@Badumtish97 ⟦2/7⟧ It's because the benefits are real, and the harms are not.
Thousands of rigorous peer-reviewed studies have confirmed the benefits. (You'll find them mostly in the agronomy literature, not the heavily politicized "climate science" literature.) sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@Badumtish97 ⟦3/7⟧ All major crops have been studied. They ALL benefit from more CO2.
The benefits of CO2 for crops are long-settled science. That's why commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to drastically raise daytime CO2 levels in greenhouses. co2science.org/data/plant_gro…
Given the constraints of limited fossil fuels, negative carbon feedbacks (which remove CO2 from the air), and logarithmically diminishing warming effect, we might eventually get as much as 1°C of additional warming from CO2. Probably less.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 2/ 1°C is the temperature change ("climate change") you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 3/ At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of just 60 miles.
How different are the flora and fauna 60 miles from where you live?
1/12》Many climate activists just PRETEND to be worried about #ClimateChange. They LIKE being alarmed.
The proof is in their reactions. When a "worse than we thought" story hits the press, they're gleeful. But when you show them good news, they're angry. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/12》If the good news comes from a conservative source, they disparage it, regardless of the strength of the evidence. If it's from "their side," like this NASA article & video, they pretend it away. nasa.gov/feature/goddar…
Either way they're angry.
3/12》They LIKE believing their dark delusions, and they actively avoid learning anything that might offer hope. If you try to show them balanced information, or balanced debates between experts on both sides of the issue, they won't even look at it. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…