Why I now reject climate politics nearly entirely

[fides' Jack]

For anyone who cares about proof:

 

[ArciMoto]

On 6/27/2023 at 8:15 AM, fides' Jack said:

For anyone who cares about proof:

 

 

sure more CO2 is GOOD for plant growth (which is only one aspect), but you are ignoring elevated CO2 alters food's quality and quantity

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30108-1/fulltext

...ever hear of the expression the devil is in the details? fact is, just because you don't believe or understand something, does not mean it won't cause adverse affects

 

 

 

[fides' Jack]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:39 AM, ArciMoto said:

sure more CO2 is GOOD for plant growth (which is only one aspect), but you are ignoring elevated CO2 alters food's quality and quantity

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30108-1/fulltext

...ever hear of the expression the devil is in the details? fact is, just because you don't believe or understand something, does not mean it won't cause adverse affects

Yeah, you already posted a study, which I debunked.  The truth is, the idea that it's good for plant growth (which does necessarily also entail higher quantity), is proven.  The idea that it negatively impacts the nutritious value of the plant is not even a theory.  Some would argue it doesn't even present as a hypothesis yet.  It's just an idea without a shred of real evidence outside of a study full of bad science, where statistics were manipulated to get the outcome that was so obviously paid for.

CO2 is good for plant growth, which means higher quantity, AND quality.  It's almost certainly better for nutrition value, too (if you employ common sense).

Stop relying on the government and governmental science to tell you what truth is.

[ArciMoto]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:33 PM, fides' Jack said:

Yeah, you already posted a study, which I debunked.  The truth is, the idea that it's good for plant growth (which does necessarily also entail higher quantity), is proven.  The idea that it negatively impacts the nutritious value of the plant is not even a theory.  Some would argue it doesn't even present as a hypothesis yet.  It's just an idea without a shred of real evidence outside of a study full of bad science, where statistics were manipulated to get the outcome that was so obviously paid for.

CO2 is good for plant growth, which means higher quantity, AND quality.  It's almost certainly better for nutrition value, too (if you employ common sense).

Stop relying on the government and governmental science to tell you what truth is.

 

On 7/24/2023 at 7:45 PM, fides' Jack said:

I have taken a formal psychology class.

since you are an 'expert' in psychology (and all things that relate to science) perhaps you should ponder the psychological theory of the dunning kruger effect 

said another way, ever stop and consider perhaps,... you're a legend in your own mind.

simple (and sad) truth is,...

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-b.org

 

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, ArciMoto said:

since you are an 'expert' in psychology (and all things that relate to science)

 

3 hours ago, ArciMoto said:

said another way, ever stop and consider perhaps,... you're a legend in your own mind.

Or, maybe this idea you seem to have that I believe I know a great deal about psychology or science is a made-up idea in the first place.  I never claimed to be an expert, in psychology, or any field in science.  I speak (and write) the way I do because I am confident I am on the right side.  In fact, as I've done numerous times on numerous issues, I reject completely the idea that the people we generally regard as "experts" have any more claim to the truth than anyone else.  Those who hold their own academic degrees in high regard are fooling themselves.  A beggar on the street who had no education might understand even scientific concepts much better than someone who's daddy paid for them to go to a university.  

This is just more evidence of the widely-offered worship of "science".  A Catholic must believe that a true scientist would insist on conforming his scientific beliefs first to the fundamental tenants of Catholic teaching.  A true scientist (Catholic or not) will always reject any notion that any tenant of "science" is inerrant.  

Furthermore, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe the field of psychology is somewhere in the vicinity of 95% demonic.

Edited August 18, 2023 by fides' Jack
clarification

[fides' Jack]

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore:

Quote

There is no definitive scientific proof… that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the last 300 years." "But there is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth, and that without its presence in the global atmosphere… this would be a dead planet.

Full talk: 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

[fides' Jack]

1600+ scientists, including nobel laureates, declare climate crisis "emergency" a myth:

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/more-1600-scientists-including-nobel-laureates-declare-climate-crisis