No consensus of scientists refuted Galileo. The Catholic Church did. Not even remotely the same, and not even remotely the equivalent of the ELEVEN separate studies that confirm today's scientific consensus of PhD-level, publishing climate scientists from around the world and the 80 academies of science that publicly endorse the consensus position.

CO2 is plant food and is making the planet greener. It is ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE ON PLANET EARTH. IT PRODUCES OXYGEN, FOOD, FOR PEOPLE AND ANIMALS WHILE BEAUTIFYING PLANET EARTH. IF YOU START THINKING FOR YOURSELF, YOU WILL REALISE 0.04 % OF ANYTHING DOESN'T CONTROL THE WEATHER/CLIMATE. THERE'S A GREAT BIG YELLOW THING IN THE SKY THAT NOT ONLY CONTROLS THE CLIMATE ON PLANET EARTH, IT CONTROLS THE MOVEMENT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. WAKE-UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

@@gerardmoloney433 Your check from the fossil fuel industry's propaganda department is in the mail. What that insidious propaganda leaves out is that while CO2 is great for plants (up to a point), the warming that accompanies it is damaging to plants. Heatwaves have TRIPLED since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves decimate crops. So do extreme precipitation events and droughts, which have also increased. Crop losses from heatwaves and drought across Europe have TRIPLED over the last fifty years, accroding to a 2021 study in Environmental Research Letters. Farm productivity globally is in fact 21% LOWER than it would otherwise be without global warming, according to Cornell University. And ask Canada and Greece what they thought of their record wildfires last year. In 2015, the Amazon suffered a record drought that killed an estimated 2.5 billion plants and trees. It was supposed to be a once in a thousand year event. Yet last year it happened again, only worse, with 26 million acres burned up in wildfires. Rain forests don't normally burn. Keep in mind that the Amazon supplies a substantial amount of our oxygen. As a nuclear fusion reactor, the sun is amazingly stable, never altering its output as we receive it on earth by more than about a half a degree up or down, even over centuries of time. As a climate CHANGER, it pales in comparison to greenhouse gases, which can spike temperature by 20 degrees or more. You should also know that the sun's irradiance has actually WEAKENED over the past four decades, according to NASA, yet we've continue to warm. Last but not least, the sun is not capable of warming the lower atmosphere (troposphere) while simultaneously COOLING the stratosphere above it. But that's what's happening. Only a greenhouse effect can do that.

It is much more nuanced, complicated than you present....discussion, debate, knowledge, true science....is the only wise way forward !

Incentives for developing 'regenerative farming' can restore not only drastic health improvement for humans, but also can take the 'dead' soil filled with poisons that kill the micro organisms, and pass on poisons to plants/animals/humans

"Mainstream media for morons?" You mean the media outlets that tell it straight, just as the scientists present it to them, rather than Murdoch media (Fox News, Sky News Australia, Wall Street Journal, NY Post and many more) who deny, deny, deny the science and bash renewable energy simply because owner Rupert Murdoch also co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy and sits on their board?

Who exactly are the liars? The 99.9% of publishing climate scientists who form the consensus on climate change? Or people like Richard Lindzen, who has taken money from OPEC, western Fuels and Peabody Energy?

Since nobody is suggesting the "Elimination of Co2", your comment is simply irrelevant. The most ambitious suggestion re. CO2 is to reduce its atmospheric concentration back to 350ppmv, which where it stood in 1989, and which was already higher than it had been for over a million years.

You are unfortunately an uninformed fool. Co2 was much higher thousands of years ago and the planet was booming with greenery precisely because of higher co2 content. The trees I was talking about were chopped off all over our CITIES, while the injured and half dead trees are adorning the heavily forested Slovenia. ( most probably because of all the toxins sprayed from the sky that destroy the earth) Also, what is the point of planting new trees,if many of them are diseased before they even grow, while they are chopping down ancient trees in ancient forests all over the world, including places like Germany . If you are foolishly concerned about the co2, because, perhapsl you only watch the main stream propaganda (that mutes and drowns out any different opinions) ,than ,perhaps ,you should be concerned about your own existence, since you are (like everybody else) "polluting" this planet with your own breathing. One of the podcasts I recommend you to watch is Jimmy Dore show, so you can get better idea what monsters that rule us, are trying to achieve 😉 Also Redacted , dr. Drew etc.

@@anacerar6810 1. You are unable to refute the truth of my previous post and simply resort to insults, irrelevant and inaccurate waffle about trees, and finally you reveal why you are so misinformed: you appear to get your misinformation and paranoia from a TV show. 2. The last time atmospheric CO2 was as high as at present (over420ppmv) was in the Pliocene, some 4 million years ago. It is true that atmospheric CO2 was much higher (well over 1,000ppmv) much further back in Earth's history, but it is also true that, as a consequence, the average temperature was much hotter than present, with trees growing near the poles and with no permanent ice. Were such conditions to return in the near future, sea levels would rise by around 70 metres and a mass extinction event would occur, as has happened previously whenever temperatures rose RAPIDLY as they are doing presently. 3. Breathing is not a source of the increase in atmospheric CO2, and is not pollution. If you had any understanding of this issue, you wouldn't write such uninformed nonsense. 4. I am a scientist. I understand this issue because I have good grounding in geology, physics and chemistry, and have studied climate issues for decades. I obtain my information and understanding from the scientific literature, not TV shows.

Many of the people most concerned about CO2 and global warming have been campaigning for restoring woodland cover for decades. Perhaps you haven't been listening.