And POOF, it was gone....

[Crick]

He just told you that Australia and NZ (and the US and Britain and all of Europe) have loads of laws and regulations preventing and controlling polluting practices. And using taxes to control behavior goes back as far as taxes. It's effective and everyone here knows that if the government passed laws directly prohibiting such behaviors, you and yours would be screaming about it like a two-year old with a fire ant in his diapers. It's what you scream and whine about now.

Applying pressure through taxation allows that free market system you all adore to evolve efficient and cost effective means to solve the problem.

It's rather obvious here that you don't have a side. You just oppose contemporary thinking no matter which way it goes.

 

[Dr Grump]

Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.

Neither did I...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.

Neither did I...

Glad we're all in agreement then.

 

[Dr Grump]

Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.

Neither did I...

Glad we're all in agreement then.

Are we?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.

Neither did I...

Glad we're all in agreement then.

Are we?

Aren't we?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Aren't we?

I was talking pollutants. You're talking CO2

 

[westwall]

[

Aren't we?

I was talking pollutants. You're talking CO2

So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?

 

[Dr Grump]

[


So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?

Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[


So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?

Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

 

[Crick]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.

Yup, because an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses would be better........DERP!

 

[Crick]

In levels above those under which humankind evolved and human culture developed - yes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In levels above those under which humankind evolved and human culture developed - yes.

LOL!

 

[Crick]

How about oxygen? Do you think oxygen could be a pollutant? What would happen if we raised it to, say, 60%? Anything? Think everyone would feel better?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas.

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

 

[westwall]

[


So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?

Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?

Water vapor is THE dominant GHG. Is it a pollutant?

 

[westwall]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

Really? Why is 280 ppm the "magic number"? Where is the actual lab experiment (not computer modeled fiction) that supports that contention.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

Bullshit....lets see one shred of observed measured quantified empirical evidence...or we can talk about that equation describing the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect that claims that one radiator radiating up at -18 degrees and another radiator radiating down at -18 degrees result in a radiating temperature of about 29 degrees...want to talk about that?

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K

 

[Olde Europe]

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air. Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away, and thus adds to the CO2 in the air. That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.

How does it feel if it turns out you've been laughing (out loud) at your own ignorance and incomprehension? (I, for one, found it very funny.) Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose, and too much, or too little, of most is detrimental, which is when even essentials turn into, for lack of a better word, pollutants. Heck, without water we don't survive. Drink eight or ten liters of the stuff, and you're dead.