It is astonishing someone still thinks CO2 is having any effect on the climate. This has been discredited by real accredited scientists who do not accept money from corporations, leftist groups, government entities, or NGOs.

Miss leading trends to enrich the snake oil salesmen
 

So, 400 parts per million, is equal to 0.04% of our atmosphere. Plants require CO2 to produce oxygen.
While plants can utilize a range of CO2 levels, the optimal percentage for most plant life is considered to be around 0.03% or 300 parts per million (ppm), which is close to the current atmospheric concentration; however, increasing CO2 levels within a reasonable range can often boost plant growth in controlled environments like greenhouses up to around 1000 ppm.
Key points about CO2 and plant life:
Minimum level:
Plants can still photosynthesize at lower CO2 levels, but their growth will be significantly reduced.
Optimal level:
Most plants experience maximum photosynthetic activity around 300-1000 ppm CO2.
According to research, the minimum CO2 concentration considered necessary for plant life is around 150 parts per million (ppm), below which plants struggle to survive and reproduce effectively; at extremely low levels, photosynthesis would be significantly hampered and plants could die off.

So, this is me analyzing those numbers. If the plants die off below 150 parts per million, and stop producing oxygen, at what level do scientists agree we should we reduce CO2 to? How much CO2 is actually manmade compared to forest fires, volcanos, and other natural releases of CO2?

I would rather the Dept. of Educations was effective in education our children...

The Dept. of Energy should concern itself with making sure we have plentiful and affordable energy...

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

15001, if I want try to get 50000 posts knock someone off home plate, or maybe the first to 100000. Heck why not try for million. Notice I don’t don’t like anybody telling me what to do on public forum where B s rules.

And what countries are these cities in? O wait we don’t count cities in countries.

Second that. :beer3:

Glad you have such vast forum experience. Here is my experience on this forum. When asked to provide proof or give an answer or name credible sources, and having done so, the opposition simply "poopoos" says that answers is wrong, proof isn't acceptable and sources (like NOAA, UN, NATO, NASA, etc) are not credible, and gives you the brush off. So, what is the point of providing all that work when you know that their position is to deny anything contrary to party line. It is a free country, so I will get my information from what I deem the best and most reliable sources. Then if I make a statement, like in court, it is up to the opposition to do their own work to prove me wrong if they want to. Most of these posts, and many of mine, are opinions anyway. So I'll say, "yes it is", and you say, "no it isn't ".

Yea, right! Oh! Wait. You're being sarcastic, right? 😶😶

I don't tell people what to do. I only make suggestions ... even if I don't word them as suggestions. 🙂🙃🙂

I choose to always post links to my sources, when available, and I have had very little pushback on the credibility of my sources on TOTV. Not sure why your experience is different, but as they say, YMMV.

The anthropogenic increase is about 2.5 ppm per year.

This should tell you all you need to know. Follow the money...if you can.

"Up to $41 billion of the funds distributed to climate causes by the World Bank between 2017 and 2023 are unaccounted for due to poor accounting standards, according to an audit from Oxfam International published Thursday.

The enormous sum represents almost 40% of the climate funds the Bank disbursed during the seven-year period, with World Bank data failing to show the recipients and uses of the money, the Oxfam investigation found."


And as always, here is the source of the above quote.

Short answer is; yes, CO2 hysteria could present "more danger"...........to the pocketbook. Global Warming and then Climate Change brought a bundle of money to some folks. But, like Global Warming, Climate Change is running out of steam so it needs to be refreshed by naming the grift "CO2 danger." This way, we can keep the financing rolling in while allowing the evolution of hysteria circle to continue by linking Global Warming, Climate Change and CO2 danger in a sort of ecological circle.

Remember when acid rain was the big scare?

one way to help is ..

Really?

Claims that burning fossil fuels create problems is not true, because there is no proof that man-made CO2 causes problems -- which will be presented Nov 21 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor -- during a presentation called "Sea Level Rise and Ocean Heat."

99.9999% of the "existential catastrophes" predicted by "experts" never happened. Meanwhile, Black Death came out of nowhere and killed a third of humanity, just as it was recovering from the collapse of the Roman empire. Somebody assassinated some Duke in Serbia 100 years ago and 40 million people died -- about 10% of the population of Europe at the time. The loser of that war was punished so harshly, they came back 20 years later and another 85 million died. The Communist winners of that war went on to murder another 100 million just because they could, and then perched the world of the edge of total nuclear annihilation for the next 80 years.

Of all the things that has ever threatened mankind, CO2 levels as a side-effect of becoming wealthy beyond all our progenitor's imaginations doesn't come close to the level of threat represented by the shear stupidity of humankind -- or even the threat of China unleashing another engineered bug that doesn't merely kill old people.

The one thing that has ever solved an actual "existential threat" -- like STARVATION -- is getting wealthy and applying intelligence and technology to the problem. 8 billion souls owe their existence to the discovery of artificial fertilizers and mechanized farming. At least a billion of those also owe their life to the eradication of smallpox.

If CO2 someday actually threatens humanity, I am certain humanity can devise a solution that doesn't require 8 billion people to stop eating -- if we can somehow restrain ourselves from killing each other, just arguing about it.

For the latest about the climate problem, hear the new presentation called "Sea Level Rise and Ocean Heat" today (Nov 21) at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. Here's a 56-second preview ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLzzIFEgLxQ

100% Agree About Bees and Other Insects
 

The collapsing bee population will severely impact our food supply and overall health of our biosphere. We have purposely planted flowering trees and plants in our yard just trying to do our little part in this.

As climate alarmism grows, climate realism collapses ... because data show that extinctions are decreasing as global warming and CO2 increase. Enjoy global warming while it lasts -- because the alternative is chilling.

I found the graph interesting that showed the shifts in CO2 over billions of years. It isn't a simple problem and I doubt a simple solution.............Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

I can remember when that at this time the population bomb/ energy supply shortage will have us freezing, starving in the dark and yes "they" had statistics to prove it

We are actually in a CO2 famine. More is better. Find out why at the next Weather Club meeting ... The Villages Weather Club