so again i'll refer back to what i said about the cognitive inhibitions that i suffered trying to do what is to me fairly basic maths and the time it was taking me increasing instead of decreasing like you would expect as someone becomes more practised in doing those questions

Your numbers are wrong

so i've explained the experiments i just need to find the records of the data

Look it up

my numbers are wrong? yeah they are going to be slightly out since i don't have the data with me

this was conducted to try and disprove climate change not prove it

if anything my experiments were biased as i didn't fully believe what i was being told

More than slightly

You are completely wrong

Are you a persistent debate troll?

Co2 is .04%. We can handle 1% without any detectable limitations
Disprove me.

ok so when i get that data out and drop it, which is a precise record of what happened, which were designed to disprove climate change is more than slightly wrong?

i'm no persistent debate troll

ik what the hell i'm talking about

Show the data

Co2 is .04%. We can handle 1% without any detectable limitations
Disprove me.

Lol

again how many times do i have to say this to you? it's locked in the attic and i don't have a key

Co2 is making earth green. Disprove me

honestly ur starting to sound more like a persistent debate troll than me here

CO2 would be going down or staying the same if it was making the earth green as more plants would be absorbing it

If you lowered co2 by 20%. The forests wouldnt grow back fast enough for our consumption based off current levels of deforestation. Disprove me.

Increased co2 helps plants which helps us

so deforestation is happening faster than trees are growing back especially in rainforests so they're not growing back fast enough anyway so how is the earth becoming more green

if the level of CO2 was lowered by 20% there would be no chance that they could grow back is true

More co2 means less disease, less water consumption needed. Healthier, bigger crops.

We need a 50% increase

hold on a second, how is less water consumption needed? if a plant is photosynthesising then it needs one mole of water to one mole of CO2 so it definitely would not need less water by any means. and how is it going to cause less disease?

*6 moles of water to 6 moles of CO2

More co2 means trees and plants will grow in more arid regions

ok so why are we seeing accelerated desertification instead of more vegetation in arid and semi arid regions?

There is some other things as well but i think your mind is closed so you wont even bother looking into it. So i wont mention it.

ok so as someone who tried to disprove climate change you'r telling me that my mind is closed?

@Koro we are not seeing desertification. We are seeing a greening earth

i think i'm actually talking to a debate troll

so the fact that india in its entirety is at risk of desertification is us not seeing desertification? and the masses of deforestation and less growth in arid and semi arid regions is a greening earth?

Show me your data.

Ok. Show me the data of your experiment from someone else

Show me how you know earth is becoming greener and not unhealthier.

I don’t have any data to show, I’m not the one making arguments.

Plant a seed

Watch the weeds spread

Watch the grass grow

If you actually think that is going to do anything to Earth, you are extremely stupid sir.

Plus, that isn’t even data.

That’s just stupid blabber.

if i plant a seed in the uk and a seed of the same species in the middle of mali are they going to do the same thing? no

i can't attach images here so i can't show u the picture

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

From your Oracle.

so the majority of that is going to be agriculture which is harvested only for the CO2 to be released once again. how much of that is there to stay for a long enough period to matter?

https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/08/seeing-the-co2-greening-of-planet-earth/

so yeah the world's food supply is increasing. who is surprised about that? it has to

http://www.co2science.org/video/gope2.php

Did you just grab the article thinking it was in your favor or did you actually read anything?

I read it

Its not very long

Since I can’t post images...

“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.”

It explains to your face that the growing amounts of carbon dioxide isn’t beneficial if it continues.

Show the data

so mass agriculture is fair enough as greening but it releases as much CO2 as it absorbs and more via the need of equipment to harvest it

It’s literally right from the site that you linked.

^

Based on models it says

I showed you the data within your data.

Ok

Based on models.

So where is the data saying earth is burning up

Its fake data

You guys are indoctrinated

Badly

Oh the nasa article...

Yes they are all over the road

The promote fake climate science

They now claim we are in global cooling

ok so u got information from an article u linked turned on u. now u resort back to calling us indoctrinated

hmm

we *should* be in a period of global cooling but with the rise in temperature we're clearly not

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/

Lol.

Did you see the little kids getting brainwashed

Thinking they are gonna die

I don’t know what you’re trying to prove here. If you looked into anything at all you’d know that **yes, carbon dioxide is beneficial.** plants require it to create food and that’s why we need it.

maybe they should? did you ever consider that? they present climate change as something scary because it should be scary as it's the type of thing that causes mass extinctions by turning the atmosphere into something akin to venus' atmosphere which quite simply is uninhabitable to anyone even at our level of technology

But just go a little deeper than the surface. We’re not saying that carbon dioxide isn’t beneficial for plants, we’re saying that we are creating **more CO2 than we can take.**

that's what happens when something like climate change is unanswered. it gets severely out of hand eventually it becomes a self feeding cycle which can't be stopped

@mysweettart its not

Prove me wrong

Co2 is .04%. We can handle 1% without any detectable limitations
Disprove me.

Im advocating to raise c02 by 50%

Maybe build a few more oil refineries

so the decrease in my cognitive capabilities was a lie and a hoax despite me actively trying to disprove climate change?

The most close minded tries to tell others that their minds are closed. I can’t discuss anything with you anymore.

@Koro most likely your numbers are wrong

so me timing each question i did while measuring exactly and precisely how much CO2 entered the room in volume was wrong?

@mysweettart when you realize you cant prove climate change abd and your government gods are tricking you. Come back.

@Koro must be.