Climate change or Pollution?

[francoHFW]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

Oh ferchrisake google CO2 pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

I've shown you proof of that fact.

BS
From skeptical science:

Is CO2 a pollutant?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Intermediate

Advanced
Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)



Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (includingsource material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued anendangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[paulitician]

Both. But personally, i believe pollution is the problem. Humans are a filthy, hateful, violent bunch. They destroy everything they come in contact with. So them destroying themselves makes perfect sense. It is gonna happen. But the earth will be fine. It'll heal itself and go on spinning long after humans are gone. This guy summed it up perfectly...

 

[francoHFW]

Both. But personally, i believe pollution is the problem. Humans are a filthy, hateful, violent bunch. They destroy everything they come in contact with. So them destroying themselves makes perfect sense. It is gonna happen. But the earth will be fine. It'll heal itself and go on spinning long after humans are gone. This guy summed it up perfectly...

That would be RWers, actually.

 

[hellraiser]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

 

[Muhammed]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Got any proof of that?

Global cooling will wipe out world's granary crops, causing worldwide famine.

 

[flacaltenn]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

Oh ferchrisake google CO2 pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

I've shown you proof of that fact.

BS
From skeptical science:

Is CO2 a pollutant?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Intermediate

Advanced
Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)



Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (includingsource material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued anendangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

SkepShitScience is the most retarded "science" site on the I-Webs..Has an "atom bomb" counter on every page to compare to Global Warming. Run by activists who love to crayon up graphs and pass them off as original. The clowns pulled off that 97% of Climate Scientists propaganda gem..

No wonder they defend the POLITICAL interpretation of CO2 as a pollutant. It's REALLY hard to do from any scientific perspective. If CO2 is a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas -- then so is Water Vapor.

ALL Carbon life forms produce CO2.. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. What comes out of Franco's mouth is 6 to 10 times MORE concentrated CO2 than the air around him. Making HIM a polluter..

CO2 is plant food.. CO2 also has a role as a GH gas.. It's the invented MAGICAL POWERS of CO2 beyond the science/chemistry that skeptics have a problem with..

It is NOT a pollutant. Except in the minds of the politicians and the mindless minions under their control and patronage..

 

[flacaltenn]

How do you tie the public in knots about GW when you don't want to make a SCIENTIFIC case for Global Warming and draw the picture that connects the anti-fossil fuel agenda to the cause.

Stop using the CORRECT scientific terms --- and INVENT your own. Like simply referring to Carbon in the atmosphere instead of CO2. Make the public believe that anything dirty is causing GW.. It's brilliant.. It's also CHILLING when the Govt does this and gives it the power of law.

It's LEGISLATING scientific illiteracy...

 

[paulitician]

Both. But personally, i believe pollution is the problem. Humans are a filthy, hateful, violent bunch. They destroy everything they come in contact with. So them destroying themselves makes perfect sense. It is gonna happen. But the earth will be fine. It'll heal itself and go on spinning long after humans are gone. This guy summed it up perfectly...

That would be RWers, actually.

Nah, it's the human race. Humans are the problem. Humans destroy everything. "The Planet is fine, the People are fucked." Once their gone, the earth will heal itself, and the species remaining will thrive.

My guess is, it'll be the insects that replace humans as the dominant species. They can survive just about anything. One thing's for sure though, human beings are doomed. Whether by their own hand, or by other, they will go extinct.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wind energy has a debilitating deminishing return...
Solar has shown promise but the mined resources to make it reliable are truly toxic...

Everything else is pie in the sky

Bullshit!

Why hasnt it taken hold then??

Really? You have to ask that?
Where I live many thousands of people have switched to solar and all new construction is required to have it.
Stfu.

Fine, it should be a choice no one should be forced into that horseshit... Lol

Nobody is .

Wait, you just said "all new construction is required to have it."

What the hell?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Please tell us how we'll fair without Co2... this oughttta be good.

 

[daws101]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Please tell us how we'll fair without Co2... this oughttta be good.

CO2 is as necessary as oxygen too much of it is a bad thing.
Like everything else in life balance is the key.

 

[daws101]

Bullshit!

Why hasnt it taken hold then??

Really? You have to ask that?
Where I live many thousands of people have switched to solar and all new construction is required to have it.
Stfu.

Fine, it should be a choice no one should be forced into that horseshit... Lol

Nobody is .

Wait, you just said "all new construction is required to have it."

What the hell?

Fact is fact.

 

[hellraiser]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Got any proof of that?

Global cooling will wipe out world's granary crops, causing worldwide famine.

I have a couple of graphs that I already showed. I will show them again. If you think that will help.

 

[hellraiser]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

Oh ferchrisake google CO2 pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

I've shown you proof of that fact.

BS
From skeptical science:

Is CO2 a pollutant?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Intermediate

Advanced
Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)



Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (includingsource material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued anendangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

SkepShitScience is the most retarded "science" site on the I-Webs..Has an "atom bomb" counter on every page to compare to Global Warming. Run by activists who love to crayon up graphs and pass them off as original. The clowns pulled off that 97% of Climate Scientists propaganda gem..

No wonder they defend the POLITICAL interpretation of CO2 as a pollutant. It's REALLY hard to do from any scientific perspective. If CO2 is a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas -- then so is Water Vapor.

ALL Carbon life forms produce CO2.. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. What comes out of Franco's mouth is 6 to 10 times MORE concentrated CO2 than the air around him. Making HIM a polluter..

CO2 is plant food.. CO2 also has a role as a GH gas.. It's the invented MAGICAL POWERS of CO2 beyond the science/chemistry that skeptics have a problem with..

It is NOT a pollutant. Except in the minds of the politicians and the mindless minions under their control and patronage..

You human caused global warming deniers flip me out.

 

[hellraiser]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Please tell us how we'll fair without Co2... this oughttta be good.

I hope you say sensible things sometimes? Nobody is talking about doing without CO2. But too much of anything isn't good. If there was too much love in the world, it would be a pollutant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

Oh ferchrisake google CO2 pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

I've shown you proof of that fact.

BS
From skeptical science:

Is CO2 a pollutant?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Intermediate

Advanced
Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)



Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (includingsource material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued anendangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

SkepShitScience is the most retarded "science" site on the I-Webs..Has an "atom bomb" counter on every page to compare to Global Warming. Run by activists who love to crayon up graphs and pass them off as original. The clowns pulled off that 97% of Climate Scientists propaganda gem..

No wonder they defend the POLITICAL interpretation of CO2 as a pollutant. It's REALLY hard to do from any scientific perspective. If CO2 is a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas -- then so is Water Vapor.

ALL Carbon life forms produce CO2.. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. What comes out of Franco's mouth is 6 to 10 times MORE concentrated CO2 than the air around him. Making HIM a polluter..

CO2 is plant food.. CO2 also has a role as a GH gas.. It's the invented MAGICAL POWERS of CO2 beyond the science/chemistry that skeptics have a problem with..

It is NOT a pollutant. Except in the minds of the politicians and the mindless minions under their control and patronage..

You human caused global warming deniers flip me out.

You folks who believe the Earth's climate system is gonna irreparably self-destruct if the surface temperature passes 2 degC are religious zealots. Not grounded in science. Don't understand that there is no solid evidence of climate variability in past millenia accurate enough to even SEE a 1 deg spike over 100 years.

Models and predictions dropping like turds, no sign of the ACCELERATIONS in warming that were predicted, worried about polar bears when THEIR largest problem is HUNTING -- not CO2. Don't know that water vapor is the LARGER GreenHouse gas, but would probably label THAT a pollutant also,..

I don't deny that CO2 will have an effect on surface temperature. But UNLIKE YOU --- I understand all the outrageous GW/CChange claims that have been made. Your theory says things you probably aren't even aware of. It's those "magical multipliers" -- not backed by solid science that I am skeptical about..

 

[flacaltenn]

Carbon dioxide is the green gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't a good thing.

Please tell us how we'll fair without Co2... this oughttta be good.

I hope you say sensible things sometimes? Nobody is talking about doing without CO2. But too much of anything isn't good. If there was too much love in the world, it would be a pollutant.

CO2 has exponentially DECREASING effect on surface temp. At each doubling of concentration it will produce the same "forcing function" of about 1.1 degC/doubling. We haven't seen the 1st doubling since the Indust. Revolution. That one will be 280ppm to 560ppm.. We are at 400ppm. The NEXT 1 deg will require TWICE as much CO2 to acheive. So if that STARTS in 2050.. We'd have to go from 560 to 1120ppm.. Wouldn't likely happened til WAAAY after 2100.. That is -- if we're still burning carbon by then..

Everything else we''ve measured with modern instrumentation is likely natural cycles that are TOO SHORT to appear in the Paleo-Proxies you've been force-fed as PROOF that this little warming blip is unique and unprecedented...

Your turn.. Educate me.. Tell me something i don't know..

 

[flacaltenn]

We could stop generating CO2 today by building 100 nuclear plants. 50 of them to replace the aging ones that will fall apart soon -- and 50 new ones.. Why DON'T we do that? Because the authority worshipping, Gaia dancers like HellRaiser are MORE TERRIFIED by nuclear reactors than they are by GloBull Warming..

True story..

 

[hellraiser]

Oh ferchrisake google CO2 pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

I've shown you proof of that fact.

BS
From skeptical science:

Is CO2 a pollutant?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Intermediate

Advanced
Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)



Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (includingsource material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued anendangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

SkepShitScience is the most retarded "science" site on the I-Webs..Has an "atom bomb" counter on every page to compare to Global Warming. Run by activists who love to crayon up graphs and pass them off as original. The clowns pulled off that 97% of Climate Scientists propaganda gem..

No wonder they defend the POLITICAL interpretation of CO2 as a pollutant. It's REALLY hard to do from any scientific perspective. If CO2 is a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas -- then so is Water Vapor.

ALL Carbon life forms produce CO2.. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. What comes out of Franco's mouth is 6 to 10 times MORE concentrated CO2 than the air around him. Making HIM a polluter..

CO2 is plant food.. CO2 also has a role as a GH gas.. It's the invented MAGICAL POWERS of CO2 beyond the science/chemistry that skeptics have a problem with..

It is NOT a pollutant. Except in the minds of the politicians and the mindless minions under their control and patronage..

You human caused global warming deniers flip me out.

You folks who believe the Earth's climate system is gonna irreparably self-destruct if the surface temperature passes 2 degC are religious zealots. Not grounded in science. Don't understand that there is no solid evidence of climate variability in past millenia accurate enough to even SEE a 1 deg spike over 100 years.

Models and predictions dropping like turds, no sign of the ACCELERATIONS in warming that were predicted, worried about polar bears when THEIR largest problem is HUNTING -- not CO2. Don't know that water vapor is the LARGER GreenHouse gas, but would probably label THAT a pollutant also,..

I don't deny that CO2 will have an effect on surface temperature. But UNLIKE YOU --- I understand all the outrageous GW/CChange claims that have been made. Your theory says things you probably aren't even aware of. It's those "magical multipliers" -- not backed by solid science that I am skeptical about..

Are you outright evil, or just high. Every year all the volcanoes on earth release about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for the release of 26.8 BILLION tons! I think it was just last year that the entire Greenland ice cap experienced melting. Even on the mountains! Ice caps are KNOWN to be retreating and getting thinner. Where there is no ice, it absorbs more sunlight. Increasing HCGW. Also, tundra is KNOWN to be melting. Both of those things release more methane. Which is far more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Also, like most things, HCGW is likely to be EXPONENTIAL. That means that things can get so bad so fast that you will shit your pants. And you will likely be dead before the shit has had time to run down your leg. Also, I was watching a TV program about HCGW with Bill Nye the science guy. He was talking to a college professor who studied the problem for at least the last 15 years. He thinks most of the life on earth will be gone in about 20 years. So he decided to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. I suppose you think you're smarter than a professor who had been studying the issue for at least the last 15 years.

Another point is, what if you are right and HCGW isn't that big of a problem. How terrible would it be to start living in a greener fassion. But what if people like me are right. And in about 50 years tops, most of the life on earth will be extinct. What will you say. Sorry? There will be an especially unplesant place in hell for people like you.

 

[hellraiser]

We could stop generating CO2 today by building 100 nuclear plants. 50 of them to replace the aging ones that will fall apart soon -- and 50 new ones.. Why DON'T we do that? Because the authority worshipping, Gaia dancers like HellRaiser are MORE TERRIFIED by nuclear reactors than they are by GloBull Warming..

True story..

When bad things happen at nuclear power plants, and they have, there isn't enough money in the world to fix the problem. All the printing presses on earth couldn't print up enough money to fix the problem. The core at Chernobyl is expected to stay dangerous for at least the next 4 billion years! The direction we should go for now is solar energy, street cars and electric cars. Germany is making solar energy work. And they don't get nearly the amount of sunlight that we do. It may take a sort of "Marshal Plan" and only be a first step. But it is something that should be done NOW.