I used to believe that climate warming was an imminent threat until I learn that 50 million years ago the global climate was up to +16°C from pre-industrial level and yet life still exists right ? I took some distance with this narrative and today I can see how it is used as propaganda.
The biggest threat to life is our stupid over-consumption and chemical pollution like pesticides, micro plastics, air pollution, ground pollution, sea pollution etc... I think the CO2 narrative as a unique measure of the ultimate goal to "save" our lives is a scam.
There is also a lot of positive feedback loop to an ecosystem with higher level of CO2, like way more plants everywhere because it is easier for plants to grow as CO2 is their food. And as there's more plants there's more photosynthesis that regulates CO2. That's just an example.
I read a lot about that topic and I saw a lot of contradiction in scientific researches.
Let's face it, we scientifically don't know yet if global warming is
A) anthropogenic
B) a threat to life at current level
But we do know that chemical pollution and human land use is a serious threat to life that occurs today. What we do to prevent that is orders of magnitude less than the CO2 "problem".
The way nation-states behaves about climate change reminds me a lot of of how they behave with the covid19... But that's another subject.
Also I wouldn't trust NASA for the data, it's probably a captured agency. Cross-checks data.

I appreciate your insights. It's true co2 is great for plants.
Maybe it's just me living in the Netherlands, under the sea level. That I am not looking forward to a 16 degree rise in temperature. Sure we can survive that, but at what cost?
You know why there is a lot of conflicting scientific data right? Its like with everything, its called agency capture. There is a lot of money going into that field from incumbent oil and gas producers, the chemical industry etc.
The covid comparison is valid, because they use fear for both.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Thread collapsed
Basically true I hope. Nevertheless, to make myself more clear:
While carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential for photosynthesis in plants, it is not considered a direct "food" source for them. During photosynthesis, plants use CO2, along with water and sunlight, to produce glucose and oxygen. The glucose acts as the primary food source for the plant, while the oxygen is released into the atmosphere. So, CO2 is more of a raw material for plants to create their food rather than being their food directly.
Thread collapsed