Climate change or Pollution?

[flacaltenn]

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.

See -- now there's a prime example of what you THOUGHT you heard. That "most life on Earth will be gone in about 20 years".. That's the non-science hysteria that is behind this circus.. Has NO basis in reality. Don't give a fuck about volcanoes. TERMITES produce more CO2 every year than volcanoes. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. And plant food..

I'm READY to start living in "a greener fashion".. LYING to me just is a negative motivator. Don't need the fairytales. One reason I HATE this Global Baloney circus is because it's sucked all the life out of the DOZENS of important OTHER issues in the Environment. We need to calm the fuck down and pay attention to REAL pollution and stresses on habitat and resources.

 

[hellraiser]

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.

See -- now there's a prime example of what you THOUGHT you heard. That "most life on Earth will be gone in about 20 years".. That's the non-science hysteria that is behind this circus.. Has NO basis in reality. Don't give a fuck about volcanoes. TERMITES produce more CO2 every year than volcanoes. It's a by-product of LIFE on this planet. And plant food..

First, I didn't "think" I heard whatever. I heard it. And you should give a fuck about the humanity vs volcanoes thing. Also, I will show you the graphs again. Nothing of what is going on is caused by termites or the like. It's caused by HUMAN activity.

 

[Rustic]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

You do realize that just because 2 graphs "look" similar -- it doesn't mean they are cause-effect --- right?

Is this your main PROOF? Because I could draw the conclusion that increases in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2.. In fact -- that is true to a large extent. Your graphs are also six years old and the climate cult aren't using them anymore -- because temperatures from 2000 to 2016 have remained fairly flat. This was NOT predicted in the models and has caused a bunch of excuses to be generated. What "force" could bottle up this unstoppable GW for over a decade when the CO2 concentrations continued to rise?

But more importantly -- what makes you think that the 1deg change in your lifetime is totally unique and unprecedented in climate history? Or what's your evidence that a 2degC trigger will set the Earth off on an unstoppable suicide roll??

And when you hear someone assert that "most life will be gone in 20 years" --- do you not CHALLENGE that assertion as to HOW that's exactly gonna happen?? You think a Global AVG temp change of 2 or 3 degrees would do that? Ever been to Houston in the summertime? Is life there DOOMED compared to Milwaukee? Would a squirrel care??

 

[hellraiser]

You do realize that just because 2 graphs "look" similar -- it doesn't mean they are cause-effect --- right?

Is this your main PROOF? Because I could draw the conclusion that increases in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2.. In fact -- that is true to a large extent. Your graphs are also six years old and the climate cult aren't using them anymore -- because temperatures from 2000 to 2016 have remained fairly flat. This was NOT predicted in the models and has caused a bunch of excuses to be generated. What "force" could bottle up this unstoppable GW for over a decade when the CO2 concentrations continued to rise?

But more importantly -- what makes you think that the 1deg change in your lifetime is totally unique and unprecedented in climate history? Or what's your evidence that a 2degC trigger will set the Earth off on an unstoppable suicide roll??

And when you hear someone assert that "most life will be gone in 20 years" --- do you not CHALLENGE that assertion as to HOW that's exactly gonna happen?? You think a Global AVG temp change of 2 or 3 degrees would do that? Ever been to Houston in the summertime? Is life there DOOMED compared to Milwaukee? Would a squirrel care??

Everybody knows how the greenhouse effect works. So the two graphs DO show cause and effect. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Also, every year seems to break a new record for the warmest year. Is that cause and effect enough for you? Next, I told you what the amount of CO2 released yearly is by all the volcanoes on earth was. And the amount released due to human activity. Is the amount released by human actions due to preceeding higher temperatures?

Next, there is more than I one degree temperature rise going on. And it seems to effect the poles more than the rest of the planet. Next, the warmer things get, the more sunlight is absorbed. The more sunlight is absorbed, the warmer things get. The warmer things get, the more sunlight is absorbed. Which by itself is likely to cause a feedback loop bringing about exponential warming. At the same time, methane in shallow waters and in tundra is released more rapidly. And methane is something like 20 times more of a potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Also, I wasn't talking about just some "someone." I was talking about a college professor who studied the problem for at least the past 15 years. If you had a tenured professorship, would you quit your job and start preparing for doomsday unless you were certain of what was going to happen? For you to say otherwise, I would have to wonder if you are stupid, evil or are just paid to be evil. Like it or not, it is better to be safe than sorry. The costs and consequences of my being right far far far far far far far outweigh the consequences of your being right and having done something about the problem for no reason.

Also, I looked for more graphs. About the closest I could find any up to the present day was 2010. But they show pretty much the same thing as the other graphs. I will include them here. For an added bonus, I will also include a graph of human population growth. That is another thing that isn't going well. Not to mention all the CO2 those added humans will be responsible for.