They are looking for your kind. And that's really special.

Libtrads would say too much of anything, even water, can kill you — but they’re wrong!

Good one!

The CO2 is being used as a measurement in a credit system.
Boss: I see you exceeded your CO2 production limit for the month. We are going have reduce your daily breath allotment.
Corporate slave: *hold breath* ... *releases breath*
Boss: your fired

Climate change is russian propaganda.
Ever wonder why all the green environmental groups are anti-nuclear?

I call them 'environmentalcases' for a reason.

Not politically affiliated. Yes CO2 is essential for plants, but if you looked at the big picture and actually study and monitor plants all the way down to the soil health of plants you would then learn that plants use oxygen from soil through their root system, and it is that oxygen inside the soil which is more essential to plants. Plants spend most of their time taking in CO2 and respirating oxygen, they then store that CO in the ground. The problem lies in the fact that CO2 emissions from organic matter, humans and decay is not the same as CO emissions from burning fuels, and combustible liquids or gasses. This process lacks 2 atoms when released into the air. What is actually happening is the air receives a over abundance of carbon monoxide through human activity. Plants then are overloaded with CO and the 2 is actually less of a problem than the CO. When a soil sample is heavy in CO the other elements are lacking, and oxygen is lacking, the soil is then poor in quality, which then resprates co2 into the air along with other elements such as hydrogen, argon, methane to name a few. It's the carbon monoxide that causes the dilemma. If you stay in a building with a propane gas leak for a specific amount of time awake, you then slowly get poisoned by carbon monoxide. If we really want to keep on believing that humans are not capable of altering the organic makeup of the earth, then we can all enjoy a slow poisoning. "The Earth's not going anywhere, we are" (George Carlin). The earth is self correcting according to George, and I would agree.

No sorry. You need to count in cloud cover. When you do that more CO2 is better.
Also we are going to die long before climate change gets us due to much more urgent pollution issues.

Some good points, some inaccurate points. CO2 is stored in the plant tissue, not in the soil. CO2 in soil is from decomposition sources and CO2 entrained in raindrops, snowflakes and precipitation, and other sources. I presented data at a conference, using the "dirtiest" CO2 numbers for combustion of all oil produced (oil production records are pretty meticulous worldwide since the oil industry began in the 1850s- coal not so much because much predates written records). Anyway, we have produce just over 900 billion barrels of oil, less than 50% of that is utilized in combustion, most is used as a chemical feedstock, asphalt, etc. I generously calculated a trillion barrels production, all burned, using the highest tonnage of CO2 per barrel to show the absurdity of the presumption that using fossil fuel is altering the climate. It totalled about 8 parts per million, no where near the 60 or so ppm increase they publish. Then I suggested this volume was well within the capability of plant life to remove from the atmosphere. It was after that presentation the carbon isotope theory arose to refute my hypothesis. We call it the acky acky poo poo theory, that plants discern CO2 sources. Dr. Roy Spencer and others showed that water vapor is a more significant driver of temperature, now the seed has been planted that man-made water vapor is destroying the planet too. Problem is water vapor precipitates when it reaches certain levels. See my comments to BATTL3BEE above.

The fact of the matter is that the more the soil decomposes due to poor soil elements, and soil health, the more the ground resprates CO2 through a faster rate of decomposition. It's a hypothesis I have concluded through reading a geography book. But yes the CO2 cycle is always happening. It's the carbon monoxide that brings in a bigger threat. And plants also pull elements from the air into the soil all the time. That's why farmers have such a fun time spraying all that nitrogen and loosing it to the water table, and evaporation.

Uh geography book? Maps and stuff deal with soil sciences? Can I recommend you stop commenting about things you know absolutely nothing about? 79% of the atmosphere is nitrogen. Lightning provides the energy to attach nitrogen to rain drops which naturally fertilizes the earth. 20 % of the atmosphere is oxygen. that leaves 1% of the atmosphere- 6/10ths of 1% is Argon, then you have helium and other inert gases. CO2 is .0004% of the atmosphere, CO even less, methane is .00017% of the atmosphere.
Nitrogen comes from other sources as well, the myth that we are killing our soils is absurd, it defies science. Have you heard of catalytic converters? Do you know what they do? The EPA dealt with CO decades ago.
I could give you the names of some great books on soils, hydrology, geology, gas law, biology, chemistry and physics that I've read if you are serious.

Just to clear this up CO2 is not the same as CO burned from combustibles. I would even go on further to say CO2 is not the same as methane released from animals, and organic CO2 released from organic decomposition is not the same because other elements are also released in that process. So pointing a finger to say it's specifically one element causing global warming is BS. Maybe if someone could calculate all the radiation from WW2, or all the exhaust fumes and radiation from NASA over the years, then maybe the government would realize they have 3 fingers pointing at them when they blame breathing humans for global warming.

Of course CO2 is not the same as CO, that's why one has a numeral designation to differentiate it from the one with fewer oxygen atoms. CO will kill you, CO2 is not toxic. CH4 from any source is CH4. CO2 is not CH4, not even close in properties, let alone composition. The earth has absorbed and diminished radiation (comes from outer space all the time) and is resilient, more resilient than people are being led to believe. Just outside our greenhouse effect is space that is negative 470 degrees. Without the greenhouse effect, nothing lives here. The earth has thrived for billions of years in the most hostile environment to exist. Repeat after me, 67 parts out of a million is k=not going to destroy my home.
As for the radiation comment, I did environmental research at the Nevada Test Site (google it). The science around half life has changed to reflect reality, the earth is incredibly efficient at processing things out to perpetuate life.
It's best not to open your mouth and be revealed as a fool if you don't really know what you are espousing as expertise.

The great thing about science is that it's not absolute and always changing. Revolving around multiple hypothesis, and observation of many multiple individuals. If science was definitive, then it wouldn't change over the course of time and new observations. I believe the only fool is science. Sure it can give answers, but they might not be the same answers in 3 years.

Honest science has many confirmed absolutes. Climate change is selectively using two sets of numbers. Whenever you hear "satellite data shows..." it's vital to understand that reliable satellite data only started to be collected in the early 1990s.
The official record lowest temperature was recorded at Vostok, Antarctica in July, 1983 of negative 128.6 degrees (ground level) however the lowest recorded by satellite was in August 2010 of minus 135.8 degrees, other satellite observations gave a low reading of negative 144 degrees. The record is still maintained as the official ground reading.
The same differences occur on high temperature readings, with satellite readings typically skewing higher than ground readings. The hottest temperature recorded was in 1913 in Death Valley of 134 degrees.
If you wanted an average temperature of the earth, you could take the average of the 2 extremes which would give the average temperature of the earth as 2.7 degrees above zero. Or you could selectively average temperatures to come up with the absolute 57 degree standard used by climate changers.
Temperature is never static, it is not uniform over the surface of the earth, in addition it is dynamic. If it was ever 57 degrees in Hawaii, people would be freezing to death, the average temperature there is 80 degrees. In far northern Canada, people shed their coats and extra shirts when it's 57 degrees- it's 75 degrees warmer than most of their year. Temperatures have dropped more than 60 degrees in 10 minutes in different recorded situations.
So both the average temperature of my extremes example and the 57 degree average temperature of the global changers are invalid for the broad title of average temperature of the earth.
A good friend of mine who is regarded as one of the world's foremost statisticians told me that to create an accurate climate model would require compiling data from a trillion data points. We've got great computers, but we will probably never get there even with artificial learning. It is just more data than can be humanly processed. Using the limited 30 year data set from satellites cannot give conclusive assumptions of manmade climate change when the total data set spans 4 1/2 billion years, none of which we can confirm, only guess at. Even ground temperature data is unreliable because historic measurement sites may have been taken in a meadow that is now a huge asphalt parking lot. Comparing apples to oranges is climate change science.

Get a load of this guy, doesn't admit global warming is fake, smarter than the sun, and refuses to identify what truly is changing the globe. All while using science which is just another idea.

excessive CO2 creates a cover that traps the sun's heat energy in the atmospheric bubble, warming the planet and the oceans. do your research dumbass.

Guess what I found out: Plants don’t like it when it’s too hot either, so on days when it’s overcast or during the night when the sun is gone, they slowly perk up but on days when it’s sunny they start to whither and sag. It’s pretty fascinating, actually when you observe this phenomena for yourself. Not attacking you, I just wanted to share a cool but weird fact with someone.

No attack taken. Nature is fascinating and phenomenal. I've had the good fortune of spending most of my working life in nature and not an office. If the planet is so delicate that an increase of 60 parts per million destroys the climate, nothing would have evolved. CO2 levels downwind of a forest fire can jump 3 to 10 times higher than "normal". The atmosphere is fluid and dynamic, the physics of gas law preclude the entire climate change hypothesis.

I mean, plants are technically as alive as we are, except that they don’t have the luxury to voice their complaints when they’re uncomfortable like we can.

Anthropomorphism is not rational thought. Bristlecone pines can live thousands of years, but that doesn't give them a conscious being, memory, wisdom or any sensation of comfort or discomfort. Our conscious being is all tied to a complex nervous system, something plants do not have. There is cell to cell communication of sorts, but no nerve endings or impulses, all primarily from hormones or other genetic communication.
Back to your comment on withering in the sun, I've seen garden plants (like zucchini, squash, pumpkin vines grow 3 to 4 feet in intense sunlight. I've seen corn grow over a foot in intense sunlight, literally in hours. In one 12-hour period, I've seen the difference in greenhouse growth from injecting additional CO2 to elevate CO2 from atmospheric levels to around 2000 parts per million. Each plant is unique and different, which can provide a lifetime of study.
What you have witnessed is called turgor pressure. It has more to do with water than sunlight, but yes, there are numerous plants that can't tolerate direct sunlight. Most planting instructions include a description of best grown in partial shade, avoid direct sunlight, plant in full sun etc. depending on the plant.
Plants offer a lot to think about, one of my favorites is how does a Giant Sequoia transport 500-1,000 gallons of water and minerals from the roots to the crown every day. It all happens without a pump, defies gravity (water weighs about 8 lbs per gallon), and is one of the greatest miracles of life.

I know all that, I’m partly trying to make an weird observation into an unfunny joke. Seems like I was successful at making myself look dumb, though, sorry. :(

You aren't dumb. I'm too serious. Damn Democrats

My sense of self worth and self esteem has always been low, which is not your fault btw or anyone elses. I probably need to see a therapist and talk about it with them, but I’m too poor to see a licensed professional 💀

Believe in yourself, you have a lot more positives going for yourself than you know. There is no one else on earth who can be who you are, you alone are best qualified to make the most of what you can be. Just reading what little we've written here, I can tell you are much more than you give yourself credit for. If you are surrounded by negative people, gradually transition away from them to more upbeat and positive people. We all get one shot at this life, it's up to us to rise above to be what we can be and to live with fulness and purpose. You'll find it if you look. In all truth, humility and seriousness, I believe you are a great human being.

How does a transparent, clear gas trap heat? If CO2 reflects heat back to the earth, it reflects an equal amount of heat back to space (it's called equilibrium). Most CO2 is within 1500 feet of the earth's surface, ironically where plants need it. CO2 is measured in parts per million. Let's put this in perspectve, if you live 1 million hours that is 114.16 years. 417 out of 1 million hours (which represents CO2 in the atmosphere of 1 million) is 17.38 days out of 114 years. If CO2 was this powerful reflector of heat, it outpowers nuclear bombs and the sun. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, most is concentrated downwind of tropical rainforests where greater vegetative mass is decomposing (NASS satellite images show this). You want more research? Give me your email address and I'll send you the 1500 pages I've published.

Let me take this 1 million hour example a little further. Climate changers insist 350 parts per million is the maximum/optimum CO2 level for earth, so the perilous additional CO2 is 67 parts per million is destroying the climate (350 ppm to 417 ppm). That is equivalent to 2.79 days of the theoretical 114 year lfe. All this is to show that 67 ppm is materially insignificant. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, rainforests can have in excess of 2500 ppm, the arctic can be as low as 15 ppm. Climate change would be horrendous science, if that's what it was, but it's not. It's political manipulation to create widespread fear and impose tyranny on fearful masses. They have published their underlying agenda for decades. Ultimately the goal is to reduce world population to 500 million so the elites can enjoy our natural resources in perpetuity. They don't want to share the planet with you and me.

Or if you're so stupid you still think trump won, you might be a republican.

Wow are you on topic today. Keep smoking whatever it is your smoking, I've never seen you focused for this long before. Is that a Biden diaper in your mouth? Probably shouldn't smoke that shit.

Too much of a good thing can make that thing a bad thing. So yes, CO2 is essential, but it's not like we can have an excessive amount of CO2 and everything will be fine.

Read PSHA regs on CO2 exposure. Climate Changers claim CO2 is at catastrophic levels. NASA reports it around 417 parts per million. OSHA doesn't get to worried until someone is exposed to 10,000 parts per million or more. Huge difference.

Sorry OSHA, not PSHA