![Libtards are really bad at logic. [750x1072 - 120KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/x6Szhv.jpg){kind=link}
What are you going to do? Get rid of all the plants? Kill all life on earth?
To save Earth and all its inhabitants we must kill them all, only then will the planet be a viable, stable foundation for life.
Variations in solar output are the primary driver of large scale climate shifts
nope
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
sun appears to have dimmed slightly
.
human generation of carbon emissions is dwarfed by what plants put into the atmosphere during the decomposition process
I haven't got the data I was looking for here, but: "Decaying forest wood releases 10.9 billion tonnes of CO2 " "43.1 billion tons of CO2 from human activities"
.
Which plants then consume and use to flourish.
There is a finite area for plant life, you can't magically grow more of them, plus if this was an effective moderator then CO2 would just automatically flatline every year instead of increasing
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not the cause of warming.
Similarly, it's not the sleeping bag that is the cause of you being warm on a freezing night.
And even if someone is stupid enough to not believe that, human generation of carbon emissions is dwarfed by what plants put into the atmosphere during the decomposition process.
It's true. The problem with that argument is that plants are releasing carbon they got from the atmosphere. Take in a ton over 100 years, release a ton. Net zero. Burning hydrocarbons is releasing carbon that used to be sequestered underground for millions of years.
increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is an EFFECT of warming, not a cause
That's called a positive feedback loop. The only way to deny carbon's role in the conservation of heat energy is to deny that it has any absorption in the infrared. Are you claiming that carbon dioxode does not absorb infrared radiation?
Which plants then consume and use to flourish.
If it's so good, let's put you in a room with just 20% CO2. That ought to really boost your health.
Are you actually trying to lecture me on this subject without knowing what photofuckingsynthesis does?
If you knew something about anything you would know that what photosynthesis does is irrelevant. The question at hand is not whether CO2 is useful for plants. The question is whether atmospheric CO2 increases entropy. Do you know anything about that? I suspect not since you haven't addressed it.
Fucktard.
Dude. I know you're a millenial, but try not to let sand get into your vagina whenever you encounter someone saying something you don't like. It just makes you an object of ridicule rather than someone to be taken seriously.
You argue like a dipshit. Only a dipshit would consider a FRACTIONAL GAS a significant driver of ocean temperature rises. And plants BIND carbon for the most part, they are net consumers of carbon. And burning that carbon releases CO2, which is a damn sight better than letting it decompose, which produces methane.
A fractional gas comprises less than one percent of the Earth's atmosphere. You imagine us smothering under a blanket of flat-spun gossamer?
Oh, and hey stupid, humans are animals, not plants, except you, who apparently are at least half vegetable.
You argue like a dipshit. Only a dipshit would consider a FRACTIONAL GAS a significant driver of ocean temperature rises
I didn't argue that anything was a significant driver of anything. You assumed my position simply because I pointed out OP was wrong on a number of points. That's what makes you the dipshit in the situation. Get your facts straight and then come back and see if you can have an intelligent conversation (although I suspect the way you react emotionally to encountering a counter argument means you're incapable of intelligent conversation). What the fuck is it with millenials and their freaking out when they encounter something they don't like?
(post is archived)