Comments by "" (@JamesSmith-qs4hx) on "Fears of further New Zealand flood damage as new alerts issued - BBC News" video.

The only issue with the climate is that with carbon dioxide levels at a fraction of a percent, if it falls any further there is a risk that plants won't be able to photosynthesise and we will all starve. Life on Earth will end. What we need is more CO2, like we used to have and LIFE FLOURISHED🌞 🌞🌲🌳🌴🌳🌲🌞🌞
9
@mujkocka Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said that his reasons for leaving Greenpeace were very clear: "Greenpeace was 'hijacked' by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization," Moore said. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, 15 years after he co-founded the organization. "The 'environmental' movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement," he said. "They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money." He said they mainly operate behind closed doors with other political operatives at the U.N., World Economic Forum, and so on, all of which are primarily political in nature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is "not a science organization," he said. "It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. "The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with 'information' that supports the 'climate emergency' narrative. Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization."
5
I was fascinated by Patrick Moore’s comment about CO2 at 150 ppm and how the plants would die. I went and did some research and sure enough he’s right. Here’s a bit from my research – Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks. Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators maintain 1000-1200 ppm CO2 in their greenhouses. Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event. During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
5
@alanbeaumont4848 Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators maintain 1000-1200 ppm CO2 in their greenhouses. Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event. During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
4
@ohraisins H's the Greenpeace founder, isn't he?
3
@ohraisins Well said Gareth.... but the fact that any of it is controversial speaks to the extent of the lies and utter nonsense they have been feeding people since the 80s. We need to go for #NetZeroMarxists.
3
@halfalligator6518 I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.
3
@halfalligator6518 What gas do you think plants need for photosynthesis?
2
@halfalligator6518 Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators maintain 1000-1200 ppm CO2 in their greenhouses. Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event. During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
2
@halfalligator6518 400 out of a million, where the cut off point for life is 200 - Plenty? The only issue with the climate is that with carbon dioxide levels at a fraction of a percent, if it falls any further there is a risk that plants won't be able to photosynthesise and we will all starve. Life on Earth will end. What we need is more CO2, like we used to have and LIFE FLOURISHED🌞 🌞🌲🌳🌴🌳🌲🌞🌞
2
@halfalligator6518 The only issue with the climate is that with carbon dioxide levels at a fraction of a percent, if it falls any further there is a risk that plants won't be able to photosynthesise and we will all starve. Life on Earth will end. What we need is more CO2, like we used to have and LIFE FLOURISHED🌞 🌞🌲🌳🌴🌳🌲🌞🌞
2
I was fascinated by Patrick Moore’s comment about CO2 at 150 ppm and how the plants would die. I went and did some research and sure enough he’s right. Here’s a bit from my research – Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks. Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators maintain 1000-1200 ppm CO2 in their greenhouses. Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event. During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
2
@LK-pc4sq stromata.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yes you are a real expert.... In being a total plank.
1
@LK-pc4sq I would but we are discussing photosynthesis. El Planko.
1