An excellent conversation

[flacaltenn]

You're sounding more shrill and trollish lately.

Really? Do you have some examples

MAYBE -- some rejected reading is sinking in... Like the Muller comments in your OP --- that you obviously -- DON'T want to discuss...

Do you actually think if that were true that I would have given you a link to it? Fer crissakes, get real.

I just gave you examples of trollish behaviour creeping into your act.

So ---- got a COMMENT about Muller's statements? Or do you have to go pick up talking points on SkepScience.dung.

 

[Crick]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Using the same faulty reasoning of the EPA --- WATER VAPOR is a pollutant. THAT is the major greenhouse gas.

Too answer There4 --- Anything that exist in your lungs in concentrations of multiple times what exists in "clear air" --- is NOT a pollutant.. All living things on this planet are little "carbon emitters or absorption factories".. Or haven't you watched StarTrek to understand carbon based lifeforms?

Ever read the indictment of DiHydrous Oxide as a pollutant? If you haven't -- I'll post it for you...

You could spend the rest of your life in an atmosphere of nothing but oxygen and 100% RH. How do you conclude that's the same as CO2?

 

[Crick]

You're sounding more shrill and trollish lately.

Really? Do you have some examples

MAYBE -- some rejected reading is sinking in... Like the Muller comments in your OP --- that you obviously -- DON'T want to discuss...

Do you actually think if that were true that I would have given you a link to it? Fer crissakes, get real.

I just gave you examples of trollish behaviour creeping into your act.

So ---- got a COMMENT about Muller's statements? Or do you have to go pick up talking points on SkepScience.dung.

You have NOT provided examples of trollish behavior on my part nor links to anywhere I sounded "more shrill and trollish".

I am the OP of this thread and the topic was a specific set of comments to Muller's article. The commenter referred repeatedly to Skepical Science, I have not. I did you the courtesy of pointing out that Muller's article is two years old and thus not, as you termed it "news". If you want to discuss Muller's opinions, feel free to start your own thread. I think the BEST work may throw some light on where he currently stands.

 

[jc456]

Dude

You're sounding more shrill and trollish lately.

Really? Do you have some examples

MAYBE -- some rejected reading is sinking in... Like the Muller comments in your OP --- that you obviously -- DON'T want to discuss...

Do you actually think if that were true that I would have given you a link to it? Fer crissakes, get real.

I just gave you examples of trollish behaviour creeping into your act.

So ---- got a COMMENT about Muller's statements? Or do you have to go pick up talking points on SkepScience.dung.

You have NOT provided examples of trollish behavior on my part nor links to anywhere I sounded "more shrill and trollish".

I am the OP of this thread and the topic was a specific set of comments to Muller's article. The commenter referred repeatedly to Skepical Science, I have not. I did you the courtesy of pointing out that Muller's article is two years old and thus not, as you termed it "news". If you want to discuss Muller's opinions, feel free to start your own thread. I think the BEST work may throw some light on where he currently stands.

Dude, that's hilarious! Got any more?

 

[there4eyeM]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Exactly!
'Pollution' is a relative term. Like almost everything else, it is relative to humans.
The earth doesn't care.
Nature doesn't care.
There is no pollution outside our definition of the term.
So, when we judge the effects of CO2 as polluting, we are correct.

 

[Crick]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Please explain. Oxygen will not cause harm at STP. So, what do you mean?

 

[Crick]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Using the same faulty reasoning of the EPA --- WATER VAPOR is a pollutant. THAT is the major greenhouse gas.

Too answer There4 --- Anything that exist in your lungs in concentrations of multiple times what exists in "clear air" --- is NOT a pollutant.. All living things on this planet are little "carbon emitters or absorption factories".. Or haven't you watched StarTrek to understand carbon based lifeforms?

Ever read the indictment of DiHydrous Oxide as a pollutant? If you haven't -- I'll post it for you...

You could spend the rest of your life in an atmosphere of nothing but oxygen and 100% RH. How do you conclude that's the same as CO2?

Still waiting for an answer from FlaCalTenn

Perhaps we could advance this conversation with something simple:

From Dictionary.com

pollutant
[puh-loot-nt]

• Word Origin

noun
1.
something that pollutes.
2.
any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that rendersthe air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for aspecific purpose.
Origin of pollutant
1890-1895
1890-95; pollute + -ant
Related forms
nonpollutant, adjective, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
Cite This Source
British Dictionary definitions for pollutant
pollutant
/pəˈluːtənt/
noun
1.
a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that isproduced as a waste product of an industrial process

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
Word Origin and History for pollutant
n.


1888, from pollute + -ant. Related: Pollutants.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
pollutant in Medicine
pollutant pol·lut·ant (pə-lōōt'nt)
n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air,soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source
pollutant in Science
pollutant
(pə-l

t'nt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants canbe artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurringsubstances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmfulconcentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to naturalwaterways through warm-water discharge from power plants anduncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also consideredpollutants.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid that, per the dictionary, excess CO2 from synthetic emissions do seem to qualify as a pollutant.

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid that, per the dictionary, excess CO2 from synthetic emissions do seem to qualify as a pollutant.

Nope

 

[there4eyeM]

Some people refuse to recognize the meaning of words and, indeed of, language itself.
The eloquence of the above post illustrates the point.

 

[Crick]

???

 

[jc456]

Some people refuse to recognize the meaning of words and, indeed of, language itself.
The eloquence of the above post illustrates the point.

seems you nailed it. Whatever that 'it' is!

 

[hadit]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Using the same faulty reasoning of the EPA --- WATER VAPOR is a pollutant. THAT is the major greenhouse gas.

Too answer There4 --- Anything that exist in your lungs in concentrations of multiple times what exists in "clear air" --- is NOT a pollutant.. All living things on this planet are little "carbon emitters or absorption factories".. Or haven't you watched StarTrek to understand carbon based lifeforms?

Ever read the indictment of DiHydrous Oxide as a pollutant? If you haven't -- I'll post it for you...

You could spend the rest of your life in an atmosphere of nothing but oxygen and 100% RH. How do you conclude that's the same as CO2?

Actually, you couldn't. The fire risk aside, breathing pure oxygen becomes dangerous to your health. Seriously, look it up.

 

[hadit]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Please explain. Oxygen will not cause harm at STP. So, what do you mean?

The criteria for a substance to be classified as a pollutant appears to be if you expose yourself to extremely high concentrations of the substance and it harms you, it is a pollutant. Breathing pure oxygen for too long a time does become harmful, thus it is a pollutant under those criteria. In fact, hydrogen and nitrogen are also pollutants, because you could not survive breathing 100% concentrations of either one. The conclusion, therefore, is that CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, it is a totally necessary atmospheric gas for life as we know it to survive.

 

[there4eyeM]

Anything is a pollutant in relation to its negative effects on a human.

 

[jc456]

Anything is a pollutant in relation to its negative effects on a human.

then you are a pollutant!

 

[Stephanie]

snip;

This was from 2010. but people need to WAKE up what all this globull warming AKA climate change is REALLY ALL ABOUT.

SNIP:
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 | 11:27 AM EST

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet,

"[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

ALL of it here
- See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits We Redistribute World s Wealth By Climate Policy

 

[jc456]

snip;

This was from 2010. but people need to WAKE up what all this globull warming AKA climate change is REALLY ALL ABOUT.

SNIP:
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 | 11:27 AM EST

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet,

"[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

ALL of it here
- See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits We Redistribute World s Wealth By Climate Policy

yeah Frank's been posting that on other threads.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anything is a pollutant in relation to its negative effects on a human.

There's a criteria for the amount of exposure to any pollutant that makes it harmful to humans.. Ever get a water quality report from your supplier? Arsenic occurs naturally in many water sources but is below the MDL ?? which is the concentration that is clinically harmful. When you push MDL lower and lower like the EPA and ecowhacks are prone to do -- you are killing the small towns and cities that have to spend larger portions of their budget to comply.

Same thing with air particulates. You push too low and National Forests are "official polluters"...

In ANY of these pollution standards you will find (if you are not a mind-knumbed eco-fraud) that there is no such thing as pure water or pure air.

I've drank "pure" water used for semiconductor processing and it was about $30/gallon..

 

[Crick]

Anything is a pollutant in relation to its negative effects on a human.

There's a criteria for the amount of exposure to any pollutant that makes it harmful to humans.. Ever get a water quality report from your supplier? Arsenic occurs naturally in many water sources but is below the MDL ?? which is the concentration that is clinically harmful. When you push MDL lower and lower like the EPA and ecowhacks are prone to do -- you are killing the small towns and cities that have to spend larger portions of their budget to comply.

Same thing with air particulates. You push too low and National Forests are "official polluters"...

In ANY of these pollution standards you will find (if you are not a mind-knumbed eco-fraud) that there is no such thing as pure water or pure air.

I've drank "pure" water used for semiconductor processing and it was about $30/gallon..

And when you leave the MDL's up, you kill them more directly.