Someone should suggest that Malcom Roberts spends many hours of quiet time a in a fully sealed room so he get can really get to know carbon dioxide.

Well doesn't that just sum up the intelligence of One Nation.....

On that logic… water is good for you . Can I put your head in a bath of it for 20 minutes? Too much of a good thing is also bad.

That’s to compensate for intensive respiration in an enclosed space. Unfortunately in the atmosphere outside excess CO2 isn’t being processed fast enough to maintain neutrality and the atmospheric concentration is increasing. This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Science is more than a one sentence meme on social media.

This is actually such a new low in understanding science it feels like there is no way to argue you back to reason.

If you breathe co2 for 5 minutes you will have your answer.

Just maybe they should start teaching science again in schools rather than gender studies

Hey you drink water right? I mean, you'll die without water after only 4-5 days. So water is good for humans. But if I hold your head below water for 4-5 mins that won't be so good. Now will it? Same same.

How do you reckon you'd go Malcolm if you walk into a room filled with only CO2?

If you had half a brain you’d realise that too much of a good thing can be bad. You need water correct? So you should submerge yourself in it for an hour and see how you go.🙄🙄🙄

Good grief. Malcolm Roberts really didnt pass Year 7 science did he? 😂

I learnt about Photosynthesis in primary school in the late 70's, I really don't think the science behind it has changed. Here's a recap for the young brained washed muppets.... Photosynthesis changes sunlight into chemical energy, splits water to liberate O 2, and fixes CO 2 into sugar. So dumbing it down further, plants use sunlight, water and CO2 to convert to oxygen and food for the plant. You're welcome.

This argument always seems to boil down to “CO2 is good for plants.” Sure. So is water. But if your answer to every problem is “just add more”, you’re going to have a bad time. Greenhouses add CO2 because they’re controlled environments. They also control temperature, water, nutrients and pests. The Earth isn’t a greenhouse with a thermostat. Nobody is claiming CO2 is evil. They’re saying that taking atmospheric CO2 from around 280ppm to over 420ppm in just a couple of centuries might have consequences. That’s not climate alarmism. That’s basic common sense.

Who is going to volunteer to go into a room above 1% CO2 for an extended period of time and see what happens. For science obviously...

I would expect nothing more from a member of One Neuron

You need water to make a cup of tea. I don't see why people worry about floods.

I feel like Dr Karl when reading your dribble. 🚲

if drowning is so bad why do doctors recommend we drink more water?

It’s a silly analogy. Maybe you could check out the pump room when the co2 alarm goes off

Would you breath that instead of oxygen, because this is quite the insane take

Simplistic … and typical of No Notion 🙄

Wish we could fill a room and leave Malcolm in there to breathe

While carbon dioxide (CO_2) is indeed a naturally occurring gas vital for plant photosynthesis, the statement provided contains several major scientific errors, data misinterpretations, and logical fallacies regarding the Earth's atmosphere and the drivers of climate change. ​Here is a breakdown of the specific errors in the statement: ​1. Misrepresenting Past CO_2 Levels ​The Claim: "In the past, in Earth’s current Oxygen and Nitrogen rich atmosphere, CO2 was as high as 7% - 175 times higher than today" ​The Error: Earth's atmosphere has never had CO_2 levels as high as 7% (70,000 \text{ ppm}) while being "oxygen and nitrogen-rich" in a way that could support modern animal or human life. ​The Facts: Over the last 500 million years, CO_2 levels peaked during the Cambrian period at roughly 4,000 to 9,000 \text{ ppm} (0.4\% to 0.9\%). While that is high, it is a fraction of 7%. The only time Earth had CO_2 levels resembling 7% or higher was billions of years ago in its primitive atmosphere, before cyanobacteria evolved to produce oxygen via photosynthesis. ​2. Misunderstanding the Carbon Cycle (The "97% Natural" Fallacy) ​The Claim: "Nature produces 97% of Earth’s CO2 production - 32 times more than all human production" ​The Error: This numbers-game fundamentally misinterprets how a balanced cycle works. It assumes that because human emissions are small compared to the total natural exchange, they cannot impact the atmosphere. ​The Facts: Before the Industrial Revolution, nature was in a dynamic equilibrium. Land and oceans released huge amounts of CO_2, but they also absorbed an equal amount back (through photosynthesis and ocean dissolving). Nature’s net contribution to atmospheric growth was zero, keeping CO_2 stable at about 280 \text{ ppm} for thousands of years. Human emissions represent an unbalanced surplus. Because nature cannot absorb all of our added CO_2, about half of it stays in the atmosphere, driving the rapid accumulation we see today. ​3. Claiming Humans Do Not Affect CO_2 Levels ​The Claim: "Scientific data shows Nature alone controls Earth’s CO2 levels. Human production of CO2 does not, and cannot affect CO2 levels" ​The Error: This completely contradicts basic physics, chemistry, and direct atmospheric measurements. ​The Facts: We know with absolute certainty that the rise in CO_2 is human-caused due to isotopic fingerprinting. Carbon from fossil fuels has a distinct chemical signature (it is depleted in the Carbon-13 isotope) compared to carbon cycled naturally by volcanoes or solar cycles. As atmospheric CO_2 has skyrocketed from 280 \text{ ppm} to over 420 \text{ ppm}, the concentration of Carbon-13 has dropped proportionally. This is definitive proof that the extra CO_2 comes directly from burning fossil fuels. ​4. Distorting the Role of the Oceans ​The Claim: "When oceans warm they release CO2 into the air. When oceans cool they absorb CO2 from the air" ​The Error: While this is a real mechanism that occurs during long-term ice age cycles (taking thousands of years), it is not what is happening right now. ​The Facts: If the current rise in atmospheric CO_2 were caused by oceans warming up and outgassing, the amount of CO_2 dissolved in the oceans would be decreasing. In reality, the oceans are absorbing massive amounts of our excess atmospheric CO_2. This is causing ocean acidification (a measured drop in ocean pH), proving that CO_2 is moving from the air into the ocean, not the other way around. ​5. Misrepresenting the IPCC ​The Claim: "Even the UN’s corrupt climate body, the UNIPCC has admitted that [human CO2 doesn't matter]" ​The Error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never stated or "admitted" that human emissions are irrelevant. ​The Facts: The IPCC's core scientific consensus—backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies and meteorology bodies worldwide—is that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally the primary driver of modern global warming. Taking a statistic out of context (like the gross natural carbon flux numbers) to claim the IPCC agrees with a contrarian view is a classic "cherry-picking" fallacy.

Good question, I was wondering this once, but instead of posting it on the internet like some sort of ridiculous diva, I just googled it like a normal person. Have you tried that, mate?

I’d be embarrassed to post this rot

Life expectancy has increased significantly since the 1900s. That's not from clean eating. That's science.

Read up on the history of infectious diseases, read a basic book on medicine.

Take a walk through an old cemetery and see the ages on the headstones prior to vaccines , they were also eating 100% organic back then

If you get Tetanus, What will you do when you can't eat from lock jaw?

Ah, you see, we weren't 'designed'. We evolved. We're imperfect - and being imperfect is necessary for evolution to take place.

Questioning science or beliefs is fine. It's when people refute evidence based on feelings that it becomes stupid. People also get caught up in politics vs health which clouds their view, not to mention the misinformation and disinformation out there. The evidence for vaccines is strong, it's not a controversial topic amongst people who are educated in and understand the topic. Most talking points you see are either not based in facts, driven by fear, or lack of understanding/knowledge

Absolutely 💯 I was like this Roy Davis also - until one of my children had SEVERE reactions to childhood vaccs & I ended up down the rabbit hole of what vaccination programmes are really about. What happened 30 years ago prepared me for Equine Influenza, Hendra & covid. And no younger children were vaccinated. It took awhile for me too, but I'm now much more savvy on who & what I trust.

Looks like Malcolm fell out of the dumb side of the bed today.

Hep B shots - have babies been shooting up in the womb?

Take a look in any old cemetery and see the children's graves. Often multiples in one family. Rich and poor. Thank science and medicine for this change!

In the good old days you lost half your children before the age of 10.

Life expectancy used to be about forty years when we were "all natural". Do with that what you will.

The Greek word for cow or cattle is Vacca! Nothing more to be said

It would very funny to me if you got measles and polio

Yep before Rockefeller funded and manipulated the industry it was Homeopathy, Heliotherapy and terrain theory.

Senator Malcolm Roberts bringing to you how do die like a medieval peasant 🤬

It’s not 26 it’s 72 plus if your indigenous it’s 72 and extra one at 2 and 4 mths

words of nutcase.. that is it..

Tell me you want a higher infant death rate without telling me you want a higher infant death rate

The adults of age 28 and over today are less vaccinated than the younger generation of today. And they're doing just fine. As are those of us older... and unsick. Let that sink in. Vaccines against DTP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis), Polio and MMR (measles mumps rubella) were good enough then. We're all ok mostly right?

Old graveyards are full of tiny graves

Questioning things is good. Don't question so far that you start to think birds aren't real and are trying to attack you and steal your thoughts.

It was designed to die at age 30.

Can he read?

I feel the same way about shoes.