I'm not an expert, but I don't believe in global warming because its believers have told us many times that terrible things would happen because of global warming and they have not happened.
What if it is true however?
Environmentalists say to have less children because supposedly humans cause global warming. Here's an example of that. Here's why they're wrong: According to Science Focus, human breathing accounts for about "around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world." Breathing and farting is the only activity humans must do that contribute to global warming. You might say humans eating causes global warming, but plant-based foods have very low greenhouse gas emissions (pic related). Meat can be banned. In fact, perhaps it might be environmentally friendly to eat carnivorous wild animals. Here's why: Animals exhale and fart too. However, herbivorous animals seem good for the environment:
According to the UN, "Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions." Humans don't need fossil fuels to survive.
According to one source, "Approximately 80 billion farm animals are reared for food in the world each year." Why is it okay for there to be billions of farm animals and not billions of humans? I've heard people decry the 8 billion human population, yet I've never heard that there's 80 billion animals reared each year. These animals should be exterminated. And that doesn't include wild animals. Instead of having 80 billion animals, we can have an equivalent number of humans. We can multiply the human population by at least five times. I'm not going to say ten since some farm animals are small like chickens. According to Sentient Media, meat is "responsible for between 11 and just under 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and a constant drain on our planet’s water and land reserves." Humans can replace this 11 to 20 percent. I don't know if Sentient Media is right and why it doesn't talk about wild animals.
Unfortunately, this research doesn't leave me satisfied. I want the population to increase much more than five times. That's why I don't believe in global warming whatsoever. Even if "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth" because of global warming(which didn't happen in 2000 as they said) it's probably for the better. Life would be so miserable if we weren't allowed to reproduce. Being an incel, being childless, is the worst fate. It's not worth living without having descendants. I don't think environmentalists have said the entire planet would die. I don't know what they mean by nations being wiped off, but if some people die it's like a trolley problem. On one side of the trolley problem is billions that won't be born because of environmentalism and feminism and on the other side of trolley problem is the nations that may be wiped off. Most people in trolley problems would choose to save more people than less people. The train should go through the track that has less people so that the train doesn't go on the track that has more people. Therefore even if global warming is true, it's still worth reproducing. It's not enough to have the birth rate at 2.1. It should be much higher or else people will be miserable.
Also I want to say that if humans do cause global warming, the harvesting organs from those euthanized, which Canada is doing, should be banned because it allows many humans to keep living. That's probably the brightest fact in this thread.
What if it is true however?
Environmentalists say to have less children because supposedly humans cause global warming. Here's an example of that. Here's why they're wrong: According to Science Focus, human breathing accounts for about "around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world." Breathing and farting is the only activity humans must do that contribute to global warming. You might say humans eating causes global warming, but plant-based foods have very low greenhouse gas emissions (pic related). Meat can be banned. In fact, perhaps it might be environmentally friendly to eat carnivorous wild animals. Here's why: Animals exhale and fart too. However, herbivorous animals seem good for the environment:
According to the UN, "Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions." Humans don't need fossil fuels to survive.
According to one source, "Approximately 80 billion farm animals are reared for food in the world each year." Why is it okay for there to be billions of farm animals and not billions of humans? I've heard people decry the 8 billion human population, yet I've never heard that there's 80 billion animals reared each year. These animals should be exterminated. And that doesn't include wild animals. Instead of having 80 billion animals, we can have an equivalent number of humans. We can multiply the human population by at least five times. I'm not going to say ten since some farm animals are small like chickens. According to Sentient Media, meat is "responsible for between 11 and just under 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and a constant drain on our planet’s water and land reserves." Humans can replace this 11 to 20 percent. I don't know if Sentient Media is right and why it doesn't talk about wild animals.
Unfortunately, this research doesn't leave me satisfied. I want the population to increase much more than five times. That's why I don't believe in global warming whatsoever. Even if "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth" because of global warming(which didn't happen in 2000 as they said) it's probably for the better. Life would be so miserable if we weren't allowed to reproduce. Being an incel, being childless, is the worst fate. It's not worth living without having descendants. I don't think environmentalists have said the entire planet would die. I don't know what they mean by nations being wiped off, but if some people die it's like a trolley problem. On one side of the trolley problem is billions that won't be born because of environmentalism and feminism and on the other side of trolley problem is the nations that may be wiped off. Most people in trolley problems would choose to save more people than less people. The train should go through the track that has less people so that the train doesn't go on the track that has more people. Therefore even if global warming is true, it's still worth reproducing. It's not enough to have the birth rate at 2.1. It should be much higher or else people will be miserable.
Also I want to say that if humans do cause global warming, the harvesting organs from those euthanized, which Canada is doing, should be banned because it allows many humans to keep living. That's probably the brightest fact in this thread.
