Has there been a single verified negative consequence of human generated atmospheric CO2?

Has there been a single verified negative consequence of human generated atmospheric CO2?

Attached: 1569121905925.png (395x395, 91K)

Other urls found in this thread:


that's the cutest Pepe I've ever seen

It's an Apu not Pepe


I want to Dutch Oven Apu and make him smell my human generated atmospheric methane

Looking forward to seeing your hypothesis and experiment, bill nye
>hard mode: no computer models

>live in south brazil, coldest region of the country
>used to snow from time to time
>nowadays, winter can get so hot we use shirts
>shirts, user


>the netherlands is being flooded
>russia is getting warmer waters
>US will get bigger deserts
>everyone, in fact
>africa will have even hotter climates, killing nigs

If you tell me this aint coordinated then idk what is

if you smell the air there is too much co2?

Yes more carbon based life :/

Well well well...

hmmmm, i can understadn where you are going
let me get some other points

>An important lake near Uzbekistan has dried up, hampering developent in the region.
>also beijing looks like B tunnel from de_dust

>anecdotal bullshit
sure thing soccer mexico
it snowed here in june, usually doesn't, so surely new ice age is coming. or is it just climate change again?

>it snowed in june
>lives in norway


i cant believe my eyes

Yes, the elites aren't able to tax us for breathing.

so your anecdotes are valid, but mine are not? nice logic there favelinho

Does this ex lake have a name? Have lakes ever dissappeared or suddenly appeared in the history of earth?

no to all. we're dealing in anecdotes and worst case scenarios with gheymar here

I found a lake in Tunisia that suddenly appeard out of no where. I win.


Obviously it is impossible to verify that heatwaves and storms and droughts are the consequence of human made co2. Because it would be necessary to have another Earth without humans to use as a control. But we can't take the risk. So we have to act. Now in Europe they have or they are proposing these green taxes, like you pay 1 € more for every flight, or to plant more trees. But this is useless. First we to stop all the airplanes, we don't need airplanes, what is the point. Second we have to destroy all the cars. Now you think how do I go to work? Simple, you live near your office, factory or the place where you work/study. It was like that for centuries. Then all the intensive animal farms should be closed. We can eat enriched food derived from plant sources. The military must be disbanded, it is a waste of money anyway if there is no war. Also we put a tax on sugar and snacks. Problem solved.

Attached: Screenshot - 08282019 - 07:40:42 AM.png (759x617, 720K)

>single verified negative consequence

Yes, this girl can SEE it, hurts her feelings.

Attached: image%3A71428.jpg (1080x841, 250K)



I see global destruction as a net positive, so i really do hope it's getting worse than expected.
Burn the coal, pay the toll

You forgot about religion. Why do you wishful thinking altruists always forget about religion?

Those lakes and rivers are drying up to water the relatively new cotton farms in the area. Pic is the Arial Sea

Attached: 5800-004-2EE08E56.jpg (801x649, 78K)


More CO2 means more plants, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the Cretaceous period and the trees were 1000 ft tall, plants were thriving. CO2 is literally what plants want, need,and breathe.

Not if they built cities, ranches and farms where the plants would grow otherwise, come on now

What flooding?

what if they invented plant farms?
dumb commie

>i fucking love science
kek i like you aussies

You kiwis are disgusting

more greenstuff will grow

see 'greenhouse effect'

Attached: pull6.jpg (550x368, 200K)