Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[orogenicman]

CO2 a pollutant?

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Perhaps because they would have to then begin being honest about the rest of their rather communistic political agenda?

Just a guess.

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

CO2 a pollutant?

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Perhaps because they would have to then begin being honest about the rest of their rather communistic political agenda?

Just a guess.

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

 

[peach174]

I think too many are confusing Carbon Dioxide (harmless) not a pollutant or poisonous with Carbon Monoxide which is poisonous and deadly.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I think too many are confusing Carbon Dioxide (harmless) not a pollutant or poisonous with Carbon Monoxide which is poisonous and deadly.

Don't you believe it.

What they are doing can be found in the pages of "1984" and "Animal Farm".

 

[Sallow]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

The most prominent element of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Limit yourself to nothing but a nitrogen atmosphere and see how long you can live.
Your premise is flawed and your experiment is idiotic. A tree would die if it had nothing but an oxygen atmosphere, does that mean oxygen is a pollutant?

Here's the trick.

Humans aren't dumping tons of oxygen into the environment.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

The most prominent element of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Limit yourself to nothing but a nitrogen atmosphere and see how long you can live.
Your premise is flawed and your experiment is idiotic. A tree would die if it had nothing but an oxygen atmosphere, does that mean oxygen is a pollutant?

Here's the trick.

Humans aren't dumping tons of oxygen into the environment.

Plants are.

 

[orogenicman]

Perhaps because they would have to then begin being honest about the rest of their rather communistic political agenda?

Just a guess.

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

[westwall]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

The most prominent element of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Limit yourself to nothing but a nitrogen atmosphere and see how long you can live.
Your premise is flawed and your experiment is idiotic. A tree would die if it had nothing but an oxygen atmosphere, does that mean oxygen is a pollutant?

Here's the trick.

Humans aren't dumping tons of oxygen into the environment.

There is a direct correlation between CO2 production and plant production of O2. The more CO2, the more O2.

 

[westwall]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

It's the other way around olfraud. You can't present any measurable impact that CO2 has on the environment that is negative. We can present thousands of years of research that says CO2 is a positive influence on the environment.

You lose.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. CO2 concentrations aren't anywhere near toxic and are in no imminent threat of becoming so.

If the green energy crowd is throwing in with the global warming hoaxers, then they deserved to be identified as the communistic people that they are.

And it doesn't have to be a plot. The greenies can just be naively falling in with the wrong crowd. There's a lot of that in the envirowhack movement.

Now, if they want to reverse course, exhibit some marketing/salesmanship skills and appeal to what people want, rather than taking the route of government grants, subsidies and compulsion, they may well change that perception.

 

[flacaltenn]

Water vapor is a pollutant if CO2 is a pollutant.. YES -- it's playing with the definition of pollutant..

 

[flacaltenn]

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. CO2 concentrations aren't anywhere near toxic and are in no imminent threat of becoming so.

If the green energy crowd is throwing in with the global warming hoaxers, then they deserved to be identified as the communistic people that they are.

And it doesn't have to be a plot. The greenies can just be naively falling in with the wrong crowd. There's a lot of that in the envirowhack movement.

Now, if they want to reverse course, exhibit some marketing/salesmanship skills and appeal to what people want, rather than taking the route of government grants, subsidies and compulsion, they may well change that perception.

WHat?? Appeal to reason and become environmentalists again?
You've seen them in this forum.. They believe all of society moves on Government edict.

 

[orogenicman]

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

It's the other way around olfraud. You can't present any measurable impact that CO2 has on the environment that is negative. We can present thousands of years of research that says CO2 is a positive influence on the environment.

You lose.

 

[westwall]

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."



Sorry, but you are wrong.

It's the other way around olfraud. You can't present any measurable impact that CO2 has on the environment that is negative. We can present thousands of years of research that says CO2 is a positive influence on the environment.

You lose.

That's GREAT! Klink and his cohorts are the PERFECT visual for you and your sock puppets! I couldn't have done better! Thank you!

 

[Old Rocks]

Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.

When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history.

Water only stays in the atmosphere for ten days or less. Remove all of it, and the oceans immediatly would evaportate enough to put the vapor back into the atmosphere in a few days. Double the amount, and it would rain out in a matter of days. But CO2 is there for much longer;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

Once emitted, gases remain in the atmosphere for varying amounts of time. Very “short-lived” compounds, such as particulate matter (PM), remain airborne on average for only hours or days. CH4 also has a relatively short average lifetime, though much longer than PM, remaining in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years. The half-life of CO 2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998). Finally, many of the synthetic gases such as halocarbons (or gases that contain the halogens chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine) are extremely long-lived, remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. When emissions—from the U.S. (the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator) as well as other countries—remain in the atmosphere over long periods, they accumulate and are measured as atmospheric concentrations. U.S. GHG emissions from 1890 to 2000 are estimated to have contributed about one-fifth of the increase in global GHG concentrations (den Elzen et al., 2005).

 

[daveman]

ThinkProgress.

The article quoated real scientific sources, unlike the conservative publications that quote frauds like Monkton and Watts.

You know Watts posts peer-reviewed science, right?

Ahhh, but it's not the RIGHT peers, so it's not really science. Is that what you're using instead of rational thought?

 

[hunarcy]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

No, they're saying "green energy" is, for the most part, a backwards step to the 15th Century and won't meet the energy needs of our society in the 21st Century.

 

[daveman]

Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress

“There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.” That’s from a 2010 special issue on climate change and biodiversity from the UK’s Royal Society.
In 2011, a Nature Geoscience study found humans are spewing carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster now than 56 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a time of 10°F warming and mass extinction.
An even more ancient extinction is the subject of a new study in Science (subs. req’d), with the tongue-twister title, “Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province.”
As the MIT News release puts it:
Some 200 million years ago, an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming that killed off 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species on Earth.

And not one shred of physical evidence to support that theory. Plenty to show that cold did it. But none to show that CO2 had a damned thing to do with it. Think Progress. What a farce.

It is illustrative that you would link to a NAZI supporting group to push your climate BS though. Progressives, like the NAZI's they supported, are all about the control of people......usually by killing them. They're real easy to control then...

People in mass graves don't kick up a fuss about anything.

 

[orogenicman]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

No, they're saying "green energy" is, for the most part, a backwards step to the 15th Century and won't meet the energy needs of our society in the 21st Century.

Right, because we all know that every Monk who lived in the 15th century had access to solar energy.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

No, they're saying "green energy" is, for the most part, a backwards step to the 15th Century and won't meet the energy needs of our society in the 21st Century.

Right, because we all know that every Monk who lived in the 15th century had access to solar energy.

And if they did -- they'd still be in the Dark Ages 18 hrs a day..