Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant!

[Boss]

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

This is incorrect. We'd die of oxygen starvation. You're being a tad disingenuous here. Granted, humans can die from too much of any concentration of gas... including oxygen. While you require oxygen to live, you can actually die from "oxygen poisoning" if you breathe pure oxygen for an extended period of time.

 

[Boss]

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

When you pay people enough money to produce propaganda it's not surprising to see graphs like these.

Your data is fraudulent and it's been debunked.

 

[Boss]

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.

Fish do not breathe water.

 

[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.

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.

Make up your mind. The OP claimed CO2 is not pollution. Is it hazardous or not? If they go to the trouble to assign an unsafe ppm, it is known to be hazardous. If it is hazardous, then by definition, it is pollution.

 

[Lewdog]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

 

[fncceo]

If they go to the trouble to assign an unsafe ppm, it is known to be hazardous. If it is hazardous, then by definition, it is pollution.

Everything from cotton candy to mother's milk is unsafe above any specific concentration. CO2 (like cotton candy) however, is necessary to human life because it sustains the autotrophes that produce our oxygen.

 

[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.

Make up your mind. The OP claimed CO2 is not pollution. Is it hazardous or not? If they go to the trouble to assign an unsafe ppm, it is known to be hazardous. If it is hazardous, then by definition, it is pollution.

There are lots of things harmful to humans that aren't pollution. Breathing water, for example... not a good thing for humans but it doesn't mean water is a pollutant. CO2 at atmospheric levels are not harmful to humans and never will be.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Fish do not breathe water.

Fish do not actually breath in the sense that we do. They take water in their mouth and then force it across their gills where the 02 is absorbed. It is a reasonable comparison to breathing though.

 

[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.

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.

You are one of the biggest liars here. I hope you pass soon.

 

[fncceo]

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.

Fish do not breathe water.

Fish do not actually breath in the sense that we do. They take water in their mouth and then force it across their gills where the 02 is absorbed. It is a reasonable comparison to breathing though.

I'm curious ... do you teach science professionally?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Fish do not breathe water.

Fish do not actually breath in the sense that we do. They take water in their mouth and then force it across their gills where the 02 is absorbed. It is a reasonable comparison to breathing though.

Fish absorb Oxygen directly into their blood streams from water passing over the gills.. You really shouldn't try to teach garbage to intelligent people..

 

[Lewdog]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

 

[Boss]

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.

Fish do not breathe water.

Fish do not actually breath in the sense that we do. They take water in their mouth and then force it across their gills where the 02 is absorbed. It is a reasonable comparison to breathing though.

I know how fish absorb oxygen. That's why I said they don't "breathe" dumbass.

For the record, we also breathe a small amount of H2O with every breath. IF that was ALL we breathed, we'd drown.

Also.. speaking of water... the most predominant greenhouse gas and the one humans are more responsible for than any, is water vapor. We emit thousands of times more water vapor than CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

 

[Lewdog]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

 

[fncceo]

there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt.

You don't need to sell me ... I already support Trump.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

I base my decisions in facts.. Most of the EPA's higher ups believe in modeling that fails empirically observed review. It means they were basing policy on WILD ASS GUESSES using failed modeling which have no scientifically verified bases..

These people are not scientists, they are political hacks posing as scientists.. They are political whores as they have sold themselves to the political john and do their bidding.. One need only look to how they word their requests for funding of grants. When it states what the desired outcome is to be, when you apply for the grants.. It means, as long as you tell us what we want, you get free money...

That is not science, that is political activism.. and its over 1.1 trillion dollars spent on promoting this scam.

 

[Lewdog]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

I base my decisions in facts.. Most of the EPA's higher ups believe in modeling that fails empirically observed review. It means they were basing policy on WILD ASS GUESSES using failed modeling which have no scientifically verified bases..

These people are not scientists, they are political hacks posing as scientists.. They are political whores as they have sold themselves to the political john and do their bidding.. One need only look to how they word their requests for funding of grants. When it states what the desired outcome is to be when you apply for the grants.. It means as long as you tell us what we want you get free money...

The lady that just quit was head of the water pollution division... where she won a VERY RARE Presidential award for her work. I guarantee you didn't read the article about her letter and one of the main reasons she left. With Trump's deal with for every new policy 2 have to be eliminated, she said that causes some serious issues. So what if you have to pass a policy involving some kind of new testing for a new pollutant or things like amoebas, then that means you have to cut two policies like rules governing pool regulations or the amount of lead allowed in water... It's a serious problem.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

I base my decisions in facts.. Most of the EPA's higher ups believe in modeling that fails empirically observed review. It means they were basing policy on WILD ASS GUESSES using failed modeling which have no scientifically verified bases..

These people are not scientists, they are political hacks posing as scientists.. They are political whores as they have sold themselves to the political john and do their bidding.. One need only look to how they word their requests for funding of grants. When it states what the desired outcome is to be when you apply for the grants.. It means as long as you tell us what we want you get free money...

The lady that just quit was head of the water pollution division... where she won a VERY RARE Presidential award for her work. I guarantee you didn't read the article about her letter and one of the main reasons she left. With Trump's deal with for every new policy 2 have to be eliminated, she said that causes some serious issues. So what if you have to pass a policy involving some kind of new testing for a new pollutant or things like amoebas, then that means you have to cut two policies like rules governing pool regulations or the amount of lead allowed in water... It's a serious problem.

I said MOST, not all...

She also wanted control over all water in the US not just major rivers.. She was complicit in the power grab over standing water in farmers fields and the like.. She is POLITICAL...