CO2-eating bacteria made in the lab could help tackle climate change, scientists claim
Full article/story/fairy tale https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)31230-9
I'm goona get Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory to explain
We rescued the planet from very low levels of beneficial CO2 and the planet massively greening up tells us that clearly.
Optimal levels for life are well over double the current amount.
If CO2 had dropped as much as it went up, we would not be here right now. CO2 is a beneficial gas.
None of that is my "opinion". The satellite measurements of the earth greening up prove it. Thousands of plant studies with elevated CO2 levels for almost every plant prove it.
The level of stupid on CO2 is like being in the Twilight Zone.
This is a funny example of how easy it was to mislead people(using scary sounding scienfic language) because of their scientific ignorance and trust in sources they think must know more than them.
And the insanity/ignorance of the statements coming from the lips of a 16 year old, Marxist, anti science climate guru, who is the featured speaker in front of the United Nations and United States Congress(invited by dems).
How can this be happening in 2019 to a world that is supposedly educated and has access to plenty of information that would show how ludicrous this is...........and even common sense tells them it doesn't make sense.
Teen Climate Activist Speaks To Congress: Blatant scientific fraudulence and child abuse used as the latest scheme to push the extreme propaganda. September 2019
Want to hear a rich genius talk blatant, anti science ignorance? Bill Gates gets an F in science. Radical left has taken over teaching at almost every college. More on brainwashing. AOC and her climate religion cult. They use scary words but no data because the data shows them wrong. I show the data. November 2019
Original article here:
My comment below:
Interesting that now TOO MUCH food from climate change is a problem too.
After hearing for decades that climate change, now renamed the climate crisis/emergency was seriously threatening our food supply.
I’ll use the observations and empirical data and go with the TOO MUCH food as representing the reality. In which case, the problem is easily resolved by cutting back on excessive consumption.
One thing those graphs show with certainty. Our crops and the plants/green stuff that most animals eat in the wild(and captivity) are telling us by their responses:
Humans that tell us the climate emergency is threatening our food supply speak with fork tongue.
I didn’t mean to imply that we don’t have a serious problem with close to a billion people on the planet that are still not getting enough food and/or clean water.
The increase in CO2 has been the best thing that could have happened from a food production standpoint for these people.
We get the impression from the fake climate crisis narratives that the optimal climate was back before humans started burning fossil fuels. Back when the global temperature was 1 Deg. C lower than it is now and CO2 levels were below 300 parts per million, compared to the 410 ppm today.
If we could turn back the climate clock and go back to those atmospheric conditions from just over a century ago, would this be a good idea?
Doing so would cut crop yields and world food production by over 25%. The C3 crops that have benefitted the most from the addeded CO2, like soybeans and cotton for instance would suffer the greatest losses in yields.
During the first year back to the old atmosphere, world stocks of all crops would plunge. Some markets that are currently over supplied would last the longest, maybe until the end of the first year before stocks plunged to precariously low levels.
At that time, price rationing of the limited amount of everything would cause catastrophically rising prices of everything that grows. The world population is only approaching 8 billion people today because of the massive increase in CO2.
Take that away or hypothetically drop it back down by 120 ppm and we would have a planet that could only be able to sustain 7 billion humans, maybe less. So a billion people would die (after several years) and even more would be suffering from lack of enough calories. The cost of food would at least triple, likely more than that.
Oh, but a few crops would have up to 10% more of a couple of micronutrients like zinc(reversing the affects we are told that are happening now to the bin busting crops that cause our food to be less nutritious).
What would you choose?
1. Crops that have a tiny amount of additional micronutrients feeding 7 billion people?
2. Crops that have a tiny amount less of those micronutrients that can feed more than 8 billion people?
If we want to have enough food to feed 9 billion people, one of the best ways to accomplish that is to increase CO2 as much as possible.