Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant!

[Boss]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Isn't it amazing how the establishment jumped on the carbon pollution hoax. It's almost as if they're rigging stuff.

 

[fncceo]

Carbon Dioxide is produced by humans (and other living things) and, apparently, we're a plague on this planet.

Time for some of you to take one for the team.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

You're right. Our grandkids will discuss AGW in the same vein as the Dutch Tulip Bulb Mania and the Salem Witch trials. In 50 years you won't be able to find a single person who will admit to believing the man-caused global warming myth.

 

[JGalt]

Co2 feeds the trees. Why does the left hate trees?

 

[Boss]

You're right. Our grandkids will discuss AGW in the same vein as the Dutch Tulip Bulb Mania and the Salem Witch trials. In 50 years you won't be able to find a single person who will admit to believing the man-caused global warming myth.

Well, here's the thing... I've looked at their science and to an extent, they are right. Humans do create carbon dioxide. All we have to do is breathe. Every breath you exhale has converted a small amount of oxygen to carbon dioxide. It's also true that human industrialization processes produce some amount of CO2. Couple this with the fact that CO2 as a greenhouse gas, does have an amplification effect on warming the planet. But the thing is, there is no evidence that it changes the global temperatures to any significant degree over time. According to all the relevant data, the effect is inconsequential.

Just because science theoretically supports something, doesn't mean there is a necessary correlation with effect. Here's an analogy.... When a vehicle drives down the road, the tires create friction as energy moves mass... friction creates heat. This is scientifically valid. But what is the risk of many vehicles traveling down the road causing the roadway to catch on fire from the heat generated? It's "theoretically" possible but it's never going to happen because other factors are in play. The energy conversion isn't creating enough heat to ever reach a point of ignition and cool air is constantly mitigating any heat that is produced. Therefore, the roadway will never catch on fire.

Even if humans tried 24/7/365 to churn out as much CO2 as possible, we wouldn't significantly change the climate. To any extent we did, it would simply create more abundant plant life which uses CO2. Ironically, we could actually generate so much vibrant plant growth that it depletes our CO2 levels and causes an ice age.

 

[cnm]

But the thing is, there is no evidence that it changes the global temperatures to any significant degree over time.

Except for the evidence. But the invincible ignorance of dumb fuck rightards is invincible, that's a given.

Data.GISS

NOAA Climate.gov

 

[BULLDOG]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

 

[miketx]

Co2 feeds the trees. Why does the left hate trees?

All photosynthetics breathe CO2.

 

[fncceo]

you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine.

Actually, Mr. Science Wizard, automobiles exhaust is primarily Carbon MONoxide (CO), not CO2, a very different gas, along with Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen oxides.

 

[Carter Malone]

Co2 feeds the trees. Why does the left hate trees?

You've just proven the OP is incorrect.

If you remember your 5th grade General Science class, you learned that without photosynthesis, our planet and its inhabitants (yep, that's us and a few other life forms) - we all die.





Because ...






Wait for it ...






The green things, like those trees you mentioned, suck up CO2 and spew out O2.






If they stop doing that, if photosynthesis stops, we keel over, stop breathing and dammit, we die.







We die of








Don't wait for it ...






Carbon dioxide poisoning.





What does that tell you about the title of the OP?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[miketx]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

The most disingenuous post today.

 

[JGalt]

Co2 feeds the trees. Why does the left hate trees?

You've just proven the OP is incorrect.

If you remember your 5th grade General Science class, you learned that without photosynthesis, our planet and its inhabitants (yep, that's us and a few other life forms) - we all die.





Because ...






Wait for it ...






The green things, like those trees you mentioned, suck up CO2 and spew out O2.






If they stop doing that, if photosynthesis stops, we keel over, stop breathing and dammit, we die.







We die of








Don't wait for it ...






Carbon dioxide poisoning.





What does that tell you about the title of the OP?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

da fuq? How did I disprove the OP? He said trees like CO2, I said trees like C02.

 

[BULLDOG]

you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine.

Actually, Mr. Science Wizard, automobiles exhaust is primarily Carbon MONoxide (CO), not CO2, a very different gas, along with Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen oxides.

Yes. lots of constituents in exhaust gasses. CO is part of the exhaust every time the motor is cranked. If you don't trust the proof done that way, you are free to go with the plastic bag method. That will always be close to 100% CO2.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

The most disingenuous post today.

Either you want to prove it's harmless or not.

 

[miketx]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

The most disingenuous post today.

Either you want to prove it's harmless or not.

Plants breathe it liar, and give us O2.

 

[JGalt]

you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine.

Actually, Mr. Science Wizard, automobiles exhaust is primarily Carbon MONoxide (CO), not CO2, a very different gas, along with Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen oxides.

Yes. lots of constituents in exhaust gasses. CO is part of the exhaust every time the motor is cranked. If you don't trust the proof done that way, you are free to go with the plastic bag method. That will always be close to 100% CO2.

A lot of people actually came pretty close to doing that after Trump was elected. Or threatened to move to another country. But none of them had enough balls.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

The most disingenuous post today.

Either you want to prove it's harmless or not.

Plants breathe it liar, and give us O2.

So? Fish breath water too. That doesn't mean it can't be harmful to us. Stick your head under water for a while, and then you can add water to the list of things you proved are harmless.

 

[Boss]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

Okay, first of all... humans require oxygen, not CO2. Second... when you exhale, you also produce carbon monoxide... Likewise, so does an internal combustion engine. Carbon monoxide is poisonous but it's not CO2.

Normal CO2 in the atmosphere is not harmfull to humans. OSHA doesn't consider it a health risk until it surpasses 5,000 ppm... a level we will never reach in our atmosphere. And even then, it's only a minor risk with long-term exposure because it displaces oxygen.

What CO2 is totally harmless to is plants. They thrive on it! It's what all plants need! They LIKE to have bout 600 ppm. We currently have about 400 ppm. Now, let's do something with these numbers to illustrate your idiocy.... not that it needs illustrating, but this will be fun....

You eat three meals a day... 21 meals per week. Let's say that we cut your diet back to only two meals a day and told you that you need to actually cut that back to 1 meal a day to "save the planet" ...would you be cool with that? You'd probably scream that you're starving to death already by cutting back just one meal, much less two. Yet, that is exactly the argument you are making for the plants. You'd rather starve innocent plants so Al Gore can buy a new private jet.

 

[fncceo]

Yes. lots of constituents in exhaust gasses. CO is part of the exhaust every time the motor is cranked. If you don't trust the proof done that way, you are free to go with the plastic bag method. That will always be close to 100% CO2.

I'm not sure where to start if you don't know that CO and CO2 are different gases. You're probably not aware that CO is a very weak greenhouse gas. You are correct that breathing pure CO2 would be toxic to humans. Breathing anything less than at least 19% oxygen would be toxic to humans. Breathing water, champagne, Texas-style chili, or Arpege cologne, would be toxic to humans because of that pesky Krebs Cycle that keeps aerobic organisms like us alive.