![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
The principle is the same. Just because something is needed by life doesn't mean more of it is good.
In this case, the principle is wrongly applied, an instance of argument ad absurdum.
- The 'Summer of Life', archeologically, was when CO2 was near 10,000 ppm levels, and
- Pot growers have known for a long time that CO2 is nothing more than plant food (hence their 'CO2 generators', which and
- more recently, we've discovered that satellites have shown that areas near highways are the most lush, and we've now worked out that, since roads sit below the ley of the land, and since CO2 is heavier than air, that the cars are feeding the plants. They've called this general phenomenon 'global greening' in lieu of a better name.
In this case, the principle is wrongly applied, an instance of argument ad absurdum.
You want it to be wrongly applied, but it's not. Unfortunately, the assertion alone doesn't make the case.
Pot growers have known for a long time that CO2 is nothing more than plant food (hence their 'CO2 generators', which are nothing more than propane burners that cool the exhaust before feeding it to plants), and
And fisherman have known for a long time that water is good for fish. Therefore, floods are good.
You want it to be wrongly applied, but it's not. Unfortunately, the assertion alone doesn't make the case.
You've contradicted me, but offered no further argument. Unfortunately, contradiction isn't argument.
Pot growers have known for a long time that CO2 is nothing more than plant food And fisherman have known for a long time that water is good for fish. Therefore, floods are good.
You've conveniently misread my statement. The words 'nothing more' are exclusionary in this case - if you had been honest in your reading, then your analogy would mean that water serves no further purpose, *except* to fish. Even then, your conclusion doesn't follow, and doesn't mirror any conclusions I've drawn in any of my posts.
Atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than plant food. This does mean that increased levels of CO2 would be good for plants, but no other conclusions can be logically drawn from this statement.
Our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen. I hope you understand when they say they want to cut carbon emissions, they mean depopulation.
Just because jews insert themselves into a situation and try and work it for their agenda doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't real. Yes, liberals and jews want to use the problem of CO2 emissions to help their agenda, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It just means their solutions are tainted with alternative agendas.
Carbon isn't an issue. Climate change is bull. If you believe in God you will see the Earth is going to have multiple cataclysmic events, more so in End Times.
(post is archived)