Humans have a symbiotic relationship with nature. We breathe out carbon, aka plant food. Plants produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Without plants, humanity would cease to exist. So because of all that, it’s no surprise that Vox is extremely upset that the earth is getting greener. That’s because the climate cult is at its very core, an anti-human cult. Every “problem” is due to humans and every “solution” is anti-human.

According to Vox:

In the last four decades, the extent of green vegetation — i.e., the amount of leaves in a given area — has substantially increased across the planet, according to a number of recent scientific studies based on satellite data. There’s actually more green space today, not less. And this “global greening” phenomenon is not just occurring on land. Large parts of the oceans are getting greener, too, research shows. Our blue planet, it seems, is increasingly a green planet.

Understanding Earth’s color is key to understanding Earth and our future on it. “Greenness” often corresponds to the planet’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that drives climate change. The more leaves, the more photosynthesis, a chemical reaction that gobbles up CO2. That’s the good news in global greening: It’s helping offset some of the impacts of climate change.

But there’s more to greening than meets the eye. The changing color isn’t so much a sign that forests and other ecosystems are regrowing but that humans are altering the environment on a truly planetary scale — often, with dire consequences.

This is how asinine all this is. They agree that more green means more photosynthesis. They also agree that that is a good thing. And they go even further and claim that it helps “offset some of the impacts of climate change.” But in the very same breath, they say that the reason this is bad is because humans are causing it. Which is illogical, at best.

Their whole argument rests on the premise that something is bad if it’s caused by humans. And that “global greening” would be good, except for the "fact" that humans caused it. So now that's bad. But something is not "bad" just because humans may or may not have had a hand in it. It’s either a good thing or a bad thing in itself. And "global greening" is a good thing for literally every - single - species - on the planet.

These results are somewhat counterintuitive. In an age of deforestation, you might expect Earth to get browner or more gray, as satellites see stumps in place of trees and runways in place of wetlands. Where is all this green color coming from?

They cannot even keep up with their anti-scientific claims. They claim that we won’t have forests anymore yet are so confused as to why the exact opposite is happening. But in terms of this argument, these two things cannot be correct at the same time. Either deforestation is bad or it’s not. If it is, then “global greening” is good. If deforestation is good, then “global greening” is bad. But deforestation cannot be bad and global greening also be bad at the same time. That is not how logic works.

The writer states that CO2 is accelerating green growth. This is why these “experts” now must pretend that “global greening” is bad. They have already vilified this gas for a variety of reasons. And because of that, they have now tangled themselves in a web that they cannot get out of and just keep going deeper and deeper down the hole.

Debunking Climate Change Myths | Louder With Crowderwww.youtube.com