Message from @Dustination
Discord ID: 576238401280409620
Dragon the redcoat is killing the planetđĄ
I gyess free speach doesbt matter wheb it is against him!
Lol
@Toshi What is wrong with taxing negative externalities?
You idiots
Lmao
The feeling is mutual, Dragon.
"How dare you type, you must be an idiot!"
He wants there to be too much oxygen so the plants die đĄ
No such thing
Alright, let us approach this objectively
CO2 is not â and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2Â proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2Â is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2Â there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. Thatâs why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the ânatural worldâ should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2Â level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planetâs vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2Â in the atmosphere.
Oh no he's going through the whole thing again
There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.
During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2Â level rose to values sometimes ââof the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2Â was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2Â in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
Look what you've done
@AstralSentient Everything! Government already receives enough taxpayers money...maybe they should start taxing themselves first like members of parliament!
Provide the evidence for global warming and the co2 emissions causing this.
Where are the thermometers on every square mile of lands detecting these minute changes in average temp? Data?
Animals need CO2 too. And by the way â forests are not the âlungs of the earthââŚ
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2Â could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2Â as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the âlungsâ of the earth.
It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated
It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
@Dragon the Redcoat global warming has been around for billions of years
Read
Climate change is natural
Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.
Facts!!
<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> @................................ has been warned
```
reason: Duplicated text
```
<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> @................................ has been warned
```
reason: Duplicated text
```
Citizen posting FACTS
@Toshi Taxing negative externalities actually provides benefits to society, by discouraging, while the money can be used for public goods.
Donât worry about shrinking glaciers. Weâve been here beforeâŚ
In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibalâs journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.
I love the planet @Dragon the Redcoat but you drunk if you think it's gunna end LOL
Sea level rise is normal
Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1]Â and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that âthe City of the Dogesâ is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.
[1]Â The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as âsinkingâ or as âsea level rise,â but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.
The polar ice caps are fine too
Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.
This is getting annoying
@AstralSentient Astral I never support socialist ideas....so sorry! Educate and help - yes. taxation - no!
Extreme weather events are actually decreasing
From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.
A little dramatic
You drunk if you think planet is ending
Claims by alarmist âexpertsâ that 2016 was that âhottest year everâ are pure balderdash
The World Meteorological Organization â another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum â declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who donât understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (global warming) or -0.08°C (global cooling). In short, we canât say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.
@Toshi So you are opposed to taxation in general?
We don't hate you don't play victim