reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Carbon dioxide is invisible, which allows for stories to be made up about its impact on the climate. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that it is causing a climate emergency. Looking back at the Earth's history, it was actually warmer than it is today for most of the time. The slight warming trend we have experienced in the last 300 years began before the use of fossil fuels. Despite the exponential increase in CO2 emissions, it has not affected the temperature. CO2 is essential for life and should be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

Burning ancient carbon (coal, oil, gas) has created a wonderful quality of life for many, but this practice must stop.

CO2 is crucial in greenhouses for better crop quality and yield. Adding additional carbon dioxide improves efficiency and optimizes output. The current atmospheric CO2 level is around 406 parts per million (ppm), while scientists consider 350 ppm as dangerous. Interestingly, the average CO2 level since mammals existed has been over 1000 ppm.

Carbon dioxide is often seen as a pollutant, but I believe it is actually essential for life on Earth. It is a good thing that we are increasing its levels in the atmosphere because it was running low before. However, there is no definitive proof that CO2 is causing serious problems. As a student of science, I know that the scientific method has not been used to prove that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. In the future, people may look back and realize that the efforts to change energy policies based on cutting this gas were unnecessary. I firmly believe that the climate change hysteria is a fabrication.

Speaker 0 says, "We hear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant," but argues, "It is the food of life. It is plant food. It is not a pollutant, but it is invisible." He notes CO2 is imperceptible and that fear of the unseen is exploited. He asserts, "We have one molecule of carbon dioxide per 85,000 molecules in the atmosphere," and for Australia, "one molecule in six and a half million molecules in the atmosphere"—traces of a trace gas. He asks why CO2 is attacked, claiming it is "a symbol of industry" and that "Any heavy industry produces carbon dioxide. And therefore, this is a mechanism of attacking industry." He blames, "for forty years, we have had a dumbing down of our education system," citing university students who "cannot write" and "have very strong opinions, but nothing to back it up with," "destroying the ability of young people to critically and analytically think."

Carbon is everywhere and in every living thing, including trees, grass, humans, cows, bulls, and horses. It's even in the air. Carbon makes life go and creates the chemicals of living things. A whole branch of chemistry, organic chemistry, is named after carbon. Carbon is the key to life.

There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate in the last 300 years. The idea that human emissions are the main cause of climate change is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted theory. It is important to be skeptical of those who claim the science is settled and the debate is over. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for life on Earth, and without it, the planet would be uninhabitable. Despite this, children and the public are being taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will harm life and civilization.

There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate in the last 300 years. The idea that human emissions are the main cause of climate change is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted theory. It is important to be skeptical of those who claim the science is settled and the debate is over. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for life on Earth, and without it, the planet would be uninhabitable. Despite this, children and the public are being taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will harm life and civilization.

The speaker asks the panelists what percentage of our atmosphere is CO2. They give various guesses, ranging from 5% to 8%. The speaker then mentions that he often hears about climate change and CO2, but the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%. He emphasizes that this small change in CO2 is causing a lot of concern and argues that if the percentage drops below 0.02, plant life will start dying off.

I have stated publicly that there's no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate over the last three hundred years. If such proof existed through testing and replication, it would be documented for everyone to see. The idea that human emissions are the dominant influence on climate is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted scientific theory. Therefore, skepticism is warranted when people claim the science is settled. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, and without enough of it in the atmosphere, the planet would be dead. Yet, our children are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life.

Carbon dioxide is often labeled as a pollutant, but it is actually essential for life and serves as plant food. Despite being invisible and odorless, it can be intimidating, as we tend to fear what we cannot see. Exploiting this fear, some argue against carbon dioxide, even though it only makes up 1 molecule in 85,000 in the atmosphere and Australia's emissions account for just 1 molecule in 6,500,000. So why is this innocent molecule under attack?

The speaker asks the audience to guess what percentage of our atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide (CO2). After some guesses, the speaker reveals that the actual percentage is 0.04%, which has increased slightly over the past few decades. The speaker emphasizes that this small change in CO2 is what is causing concern about climate change. They also mention that if the CO2 levels drop below 0.02%, it could negatively impact plant life.

CO2 is essential for life. Increased levels of carbon dioxide benefit the plant kingdom and overall ecology, including marine life, leading to more biodiversity. This is why it's referred to as the "gas of life." However, some people attempt to demonize CO2, claiming it contributes to global warming and extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and heavy rainfall. These assertions are unfounded and misleading.

Speaker 0 questions what climate catastrophists get wrong about CO2. Speaker 1 argues that more CO2 is good for the world and that reducing CO2 is absurd given other problems and projections of lower costs for renewable energy, which he calls clearly a lie. He explains, as a Princeton professor and climate scientist/physicist, that geological history shows we are in a CO2 famine relative to what is normal for plants. He notes that in his country, many greenhouses double or triple the amount of CO2, and though it’s not cheap, it’s worth investing in because plants grow much better, and the quality of flowers and fruits improves. Outside greenhouses, he says plants benefit as well: with more CO2, in addition to greenhouse gains, there is resistance to drought, which is particularly important in Australia’s arid regions. He claims satellites show Australia as a poster child of the greening of the world, especially Western Australia, and expresses disbelief that CO2—a gas that is fundamental to life—has been turned into a threat and described as carbon pollution. He challenges the framing of the issue by noting that humans are made of carbon and we breathe out two pounds of CO2 a day. He references the global population (about 8 billion) and suggests that some argue “people are the real problem” and that there should not be more than a billion people in the world, remarking that in the room many of them do not constitute seven out of eight to reduce the population. Overall, the speaker presents a counter-narrative: CO2 is beneficial for plant growth and drought resilience, greenhouse and agricultural practices capitalize on higher CO2 levels, and concerns about CO2 as a pollutant are misplaced given the current and historical context of atmospheric carbon and human needs.

The speaker asks the panelists what percentage of our atmosphere is CO2. They give various guesses, ranging from 5% to 8%. The speaker then mentions that he hears a lot about climate change and CO2, but the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04%. He emphasizes that this small change in CO2 is causing a lot of concern and argues that if the percentage drops below 0.02, plant life will start dying off.

As a business manager with knowledge of atmospheric gases, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about the impact of carbon dioxide. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two global experiments in the past 14 years support this. In 2009, during the recession, carbon dioxide levels continued to increase despite reduced human use of hydrocarbon fuels. Similarly, in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide levels kept rising despite decreased human carbon dioxide output. It is clear that humans do not significantly affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it is controlled by nature.

We've built a great quality of life for many by burning ancient carbon like coal, oil, and gas, but we need to stop.

Speaker 0: The University of Nebraska just completed a study stating the way to save the world on carbon is to raise more cows. Cows are carbon negative; they produce more oxygen than they emit as methane and carbon. The takeaway is to eat more cheeseburgers or steaks to save the world.

Carbon dioxide is essential for vegetation and life on Earth. It makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere and is classified as a trace gas. It is not toxic or harmful to the environment, but rather beneficial for plants. Nature produces 97% of carbon dioxide annually, and humans have little control over its levels. Despite increased human production, global temperatures have remained flat for 28 years. Natural variation is a normal part of cycles in temperature, rainfall, and storms. The speaker suggests that politicians are involved in a climate fraud, benefiting financially from the issue.

The panel discusses the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. One panelist guesses 5%, citing transportation as causing 49% of CO2 emissions. Other guesses include 7% and 8%. The correct answer is 0.04%, an increase from 0.03%. It is claimed that this tiny change in CO2 is the reason for current actions. It is also claimed that if CO2 levels drop below 0.02%, plant life will begin to die.

Speaker 0: The first ice core survey at Vostok in the Antarctic found a clear correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Speaker 1: Going back six hundred fifty thousand years, the temperature history shows that the relationship is complex, but there is one relationship far more powerful: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer. Al Gore says the relationship between temperature and CO2 is complicated, but there was something important in the ice core data he failed to mention. Professor Ian Clark notes that the link between CO2 and temperature exists, but the link is the wrong way round. Speaker 2: When examining ice cores, climate on long scales is recorded in geological material. Ice samples use isotopes to reconstruct temperature; the atmosphere imprisoned in ice is liberated to analyze CO2 content. Speaker 0: Professor Clark and others have discovered a link between CO2 and temperature, but the link is reversed. Speaker 2: In the Vostok ice core, as temperature rises from early to later times during a deglaciation, CO2 follows with an eight-hundred-year lag, meaning temperature leads CO2 by about eight hundred years. Speaker 0: Major ice core surveys consistently show that temperature rises or falls, and then after a few hundred years, CO2 follows. Speaker 3: Therefore, carbon dioxide is not the cause of warming; warming produced the increase in CO2. Speaker 2: CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes; it is a product of temperature changes. Speaker 4: The ice core record challenges the fundamental assumption of the theory that CO2 increases in the atmosphere cause warming, showing that the assumption is wrong. Speaker 0: How can higher temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is a natural gas produced by all living things. Speaker 5: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; living things grow with CO2. Humans produce only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2, in the single digits percentage wise. Speaker 0: Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all human sources combined. Animals and bacteria produce about 150 gigatons of CO2 per year, compared with 6.5 gigatons from humans. Dying vegetation, such as falling leaves, is another large source. The biggest source is the oceans. Speaker 6: The ocean is the major reservoir into which CO2 goes when it comes from the atmosphere, or from which it is re-emitted. Heating the surface makes the ocean emit CO2; cooling allows the ocean to dissolve more CO2. Speaker 0: The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 they produce; the cooler they are, the more they absorb. There is a time lag of hundreds of years between temperature change and CO2 change due to the ocean’s huge size and depth, giving the oceans a memory of temperature changes. Speaker 6: The ocean’s memory can extend up to ten thousand years. A current North Atlantic change may reflect events in distant parts of the ocean decades or centuries earlier. Speaker 0: The modern warming began long before widespread use of cars or electric lights. In the past 150 years, temperature rose just over half a degree Celsius, but most of that rise occurred before 1940. Since then, temperature has fallen for four decades and risen for three. There is no evidence from Earth’s long climate history that CO2 has ever determined global temperatures.

Carbon dioxide absorbs energy from the sun, creating a greenhouse effect necessary for life on Earth; without it, the average temperature would be -18 Celsius. Carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat; a slight increase can significantly raise temperatures. Data shows that since 1950, the Earth's temperature has risen at a constant rate, correlating with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels seems to lead to a temperature rise, making this the hottest the planet has been in 200,000 years. A common argument suggests that concerns about burning fossil fuels are unnecessary because they will eventually run out, negating the need to change our behavior. For a long time, we've been told that we have twenty five years worth of oil and we've reached peak oil and we're gonna run out.

Speaker 0 says: We make energy from sunlight. People who are in the sun eat less food. Let your kids be outside in the sun. Take their shirts off. Let them run around barefoot on the grass. You know what you get from the ground? You get electrons. The same thing. It's straight free energy. What runs through a mitochondria that makes all the ATP the electron transfer chain it's not a fat acid train it's not a carbohydrate train protein if the sun is a nutrient it is not out to kill you The idea that the sun is giving you cancer is the most asinine, insane gaslighting, ridiculous statement on earth. It makes all life exist. It charges everything. We are alive because of the power of the sun yet you want to tell people to slather on carcinogenic chemicals, bake it into their skin with the suns and say, oh, that's what's aging you. I'm 51 years old. I've never used sunscreen. I don't have anything done to my face. I eat a ton of meat and I drive a convertible. I want as much as I possibly can get. You know, because it makes me younger. They're lying to you. They've lied about almost everything. Do the opposite of what the government says.

The panel discusses the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Guesses range from 5% to 8%. The correct answer is 0.04%, which has increased from 0.03% in recent decades. One panelist claims transportation causes 49% of CO2 emissions, which is why they are working on energy transition. It is claimed that if CO2 levels drop below 0.02%, plant life will die.

The conversation centers on carbon dioxide (CO2) as a central regulator of physiology, challenging conventional bicarbonate-centric views and highlighting a broad, interconnected view of respiration, hormones, and cellular chemistry. - The speaker traces exposure to and interest in CO2 through diverse lines of thought. Early on, the guest describes encountering Russian and American literature on respiration and notes how pre-1950 Russian scientific works remained accessible in the U.S. He recounts the work of J. C. Woebes, a Hindu-physicist who studied the relation between sensory life properties and physical states, including how metals and rocks can twitch under stimulation and how nerve and muscle-like responses could be amplified and observed in non-biological systems. - A recurring theme is a shift away from membrane-centric cellular models toward the idea that sensitivity and many life-defining properties are intrinsic to complex protein interactions and electronic processes. Gilbert Ling’s perspective, which emphasizes surface effects and the idea that protein complexes govern respiration and cellular behavior without requiring membrane penetration, is highlighted as foundational to the guest’s thinking. Ling’s concept of “cardinal absorbents” (with carbon dioxide, progesterone, potassium, magnesium, and other factors stabilizing protein systems) is presented as a framework that contrasts with traditional bicarbonate-focused acid-base regulation. - The guest connects respiration to electronic control, citing W. F. Coke’s work on respiration as an electronic unit modulated by quinones, donors, and acceptors. He explains that a paired donor-acceptor input in a cell can induce contraction, while individual donors or acceptors alone may not. This electronic viewpoint is linked to Ling’s ideas and to a broader critique of purely bicarbonate-based acid-base explanations, suggesting that bicarbonate bookkeeping fails to capture cellular and tissue-level dynamics. - The discussion expands into CO2’s role in regulating pH and cellular energetics beyond Henderson-Hasselbalch. The guest argues that carbon dioxide is a fundamental regulator that can alkalinize or acidify intracellular environments through carbamino formation and protein interactions, not merely via bicarbonate in plasma. He references Stewart’s approach as an alternative framework to Henderson-Hasselbalch for understanding acid-base balance, especially at the cellular level. - Several clinical and physiological threads are explored: - CO2 as a regulator of oxygen affinity: carbon dioxide acidifies hemoglobin and cells, increasing oxygen uptake while affecting release as part of Bohr-like mechanisms, and CO2 stabilizes proteins through carbamino chemistry. - The idea that CO2 can protect against oxidative damage and support recovery: recent discussions touch on “permissive hypercapnia,” CO2’s antioxidant effects, and clinical observations that elevated CO2 levels are present in some near-death experiences. - The potential for CO2 to influence calcium, cardiac function, and bone metabolism: examples include observations about bones, osteopetrosis, and the effects of CO2-rich environments on bone density and mineral balance. - Nutritional and hormonal interactions: thyroid hormone (T3) augments respiration and cytochrome oxidase activity, increasing CO2 production and oxygen affinity; estrogen and polyunsaturated fats tend to disrupt respiratory balance; progesterone and pregnenolone can support CO2-related cellular responses. The role of endotoxins in lowering CO2 production and their interaction with stress and thyroid activity is also discussed. - The host shares anecdotes and experimental anecdotes illustrating CO2’s practical applications: - Carbonated baths and inhaled CO2 leading to rapid physiological effects. - Household or clinical use of CO2 (for instance, delivering small amounts of CO2 in controlled ways) to influence vascular tone, edema, and tissue perfusion. - Personal experiences with CO2 therapy in acute settings (e.g., stroke-like events) and in chronic conditions (arthritis, vascular issues). - The discussion references a variety of analogies and natural models: - Naked mole rats, bats, and queen bees illustrate how different organisms maintain higher CO2 environments internally, affecting longevity and metabolic regulation. - The Bohr effect, carbamino protein interactions, and the notion that CO2 can act as a context that shapes the behavior of hormones and receptors. - The closing emphasis is on viewing carbon dioxide as a unifying context for physiology across organ systems. The guest argues that understanding CO2’s role provides a framework that can explain respiratory, hormonal, and metabolic phenomena that reductionist medicine often treats in isolation, and he encourages thinking of CO2 as a central context for interpreting physiology rather than as a mere byproduct of metabolism.