Contradictions with EV’s

larry cad wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't get it! I was taught many years ago that trees need CO2 to produce oxygen. When did that change?

"Carbon dioxide is indeed plant food and more plant food means more plants, more forests"

When did CO2 become our enemy? Weird!

It’s just another one of those loosely substantiated and simplified narratives that gained sufficient grant funded traction to achieve wider ‘low fruit’ mass acceptance, thus the incubation of well meaning, ardent devotees (minus homework), while entirely dismissing (what’s gifted BTW the earth with it’s heavy elements nickel and above…) which is cosmic ray heating of the oceans and other contributing stellar factors…The now embedded ‘carbon warming’ theory, elevated to fact (carbon, a simplistic ‘one size fits all’ boogyman of convenience) is just one of a panoply of other peer-to-peer ideas (e.g. the coming Ice Age in the 70’s)…Truth is that the earth’s atmosphere is a yet to be understood complexity of complexities, and the simplicity called ‘carbon warming’ is only relative (despite conical sanction) to that which has preceded, and over some arbitrary span of time, thus the finding of redwood tree stumps at the arctic circle…But (by popular demand), discussions of a different paradigm have become pointless, recall “it’s a settled science, nothing to see here” - JMHO

3 tons