Hmmm, you are using a email address...

Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from NaturalNews from getting to our readers. We recommend as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.

That's okay. Continue with my Gmail address...

If you oppose carbon dioxide, then you hate rainforests, ecosystems, trees and all life on our planet

We’d all like to think that experts who speak out about issues like the environment have a solid educational background to back up their stances, but it appears that some of the loudest voices in the climate change debate have failed basic biology.

When the public hears people like Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Al Gore, and Barack Obama going on about getting rid of carbon dioxide, it’s understandable that they might assume these individuals know what they are talking about and perhaps even start hating carbon dioxide themselves. However, anyone who took biology in high school can tell you that carbon dioxide is an essential component of life. How is it, then, that public figures like them can claim to love the Earth and all its trees and rainforests while espousing an action that would kill all of those things?

Were all of these carbon dioxide haters sick the day their science teacher covered photosynthesis? The truth is that without carbon dioxide, we wouldn’t have anything they claim they are trying to protect: Forests, wetlands, ecosystems, or even themselves. It’s hard to believe they are honestly suggesting that eliminating carbon dioxide would make the world a better place. This means they are either woefully misinformed or they’re lying about their goals, and the fact that some of them have claimed the earth is overpopulated might lead one to believe it’s the latter.

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, breaks down the importance of carbon dioxide nicely in his video on Health Ranger Science called Carbon Dioxide: The Miracle Molecule of Life. It’s well worth a watch regardless of where you stand on the debate.

The imagery of what some of the world’s biggest cities would actually look like without carbon dioxide drives the point home. You wouldn’t want to live in that version of Los Angeles, Toronto, or New York City, nor could you because there would be no carbon dioxide to sustain you or the food crops you need for nourishment. Getting rid of carbon dioxide certainly is one way to solve that pesky overpopulation problem!

Fact vs theory

Climate science is full of contradictions, and scientists are unable to agree on the matter.  There are so many factors at play that it’s hard to pin current problems on any single factor. Even the administrator of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has gone on the record as saying that he doesn’t believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, while the public stance of the EPA is the opposite. When it comes to climate change, lots of theories are circulating, and it’s a mistake to ascribe the ones espoused by the mainstream as being actual facts when the truth is that no one can say for certain. As Pruitt points out, it’s difficult to accurately measure the impact of human activity on the climate, which is why there is so much dissent.

Of course, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, and carbon dioxide is indeed a toxic gas at high concentrations. No one wants to see levels spiral out of control, but eliminating it altogether would spell the end of life as we know it.

Sources include:

Receive Our Free Email Newsletter

Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.

comments powered by Disqus