Registered On: September 7, 2015
The comparison is valid, because CO2 does have warming properties which can cause harm at high concentrations. At low levels it’s benefits outweigh the risks. We have evidence of its warming properties. At very low levels cyanide will cause no toxic risk, just as CO2 won’t.
The meaning behind this should have been simple for anyone who is not being dense.
I will lay it out clearly, since something which a 5 year old should understand is being misunderstood. Bucks said CO2 is vital for life. It is, but at high concentrations it will drive climate change which will cause issues for life. At small enough concentrations it won’t be inducing climate change that will cause issues, just as small amounts of food won’t cause obesity and small amounts of cyanide won’t cause death. Therefore highlighting CO2’s beneficial properties means little for arguing against its negative properties. This is the comparison and it’s perfectly valid.
Even if you don’t accept CO2’s warming capabilities, which you clearly don’t, you must be able to see the point being made by someone who does.
Yet instead of trying to engage with a simple point, you miss it and try to make me sound ridiculous because it’s easier than to actually engage. Then you will whine about personal attacks and refuse to self-reflect after gaslighting.