Discussion
More carbons in the air enable more of humanity to live, because more people die of cold than heat.
Being anti-carbon is literally being anti-human.
Im not sure what you mean by anti-carbon. But if you read this article I think you would find it unequivocally pro-human.
You're, or at least the ZNET article is anti CO2, and assumes there is a climate crisis.
The basic assumption of this way of thinking is that the Earth is gentle (it's not), and that humans are a parasite on the planet (we're not). The fundamental philosophy of the climate crisis lie is that it would be better for Earth if every human were dead. But that's not true. It's genocidal. That climate hysteria narrative is anti-human.
Increases in CO2 reduce human deaths and increase photosynthesis efficiency, making Earth greener. Therefore, human using fossil fuels, and the CO2 released therein, is good for the planet and human flourishing.
You think the article is pro human, but it's very not.
It's neo-Marxist, anti-human garbage.
Also, if an article references Keynesianism as relatively egalitarian, they have no clue what outcomes Keynesianism actually produces (hell on Earth through monetary socialism), and that he was a child molester. If the author wants to be genuinely pro human flourishing, they should rethink their entire worldview based on the evidence.
Well you seem completely convinced of your own position on the effects of increased CO2 being released into the atmosphere, regardless of empirical evidence. I don’t think it’s worth discussing beyond that.
Ironically, dismissing evidence is why you believe narratives that have injured many people.
And being anti-human is what's actually evil. Chomsky should have continued working on his universal grammer theory.