[Blueflag]

As “smart” as these folks think they are, they just plain REFUSE to consider the unintended consequence of reducing atmospheric CO2.

REAL scientists have long demonstrated the direct, CAUSAL link between CO2 PPM and agricultural output and yields.

In other words if we DO manage to REDUCE atmospheric CO2, and reduce CO2 in the global biome, then worldwide, food supplies WILL suffer.

These “smart” people are still stuck on a false premise — that rising CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) is a BAD THING.

It just disgusts me that they are either willing participants in this fraud or are just really not that smart after all. I presume the former — they know this is a lie, and it’s really about elites lording over the masses. IOW it’s about money and power.

[American Constitutionalist]

" In other words if we DO manage to REDUCE atmospheric CO2, and reduce CO2 in the global biome, then worldwide, food supplies WILL suffer. "

Perhaps that is their intented agenda after all ?

If God created this planet and told mankind to " be fruitful and multiply " then, God would through providence make a way to sustain us.

[Vigilanteman]

In other words if we DO manage to REDUCE atmospheric CO2, and reduce CO2 in the global biome, then worldwide, food supplies WILL suffer.

Sound like you actually learned something from Biology 101.

As for the libtards pushing this CO2 reduction crap, I suspect two-thirds are too dense to understand the relationship between abundant CO2 and plant life and the other third really want reduced food supplies as a tool to cull and control the population.

[Carry_Okie]

These “smart” people are still stuck on a false premise — that rising CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) is a BAD THING.

Like any change, it's a mixed bag. The effect on forests is to produce more wood. Unfortunately, most of our forests are way overgrown and subject to catastrophic fire.