Has there been a single verified negative consequence of human generated atmospheric CO2?
Has there been a single verified negative consequence of human generated...
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
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
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.
single verified negative consequence
Yes, this girl can SEE it, hurts her feelings.
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
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 if they invented plant farms?
i fucking love science
kek i like you aussies
You kiwis are disgusting
more greenstuff will grow
see 'greenhouse effect'