Some of you are really smart anti-establishment counter-cultural critical thinkers, who don’t believe in the mainstream media elitist global warming hoax. You are joined in this very smart esoteric insight, by such an anti-establishment critical thinker as the president of the World Bank, who is also not sure whether global warming is real or not. Maybe we’re irreversibly making our planet inhospitable to civilization, or maybe we have nothing to worry about and the satan-worshipping pedophiles on top just invented a hoax because they want to make us all eat bugs!
And because you are so smart, you must have been asking yourself the same question I have been asking myself: Let’s say we manage to defeat the satan-worshipping pedophiles who want to tax our carbon and make us eat bugs and live in a pod. We re-elect God Emperor Trump, we re-open the coal mines and we start producing as much of the life-giving gas known as carbon dioxide as we can. What’s going to happen to people who breathe in all this carbon dioxide? Today, for Moronic Monday, I decided to look into what the consequences of this
moronic err.. very smart experiment would be!
We can expect that around 2100, with patriots in control, we will have reached a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of around 1200 parts per million. We all know that global warming is a hoax that the satanists use to make us eat bugs. As smart people, we also know that ocean acidification is a hoax. This is the sort of thing satanic elites tend to do: Invent two hoaxes simultaneously, so that even if you don’t fall for one hoax, you still fall for the other hoax.
But still, we find ourselves wondering: Let’s say we defeat these satanic elites. We manage to pump as much CO2 in the atmosphere as God would want us to. How does the human body respond, to living out its entire life under a concentration of this life-giving gas, much higher than it has ever before encountered during the course of human evolution?
Well human beings live rather long, so it’s hard to study what happens in them. It’s much easier to study what happens to other animals. At 890 parts per million, mice show a reduced attention span. They spend less time learning and more time being hyperactive. Strangely enough, there is also lung damage. Exposure in early childhood to 890 parts per million leads to respiratory impairment in mice.
What about intelligence? Well let’s look at another animal: Cleaner fish. Cleaner fish have to be pretty smart, they need to eat parasites off other fish, without eating their protective mucous, in which case they will piss off the other fish. If that doesn’t sound very difficult to you, imagine having the brain of a fish. It turns out, at 750 parts per million the fish become stupid: They can’t figure out the tasks they’re supposed to solve. On the other hand, reduce CO2 levels from the normal 405 ppm to the levels they originally evolved under and they become smarter than they are right now.
So it turns out that under patriotic freedom-loving levels of CO2, the kind of level that satan-worshipping globalist elites want to prevent, fish become stupid! Well that’s weird, why would that be? Probably for the same reason humans become stupid when you crank CO2 up to 1000 parts per million. The real question we’re dealing with is not: Will we become dumber in the future? No my friends, the real question is: Have current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already turned us into drooling morons?
We have serotonergic neurons in our brain that measure carbon dioxide concentrations in blood. Today at 420 parts per million, those neurons will spend our entire lifetimes never measuring concentrations that are “normal”. Normal for us is 280 parts per million, that’s what we had for the past 10,000 years. In the period before 280 parts per million was normal, about 200 parts per million was normal.
Cringy evil elitist vegan beta soyboy cucks
Very based freedom-loving God-fearing patriotic alpha male
Of course we also have to consider another alternative explanation: If you invented two hoaxes to fool God-fearing freedom-loving patriotic Christian family men into thinking God gets pissed off when you change the atmosphere, why not just invent a third hoax? We can call this the “evolution caused all life to be adopted to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and now that level is increasing much faster than most lifeforms can adjust to through natural selection” hoax.
And so I have the following request to make to all freedom-loving patriots: Next time you go to your local news comment section to share your very smart and unique insights in regards to how Europe is falling apart because we listened to an autistic (HAHA AUTISTS ARE SUBHUMAN RITE GUYS) Swedish teenage girl, could you do me a favor and while you’re at it take the time to explain to me what exactly happens to human physiology as people live out their entire lives at 1200 parts per million of carbon dioxide? Thanks.
I believe in climate change, yet when I see Extinction Rebellion types, I still think that they are “cringy evil elitist vegan beta” etc.
You know, I am very impressed by your handling of the Covid vaccine issues, here you have spent a lot of time researching and putting together the information from various sources to arrive at clear and possibly definitive conclusions, with up until now accurate forecasts on how the future might unfold.
It is a shame you haven’t been so diligent with the Co2 and Global Warming issue.
As someone that comes from a technical background, who has worked in both the oil industry and in many green energy projects, I can tell you you really don’t understand.
First of all, let’s start with the fact that all of our wealth and comfort is derived by the burning of fossil fuels, and specifically, the power elite’s smart management to create just enough scarcity to make huge profits on all of us. These huge profits have benefited society as a whole, to create new careers and enable people to progress from farmers to office workers, to people with no free time to people with tons of it. It’s all because of cheap and abundant oil. That oil makes your fertilizers, your perfume, all of your plastic shit including most of your clothes, it keeps you warm, it allows you to travel, smoke drugs and do whatever you want.
The powers are greedy and want more control, so by restricting the energy even more they can 1) make even more profit 2) Use the profit to develop new technologies that may or may not work but they will definitely 3) make more profit from it all. It’s easier to do when you can make everyone scared for the future, so they FEEL GOOD paying more for their energy while they are getting screwed.
Any and all graphs showing how the earth will warm are based on computer models which are never accurate and easy to manipulate. You can’t believe them, because you don’t know how nature will react. CO2 might not be the problem. It might be methane, it might be something else, Nature might counteract it with additional green growth, we don’t know.
AND THE REASON we don’t know is because there is NO repeatable scientific evidence that something bad is happening from warming on a global scale. Insurance losses show no trend in increased losses due to sea level rise or even harsher weather. The stats don’t back it up. Never mind that there could be BENEFITS long term from global warming. Why hasn’t anyone researched those?
WHAT IS TRUE is that we are polluting our environment with plastics, heavy metals and excess fertilizers, filling the oceans with plastic and garbage. Over 2 million people die from particulate pollution – where is the outrage there? How about the environmental crimes being committed mining the Lithium for all the batteries? The list of these crimes is a mile long. We ARE destroying the earth, YES we are having an effect.
The reality is you can’t create new industries and enrich your selves solving real problems that affect people. Global warming is a scam precisely because it takes your attention away from the REAL problems, to focus smart people like you to shill for their cause, and give even more power and money to the same clowns that want to sell you a covid vaccine over and over again.
And if you can’t see that parallel there I can’t help you.
And you better be thankful for all those Trump supporters – they are mostly the anti-establishment types who had the numbers large enough to resist the mandates and the lockdowns – they were the ones bold enough and with courage enough to go against the powers…it’s you Europeans who folded, who marched yourselves off the cliff dumb and blind like lemmings, always looking to your controlling Governments for all of your life guidance. We stopped the nonsense here, and it wasn’t from the enlightened woke leftists.
Understand why that failed. When you do you will understand why Global Warming is a scam.
>AND THE REASON we don’t know is because there is NO repeatable scientific evidence that something bad is happening from warming on a global scale. Insurance losses show no trend in increased losses due to sea level rise or even harsher weather.
Well gee, global warming debunked.
You got me there.
We can put this myth to rest once and for all.
Wait a second:
>Insured losses from natural catastrophes have increased 250% in the last 30 years, with perils such as wildfires and storms, seen as particularly impacted by climate change, causing an even faster rise in insured losses, the report said.
Say it ain’t so!
From the link:
‘”We’ve seen with the flooding in Europe and wildfires in Australia, wildfires in California, it’s becoming a broader geographic issue, affecting a broader percentage of the earth.”‘
Check out Richard Henry Dana, Jr., “Two Years Before the Mast”, pp.61-62.
Again, from the report:
“Climate change is hurting the insurance industry and only 8% of insurers are preparing adequately for its impact, consultants [said]…”
8%? That means 92% of insurers are dumb to reality. Does that really stand to reason? Gore in 2000 was all over global warming, and global cooling was 30 years prior, so this isn’t new enough to claim suddenness. An industry chock full of actuaries, numbers geeks, statisticians in their jokes and in their sleepy dreams…cannot see the numbers before them? Maybe so; the vaxx was a world-wide hit despite persistent evidence of harm.
In any event, the cause, if the claim turns out to be accurate, perhaps may drive global hospitability down, resulting in loss of population.
The cure, as being practiced presently, will drive hospitability down, as nourishment and productivity tank globally. That isn’t a plan that supports stasis, much less population growth.
Either way, to the warming mind, population is in for a hard correction, so why the drama? Hurricanes and tornadoes to the left, wildfires, earthquakes, and drought to the right….so, turning one way is ok, practically mandatory, but turning the other is unacceptable?
To a resident of the planet Earth, watching all of this unfold over decades, there is not clarity. There are numerous attempts at persuasion, but there is not clarity when contrast against observation and record books. Clearly, many believe, but interestingly, many do not. Why not?
Kudos for making a much better argument than “the world will end if we get a few degrees of warming”.
It does seem plausible that high CO2 could create an inhospitable atmosphere for our physiology.
I do wonder, are the effects of exposure to elevated CO2 persistent over relatively long timespans, or do animals adapt? If you go to the mountains you might feel off and out of breath for a while, but eventually your physiology will adapt to the reduced oxygen concentration. I could easily see something similar occurring for high CO2.
Also, from the abstract of the mouse study you linked: “There were no clear anxiety, learning or memory changes.” Not very supportive of your thesis.
That said, I’m curious if some of the other results you cite will replicate and/or if there is any older literature on this. Frankly I would expect there to be huge publication bias towards reporting negative health/developmental effects of high CO2 in the current political climate, so newer studies are suspect.
>I do wonder, are the effects of exposure to elevated CO2 persistent over relatively long timespans, or do animals adapt?
They adapt, through natural selection.
But humans don’t like natural selection, as it means some of us have to be removed from the gene pool.
I read John Michael Greer on his views on Peak Oil. So this scenario won’t quite turn out like you think. Industrial Civilization may as well decline in scale and become more ecotechnic.
As for this proported Alpha Male of the “World Bank”. Conservatives despise him as those evil bankers who enslave us with usury. And other people of Wall Street. I think Christianity also shapes their views which enables them to oppose certain types of rich people. Many of them hated the fact that the Government bailed out Wall Street.
From the Conservative Sphere comes books like “The Creature at Jekyll” Island talking about the foundation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
Finishing your laughably short story:….And before it was 200ppm (where plants are extremely stunted and deserts proliferate, any lower plants go extinct, as do we), it was up to 8000ppm.
CO2 levels have steadily fallen for half a billion years, and are at basically the lowest they’ve ever been. Your doom posting is fucking absurd to anyone who bothers to check the scientifically relevant (geological, millions of years or more) data timelines, for things like CO2 levels, sea levels, estimated temperatures etc, that can speak to the purportedly scientific hypothesis you are proposing, all of which show the GW cult claims to be utterly and completely baseless.
As Gene B put so well, there are real problems caused by humans on this planet. Plastics everywhere, fish being wiped out, air pollution (a real reason to minimise coal use etc), hormone disruptors literally everywhere, insect life collapse etc etc, but global warming and too much plant food (CO2) is NOT one of them, and the Rockefellers, Royal Dutch Shell oil, BP, and various other multinational energy Giants behind the CRU (look it up), that created most of the propaganda “research” for the UN (again, Rockefeller project) IPCC to create this imaginary globalist “problem reaction solution” scam, thank you for promoting their distraction so they never have to fix the ACTUAL problems they are causing, and can instead institute global “carbon” taxation etc, and therefore global government (the goal), to enslave the entire planet to their will.
Temporary exposure to higher co2 levels than we were raised in may or may not be an issue, but long term, it’s what we as animals evolved in, obviously we survived, if you want to claim it’s truly dangerous you’ll have to do better than a study on fish parasites, while also proving the levels that you claim are coming, are truly coming, due to us, and that empowering the most deadly force in human history (centralized totalitarian government run by psychopaths) worldwide is somehow going to fix it, and not kill *way* more of us (as they already are, with the clot shots).
Hint: Almost all modern environmental problems were solved various times, then the tech suppressed, by those same people behind the GW scam. Look up “Changing world technologies thermal depolymerization” tech. Proven working in a test factory environment. Organic waste, nearly any, into clean burning (and renewable) oil, and fertilizer, nearly 80% energy efficiency, no outside energy source needed, world’s energy supplies worth of oil created just from North American organic waste.
Solves the fossil fuel and garbage disposal problems, as well as the petrodollar political one, all at once.
Proven to work, factory up and running, massive interest, then Warren Buffets sons (globalist linked) company managed to deliberately botch an IPO and keep the company in and out of bankruptcy, and the tech locked up in patents, for 2 decades now and counting. All due to (globalist)government IP law and people connected to the cartel behind your doomsday cult.
Yes, I am actually fairly smart (well past Mensa requirements) and educated (8 years university under and postgrad in multiple science streams), but yes you, who I also consider smart and educated, or I, may still be mistaken, so cut the smarmy sarcastic bullshit about who is or isn’t smart, and actually make arguments, and no, posting screenshots of select people wearing similar sunglasses doesn’t make them seem particularly stupid. Try looking up the collected mugshots of the BLM protestors, for some genetically…damaged faces…
>CO2 levels have steadily fallen for half a billion years, and are at basically the lowest they’ve ever been.
Ah yes, we have a dinosaur atmosphere enthusiast.
It’s very green of you, to want to pass on the baton back to the dinosaurs, but it’s just not compatible with human civilization.
Your own body evolved under conditions of low carbon dioxide, as did all the staple crops you eat.
I don’t understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend: Just because we had a different atmosphere in the past, doesn’t mean that human beings, or the animals and plants we depend on, would thrive under that different atmosphere.
You could easily argue the exact opposite: The Earth used to be much colder until 10,000 years ago and many species evolved to adapt to those conditions, in fact, many trees depend on now extinct megafauna for seed dispersal.
But breaking news: THERE WAS NO CIVILIZATION POSSIBLE IN THE PLEISTOCENE! YOUR CITIES WOULD BE COVERED IN FRICKING GLACIERS!
Now turn this thing around: You can’t have cities near the coast when you have megatsunamis bouncing around the ocean, or when wet bulb temperatures are too high for you to survive.
What part of “we evolved in much higher CO2, and any lower levels than it got recently and plant life (and therefore animal life) would literally die out” did you miss understand? I assume it’s the part where you bother to look at the data for CO2, over the past hundred million years, you know, while all mammalian life evolved, and notice that it was much higher and falling to this incredibly low level for basically the entire time, and that if something HADN’T stopped the fall, we’d all be very dead very soon.
You are making a HUGE claim: “The CO2 levels as around during nearly the entirety of life on the planet, including during the vast majority of mammalian and human evolution, are toxic to humans”, and your proof is…dodgy fish parasite study.
You are making this fucking absurd claim, and mocking those pointing it out with “dinosaur” references, because the truth (that we involved in and can easily handle higher CO2 levels, and plants do way better in it) puts your PRIOR absurd, unbacked claim (that humans are dangerously warming the planet with a gas that’s never been this low, and is not a relevant greenhouse gas after the first 100ppm or so due to rapidly diminishing returns, as all relevant frequencies have long since been absorbed) to bed.
I know you have the ability for higher, complex, intelligent thought, outside of normie boxes. You’ve demonstrated it conclusively. Unfortunately, you have such an emotional attachment to this topic it has shut down your ability to think and have an actual discussion of the facts.
Higher CO2 is almost certainly BETTER for life on Earth, endless evidence shows that, very little contradicts it, and you can shove the disingenuous dinosaurs up your ass, higher CO2 long postdates their extinction.
>Higher CO2 is almost certainly BETTER for life on Earth
Yeah I actually have to agree with you here. The main problem is how to arrive at those higher CO2 concentrations without blowing everything up on the way there. That means a very slow and gradual increase of CO2, not the rapid increase we see today. But even so, you’re still trying to answer the wrong question.
The correct question to ask is not: “Are higher CO2 concentrations better for life on Earth?”
The better question, more relevant to your direct concerns, is: Are higher CO2 concentrations better for human life on Earth?
I’m honestly not certain you are correct in your framing of the question. First, I am not convinced that our goal should truly be to value human life over all other life here on earth. I’m willing to accept that we may as well be bacteria in a petri dish wildly swinging from scarcity to overpopulation.
Second, homosapien has proven quite resilient. Will we continue on forever as we are now? Probably not, on a long enough timeline. Will we someday be viewed as the Neanderthal, who contributed significantly to our current genetics, but didn’t survive overall? Probably. Do I care, beyond my children’s lifespans? Honestly no. I am far more worried about them starving, or glowing in the dark, or being injected with poison NOW than the future generations failing to adapt to an ever changing earth, even if we drive the change. We make deserts, shape winds, reroute rivers, and do all sorts of other things which may be perceived as harmful to our immediate environment. Perhaps we will adapt as fast as we drive these changes, likely not. In fact, as I answered the first question in this little diatribe “Probably not, on a long enough timeline.”
Que sera, sera.
Note: I’m not going to censor the Dinosaur Atmosphere Enthusiasts on this post, that would be excessive.
I just don’t want them to spread their genius insights all over my blog, including entirely unrelated posts.
The Jurassic wxtinction happened with CO2 levels at 1500 ppm around 100m years ago. Since then we have has a straight line decline to 200 ppm. Most of this has been locked up on shale rock. While it is possible that *some* current life forms may not adapt to a *rapid* increase from 200 back to 1500 ppm, you clearly seem to be blowing this risk way out of proportion, judged by any reasonable standard of scientific evidence. Disrupting fossil fuel use will certainly be harmful to more people. This is nit an unknown. It is guaranteed bad outcome. It is becoming quite obvious that your pre-existing bias makes you desperate to clutch at straws. This kind of glib dishonesty is quite sad.
Several months ago I posted some DOIs about alleged climate change in this forum. Have you read these papers?
So, we still have a controversy. And one important thing about this controversy is that most scientists are in one way or another activists, they are partisans.
Please, have a look at these books resp. pages:
Costella, J. (2010). The Climategate Emails: Edited and Annoted by John Costella. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php: The Lavoisier Group Inc.
Montford, A. W. (2011). The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. Independent Minds. London: Stacey International, revised edition.