleight of hand. In other words:
This data clearly proves that CO2 has always been in circulation, long before humans became industrialized. This is data that the government wants to hide. They can tax the air and pretend it's to prevent climate change, just as they can pretend CO2 wasn't rising before 1950 . Furthermore, we can clean the air through regulation, as we have always done, but under global warming, we are allowed to pollute with “credits” as long as we pay the government. Masu. This is the ultimate scam, they dabble in tax pollution and people cheer instead of cleaning up anything.
In fact, America's air and water are cleaner than they were 60 years ago. We Americans have done a good job with the environment. In contrast, global warming policies cause deforestation and actually damage the environment.
Where is the crystal ball?
Finally, there are two final points for AT.
Basing government policy on future assumptions about natural processes is nonsense. Does it make sense for someone to base their policies (and invest money) on predicting what will happen in the future? Aren't there endless possibilities as to what could happen?
…If we can't even predict the weather, how can we control it? If you still believe that CO2 is the knob that controls the weather, that CO2 is harmful, that we have that CO2 concentration at historically high levels, and that the US government (or any other organization on Earth, perhaps the United Nations) If you have reached the stage where you believe that if you can predict the weather, how do you control it?
The late author Michael Crichton made the penultimate point about prophetic stupidity beautifully in a 2003 lecture. “Look, if I were selling stock in a company that I said would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it?” he said. Or do you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?''He then goes on to talk about how people in 1903 had no idea what the world would be like in 2003. I explained. Similarly, do we really think we know exactly what the world will be like in 2100?
Are industrial emissions good?
AT also provides the following video on CO2 hunger.
Therefore, assuming that human activities are increasing CO2 levels, a very serious question arises. What if this is a good thing? What if industrial emissions are staving off the dire effects of CO2 deprivation?
This goes to a deeper philosophical error that characterizes our time: the misanthropy exhibited by almost everyone on the left, right, and center. In other words, the assumption is that humans' impact on the environment is always negative.
Given this way of thinking, we would think that humans are something separate from nature, unnatural and alien beings who have influenced the world. But whether we believe that we are simply the product of evolution and therefore just intelligent animals, or that we were created by God, the conclusion is essentially the same. That is, we are either part of nature or part of God's creation. We are “natural” just like other plants and animals.
This doesn't mean it can't do damage. It means we can do good too. The bottom line is that human behavior is not necessarily bad. But our carbon confusion syndrome can be deadly.
