co2 *is* a net negative. but it shouldn't be a proxy for energy #radlife

By claiming the falsehood co2 is a net negative, you are claiming that the industrial revolution, oil, gas is a net negative. You are practically disowning all of modern civilization. Hospitals, abundant food, trade & imported goods.. The alternative is starvation, cold, misery, and worse. If you live exclusively on pre-industrial revolution tech I tip my hat to you.

easy – i said co2, not energy. nuclear is the way

Carbon dioxide is neither life, nor proxy for energy. Using this type simplification is erroneous. Reading helps. And I don't mean reading weather activists. Some basics how life really works, Krebs cycle maybe? Apparently oxygen is poison. 😂 Yes, life is complicated. ROTFL

Not admitting co2 is a proxy for energy, and human development reveals a lot. If you cannot be honest with yourself on this, then you cannot have a discussion on energy. Sure, nuclear is great for a flourishing human civilization. I’m all moving up the Kardashev scale. Virtually 100% of transportation is oil & gas. Hospitals, pharma, tech all run on o&g.

You are not being honest with yourself. nevent1qqsx4wnv8fn3recdurhr3ht3c0s976g5vd94khnllep7w6r8q7pn37gexlndh

i don't make the rules 🤷🏻‍♂️ if you think venus is a nice place to live, i can't convince you otherwise. co2 is debt, and the only way out is nuclear

i also don't agree that we should punish specific populations or industries. but without addressing our co2 debt, we are giving control to someone in the future

Framing the argument that CO2 is good or bad is disingenuous. It’s neither, it just is. Whether global warming is good or bad is also missing the point. If the climate changes too quickly plants and animals simply can’t adapt quickly enough. The only questions worth taking about are; is the climate changing? How quickly? How is this going to impact our food supply?

the fallacy of assuming you know what someone else is thinking?

> Framing the argument that CO2 is good or bad is disingenuous. This is the past two decades of the climate grift, which is still going strong in a place like the EU. The unsaid part is the charlatan default of “co2 bad” means that affordable oil & gas, coal are no more.

Your note reads “Carbon dioxide is neither life, nor proxy for energy.” Carbon dioxide is a proxy for oil, gas, and coal. The stuff modern civilization depends on. You are not admitting this.

I searched for his papers and instead got 5 pages of "debunking" and discrediting articles by journalists. I feel pretty confident about the veracity of his claims, now that I know it's "journalist reviewed" research.

That's what these people have been saying for years, and they've been running billboards advertising themselves and their website in the Salt Lake City area.

CO2 Coalition

Home - CO2 Coalition

I don’t disagree but your post frames its as unequivocally good “CO2 is life”. IF the climate shifts quicker than species that we rely on for our food supply can adapt this will be a very bad situation for us. I’d rather have food than electricity.

It too complex, hence is justified to say incorrect to analyse it on such a simplified level. While carbon dioxide is essential for life as a fundamental component of the carbon cycle and a necessary greenhouse gas, it's not a simple proxy for the health of life on Earth. High levels of CO2 can be detrimental, leading to environmental disruption and negative health effects, making the relationship extremely complex. It is safer to say it is not because it will make you to dig deeper and to find out more than just that ambiguous and catchy phrase. Have a look for example how some employers keep employees suitably anxious to increase productivity using higher carbon dioxide levels in premises. It's very complex, mate, and that example shows how levels range makes difference.

The correct approach is to pursue a net benefit & drawback analysis. In things like the politicized IPCC reports there is hardly a sentence on the benefits of oil and gas, whereas there is a lot of discussion in drawbacks of human generated co2. To the specific point of “co2 is life” -plants die at 150 ppm. Humans reversed a trend of a decrease towards this, saving humans, and the broader ecosystem from collapse. -co2 is plant food and fertilizer. Looking back at geological scale, there have been eras with an order magnitude more co2. Check out the Cambrian Explosion at 7000ppm. Life was booming then. -professional greenhouses add co2 in order to increase crop yield -NASA shows net planet greening due to the co2 fertilizer effect Let’s imagine the above evidence of “co2 is life” /i.e. the benefits of co2 did not exist for a moment and/or was not spread evenly through the world. Lets say your region is experiencing drought. What do you do? You use oil and gas powered tech to adapt - e.g. drill a water well, build a pipeline, bring in water intensive food from other regions etc. The “co2 is life” statement was a provocation intended to highlight that in the so-called climate & energy “debate”, the outcome is predetermined exactly because the benefits of the “co2 is life” side are not given thought or analysis.

You are missing the point. I am not claiming co2 carries benefits only. I am saying the advantages of co2, and thus oil and gas, are not considered in the energy & climate discussion. nevent1qqs8aal68cy6r3mg36trz99n0an0a4ht580wj3l5rwxpagakqqd8l9spgm2st

Based. Dr Patrick Moore, part of that group, helped me go down the rabbit hole

Google is currated to fit leftist agendas. Stop searching Google. Maybe try searching MoJeek.

OK. I say that you can't just perpetuate mantras that carbon dioxide is a 'proxy for life' without considering the complexity of life. Stating that is simply clumsy, if not misleading. It is a sophisticated lie, period. Don't f%#@ing use it please, it's daft. Moreover, the lie is commissioned by fossil fuel industry. Shame because I like petrol cars. 😜 They're great pieces of engineering work. Other points to consider (it could go forever): 1) I was born at 300 ppm, now is 423. It means (look into research where ginko biloba fossils were used) that most of tipping points are crossed. 2) 1000 ppm makes us anxious. And current levels of the gas kill certain marine life due to acidification (Great Barrier Reef). 3) If your 'point' is that is natural, that's OK. It's not me who is going to face these 'beneficial and natural effects' of the 'life proxy'. Nor that I care about my children - simpletons, who seem to be as gullible as most of the sheeple. 4) Aren't you afraid more that the cattle you eat farts to much methane, so the nasty climate activists deprive you of that? 😂 5) Don't you think that it makes me sick too to listen daily yookay bs? 6) We're on the same page, but I don't agree with that simplification because it's a skewed narrative. Cheers! EoT

This might be the best response I’ve seen on Nostr. And you managed to do it without calling me a retard.

It’s tough subject matter to communicate and digest. Thanks for listening. The usual response “but co2 bad”, indicating a failure in communication.