The truth of Global Warming

[USA_1]

Funny how I am for a law to stop pollution by idle of big trucks and the GW promoters argue with me about it. So I guess truckers pollution is ok with you guys

No, you want a law to make it more convenient for you. There are already laws to reduce pollution.

 

[Catawba]

From the Nature Conservancy:

"Strong emissions reductions are critical to protecting biodiversity and the natural places that support human well-being.

The primary driver of climate change is increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. Driven by human activities, carbon dioxide concentrations are now at their highest level in over 650,000 years, outweighing all other factors that contribute to climate change.

Motor vehicles, power plants, buildings and industrial sources produce about 80 percent of greenhouse gases while forest loss and degradation, along with other land use change contribute the balance.

Specific and Attainable Targets

As a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), The Nature Conservancy supports the following emissions reduction targets and timetables:

* 97 percent of 2005 levels by 2012,
* 80 percent of 2005 levels by 2020,
* 58 percent of 2005 levels by 2030, and
* 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.

The need for action is urgent, and the Conservancy believes targets of this magnitude can and should be enacted. We are committed to helping the world adopt a meaningful and effective global climate change accord, and are engaged in ongoing negotiations leading up to Mexico in December.
Flexible Options

In order for developing countries to increase their efforts to reduce emissions, they need flexible options. The most effective way to reduce emissions quickly is through strong market-based incentives. Implementing well-designed, market-based programs will spur innovation and allow countries and companies to meet emissions reduction goals at the lowest possible cost.

Global Consequences

As concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so will the pace and severity of impacts. Around the world communities will face:

* difficulty growing crops,
* water shortages,
* ocean acidification at an extent and rate that has not occurred for tens of millions of years, and
* Sea-level rise that will displace coastal populations and damage infrastructure.

Increased coral bleaching, species range shifts, wildfire risk, and damage from floods and storms are expected at temperature increases of 2°C above current levels. For the Conservancy, these changes present significant threats to our mission, and those projected beyond the 2ºC threshold are unacceptable."
Climate Change - What We Support: Reducing Emissions

 

[ptif219]

No, you want a law to make it more convenient for you. There are already laws to reduce pollution.

No I want laws that work not laws that go after the low man on the pole. Equipment requirements fix the whole situation. My concern is pollution and safety on the highway

 

[USA_1]

My concern is pollution and safety on the highway

That's a bunch of baloney. You already have shown you care nothing about pollution. You just want them to make a law to make it easier for you to sleep.

 

[ptif219]

That's a bunch of baloney. You already have shown you care nothing about pollution. You just want them to make a law to make it easier for you to sleep.

Wrong!!!! I have said many times we should deal with pollution in a way that does not cause a financial burden on the country. I do not believe the doom and gloom of GW and the lies and data manipulation from GW scientist.

I am for things that stop pollution. I am hoping soon my boss will trade in this 2009 Cascadia that has over 500,000 miles and get me a new truck that gets fluid for the exhaust clean idle system

Would you rather a truck drive gets bad sleep and drives fatigued and kills one of your family members? Get real my idea is a win win for all people

 

[Catawba]

I do not believe the doom and gloom of GW and the lies and data manipulation from GW scientist.

It would seem it is true what they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink! The science deniers are living proof, as this cartoon so perfectly illustrates:

We are so screwed people!

 

[ptif219]

It would seem it is true what they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink! The science deniers are living proof, as this cartoon so perfectly illustrates:

We are so screwed people!

You believe the hype the doom and gloom and the lies and data manipulation. I believe it is pure BS and speculation and lies to get money. Follow the money because that is what it is about not the environment


Funny how you say crap like this and yet argue with me when I want equipment on big trucks to stop idle so we pollute less. You make no sense or may be you are to arrogant and elitist to ever admit I could be right

 

[Dittohead not!]

The boss tells me to idle. Some states this is against the law. I think it should be law big trucks have APU's on them.(auxiliary power unit)

Then idle time would not be an issue. It would cut down pollution and allow drivers to get good sleep time to drive safely.

Funny how GW promoters will argue about this. Shows me pollution must not be their agenda or they would agree with me

Actually, I do agree with you on this one little thing: Trucks should have APUs on them to reduce idle time and therefore pollution.
I still think you're way off on global warming, however.

 

[ptif219]

Actually, I do agree with you on this one little thing: Trucks should have APUs on them to reduce idle time and therefore pollution.
I still think you're way off on global warming, however.

I understand. I am still hoping soon I get a truck with the clean idle system on it. Our teams are getting them soon the solos should get them. The problem is he is having a hard time getting what he wants for the tradeins

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes yes. Environmentalism is a giant plot to murder billions of people. :roll:

It'd be more accurate, albeit still simplistic, to say that there's a global plot to massively reduce the human population, that, among other things is using environmentalism as a means to that end.

Do I REALLY need to list out those people that are FUNDING the science, and what their statements AND ACTIONS to that end have been??? AGAIN??

Yes, for those of us that are not science deniers, or that can see the effects of our pollution and overuse of our resources, we realize for future generations to enjoy a healthy environment, we must be conservative stewards of the planet and be responsible for our actions that deteriorate that ecosystem. To do less is being irresponsible!

I'm not a 'science denier'... I'm trying to discuss these matters in terms of the REALITY.... and the REALITY is that Co2 is NOT a pollutant. In ANY significant way shape or form.

WHICH IS NOT saying that we are not, as a society, causing immense ecological damage... just that by this single-minded focus on CO2 as the CAUSE of the problem is nothing more then a red herring. There IS a grain of truth, that CO2 is a green house gas... but that's the end of it... it doesn't CAUSE warming. If CO2 CAUSED warming then we could heat a room with CO2...

Now, if you want to talk about being 'good stewards of the environment', that's great... that's what I've spent the better part of these 150+ pages trying to get you guys to realize... based on your statement, you should ALSO accept that it's not CO2 that is a problem, but rather the innumerable OTHER chemicals, bi-products, etc... that we are spewing into the ecosystem that IS CAUSING (as in a cause-effect relationship, and not a correlative relationship) VERIFIABLE, DEMONSTRABLE and REPEATABLE damage to the environment and to life on earth... some of this damage also being IRREVERSIBLE.

Co2, on the other hand relies on this ambiguous connection in recent times between Co2 and the climate temperature , that is allegedly going to cause an end to life on earth... this is FEAR MONGERING and little more. Why generate fear?? Because people that are scared are more pliant, more suggestible... Not so scared that you are paralyzed, but scared enough to see what the (bought and paid for) experts have to say to fix the matter.

Now, if you think everyone from the Boy Scouts up that have an interest in conservative stewardship of our ecosystem is conspiring against you, you have a serious problem in your interpretation of reality.

Had you forgotten what I wrote in the first paragraph?? No, that's NOT AT ALL what I was saying... and the comments I would have on the boy scouts have NOTHING to do with the climate.

Are you also going to tell me that boy scouts was not created as a way to expose children to a military doctrine and to prepare them so that when they are older they will be primed for military training??

This is where your post really goes off the deep end. The end sought is a sustainable ecosystem.

Ok... well, I don't suppose you could back that up in any way??

It's like this... take scientology :
In the 'outer-school' it's all about personality tests and giving the teachings that will bring people happiness... and all that good stuff.

As you work your way in, giving money to the organization the whole way, you start to build 'rank' within that organization... and if you are 'lucky' or demonstrate desired traits, then you get brought into the

INNNER-school. This is where you find out that the 'religion' is based on this idea that humans were seeded on this planet by aliens and whatever the spiel is... it's pretty 'out there'...

BUT, IF people were NOT first introduced through the 'outer-school', then at the least there's a much reduced potential for profits if not total abandonment of 'followers seeking answers' through which there are profits to be made.

Now, how this relates is that, first, AGW is a de facto religion in that the people pushing the fear have 'faith' in the 'authority' (in this case the climate scientists), and you can look at the statements of those opposing their viewpoints compare that to religious matters... Also, that while you have been shown the 'outer-doctrine' and all the scientific 'proof' to create the fear / faith, what I've been trying to show you guys would be part of the 'inner-doctrine'.

Now, these documents are publicly available, but they are NOT very publicized. You won't see the biological diversity assessments, Agenda 21, or the club of rome documents on the NYTimes best seller list, yet, they are written by groups of some of the wealthiest and most influential people in their respective areas of expertise.

When these people get together in meetings, it MIGHT make a blurb somewhere following the sports section, and you might have 10-100 people that are aware and outside voicing their opinions... MEANWHILE, if you had 50-100 of the top NFL players meeting in secret to discuss the future of football, you'd have throngs of people trying to beat down the door, news helicopters flying overhead, and you'd probably even have people trying to break in to get the big scoop.

The thing is, if you look at and grasp all the facts there's only a few ways to grasp this :
- They legitimately have societies best interests at heart and are doing the best to correct the results of the mistakes of generations past and are forced into making 'tough decisions'
- They have a selfish interest in preserving society so that they can continue to have their progeny continue to have control over society, in similar ways that society is controlled today (a whole topic on it's own)
- That these people see what is necessary and have somewhere between a complete disinterest or actual disdain for the rest of humanity.

I say it like that because regardless of the CO2 debate, what is NOT debateable is the overall damage society is doing to the environment globally.

Only postive thing I can say to that is I do admire the imagination you have Bman.

I could give you title, authors and ISBN numbers, then you can go to a local library and more then likely hold "my imagination" in your hands.... and not because I've had anything to do with writing these documents.

Ok, I got an idea to demonstrate that I'm not just imagining... The easiest one to demonstrate has to do with the euro, so I'll start with a question, if you'll entertain me. What was the process of the creation of the euro??

"Strong emissions reductions are critical to protecting biodiversity and the natural places that support human well-being.

'emissions' as in Co2?

The primary driver of climate change is increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. Driven by human activities, carbon dioxide concentrations are now at their highest level in over 650,000 years, outweighing all other factors that contribute to climate change.

False. At no other point in history has changes in greenhouse gas concentrations CAUSED changes in overall climate...
True. CO2 is at the highest level in hundreds of thousands of years... looks like more then 800k years.

Correlation != Causation. Until you prove how MUCH CO2 causes warming and can demonstrate that through known data, THEN we can start talking about projecting into the future... but, that's not possible because the reality is not that simple. There probably is no single cause for warming or cooling.

Motor vehicles, power plants, buildings and industrial sources produce about 80 percent of greenhouse gases while forest loss and degradation, along with other land use change contribute the balance.

Mufflers, scrubbers, and similar technologies that are mandatory in north america offset a good portion of that because of high environmental standards. Coal power plants for example expel NOTHING more then CO2 and water vapor, because of the regulations involved.

Specific and Attainable Targets

As a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), The Nature Conservancy supports the following emissions reduction targets and timetables:

* 97 percent of 2005 levels by 2012,
* 80 percent of 2005 levels by 2020,
* 58 percent of 2005 levels by 2030, and
* 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.

Ok, So, what are we going to replace that loss in the economy with?? Oh and 'oooh' by 2050 I might be allowed to keep a lightbulb on at night... how generous these people are.

The need for action is urgent, and the Conservancy believes targets of this magnitude can and should be enacted. We are committed to helping the world adopt a meaningful and effective global climate change accord, and are engaged in ongoing negotiations leading up to Mexico in December.
Flexible Options

Be scared.

In order for developing countries to increase their efforts to reduce emissions, they need flexible options. The most effective way to reduce emissions quickly is through strong market-based incentives. Implementing well-designed, market-based programs will spur innovation and allow countries and companies to meet emissions reduction goals at the lowest possible cost.

They mustn't have read those climate agreements... the developing world is mostly exempt.

Global Consequences

As concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so will the pace and severity of impacts. Around the world communities will face:

* difficulty growing crops,
* water shortages,
* ocean acidification at an extent and rate that has not occurred for tens of millions of years, and
* Sea-level rise that will displace coastal populations and damage infrastructure.

I went over this in the economics side with you :
- There's not going to be any real shortage in food... more that because of global inflation rates people will not be able to afford it.
- water shortages... privatization of water is pumping out, sometimes entire lakes... the laws of most countries make it illegal to ship large quantities of water for trade... but NO RULES over shipping the same quantity of water, bottled...
- ocean acidification : These guys haven't really paid attention to the studies... we're a LONG WAY from getting to a co2 concentration that comes close to what was required to cause any significant effect.
- Sea level rise : umm... sea-levels were supposed to be something like 10 ft higher by 2010. This one has been debunked by reality.

Increased coral bleaching, species range shifts, wildfire risk, and damage from floods and storms are expected at temperature increases of 2°C above current levels. For the Conservancy, these changes present significant threats to our mission, and those projected beyond the 2ºC threshold are unacceptable."

Partly true, not uncommon, necessary, and false and false.

And then they finish off by saying they intend to ban summer. (they might as well)

Climate Change - What We Support: Reducing Emissions

Bunch of useful idiots these guys.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It would seem it is true what they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink! The science deniers are living proof, as this cartoon so perfectly illustrates:

[video]http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG6UkUnz[/video]
Don't get me started about this scumbag holdren... but he says it... "there are always skeptics there are always heretics".

We are so screwed people!

I agree with you to a point... but more BECAUSE people would rather focus on Co2 then REAL environmental concerns.

 

[Catawba]

I'm not a 'science denier'...

and the REALITY is that Co2 is NOT a pollutant. In ANY significant way shape or form.

Your whole post can be summed up by these two contradictory statements.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Your whole post can be summed up by these two contradictory statements.

According to AGW religion, sure...

 

[USA_1]

I'm not a 'science denier'... I'm trying to discuss these matters in terms of the REALITY.... and the REALITY is that Co2 is NOT a pollutant. In ANY significant way shape or form.

WHICH IS NOT saying that we are not, as a society, causing immense ecological damage... just that by this single-minded focus on CO2 as the CAUSE of the problem is nothing more then a red herring. There IS a grain of truth, that CO2 is a green house gas... but that's the end of it... it doesn't CAUSE warming. If CO2 CAUSED warming then we could heat a room with CO2...
.

You should do some research before you embarrass yourself even more. You don't know the definition of pollutant or how the greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere.

If CO2 CAUSED warming then we could heat a room with CO2.

This comment shows your total ignorance of the subject. It's really hard to debate someone that has absolutely no understanding of science.

Here is a site written in words you might understand:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/global_warming_version2.html

 

[BmanMcfly]

You should do some research before you embarrass yourself even more. You don't know the definition of pollutant or how the greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere.

Yes, I've gone over the definition and how CO2 does NOT fall INTO the category of a pollutant UNTIL you increase the concentrations to levels that become toxic.

And Yes, I accept the greenhouse gas effect, HOWEVER, the greenhouse effect does NOT scale up to a global scale to create the same effects you might find in an actual greenhouse for example. There are TOO MANY OTHER factors that come into play, and as a result the greenhouse effect due to human generated CO2 works out to a fraction of any warming...

Can you prove that the temperature would have stayed at levels like 150 years ago IF CO2 had remained stable???
Can you demonstrate any ACTUAL DAMAGE caused by CO2 (not something else repackaged as Co2) in that 150 years??

This comment shows your total ignorance of the subject. It's really hard to debate someone that has absolutely no understanding of science.

Here is a site written in words you might understand:
The Greenhouse Effect

The EPA Climate Change Kids Page--Climate Change Animation

Ok, cause-effect time again : How much cooler would the global climate be if we had maintained the same CO2 levels as 150 years ago? You can go by percentage, or a number... or you can keep being insulting to try and hide the fact that your position is unsustainable, doesn't really matter.

So, since the 'green movement' is so sweet and innocent, how come so few of you have even tried to rebuke things like the 'no pressure' ad campaign? (Which, joke or not gave the message 'be green or you'll be killed, no pressure'... which is the DEFINITION of an act of terrorism.)

Edit : and after you clear up your position, I'll see how you defend the words and actions of the likes of : Pachaury, Gates, Gore, Holdren, and others...

 

[USA_1]

Yes, I've gone over the definition and how CO2 does NOT fall INTO the category of a pollutant UNTIL you increase the concentrations to levels that become toxic.

And Yes, I accept the greenhouse gas effect, HOWEVER, the greenhouse effect does NOT scale up to a global scale to create the same effects you might find in an actual greenhouse for example. There are TOO MANY OTHER factors that come into play, and as a result the greenhouse effect due to human generated CO2 works out to a fraction of any warming...

Can you prove that the temperature would have stayed at levels like 150 years ago IF CO2 had remained stable???
Can you demonstrate any ACTUAL DAMAGE caused by CO2 (not something else repackaged as Co2) in that 150 years??



Ok, cause-effect time again : How much cooler would the global climate be if we had maintained the same CO2 levels as 150 years ago? You can go by percentage, or a number... or you can keep being insulting to try and hide the fact that your position is unsustainable, doesn't really matter.

So, since the 'green movement' is so sweet and innocent, how come so few of you have even tried to rebuke things like the 'no pressure' ad campaign? (Which, joke or not gave the message 'be green or you'll be killed, no pressure'... which is the DEFINITION of an act of terrorism.)

Edit : and after you clear up your position, I'll see how you defend the words and actions of the likes of : Pachaury, Gates, Gore, Holdren, and others...

I am not going to debate you. Since you know nothing about the subject I would be wasting my time.

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants

 

[BmanMcfly]

I am not going to debate you. Since you know nothing about the subject I would be wasting my time.

No, the problem is that I know too much to buy into this garbage of a theory... YES, the theory holds water on the small scale, it is ONLY ONE FACTOR AMONG TOO MANY TO LIST When you apply the theory on a global scale.

You clearly don't understand the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSATION. You've shown all sorts of charts and figures, and whatever, and shown clearly the RECENT correlation. What NOBODY has been able to do is to show a CAUSE -> EFFECT equation that even follows the verified information.

If you can show a CAUSE->EFFECT relationship that is clear, and reflects the observed data to within a high degree of accuracy, then I'll be forced to change my stance. Instead I get a correlation and am told to jump to the conclusion that it "must be the cause"... "all these guys in labcoats say so."

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil.

Ok, so far, salt is a pollutant in the oceans... dust is a pollutant in the air caused by wind.

Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide,

Ok, what's your source for this definition???

that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.

Ok, what's the CO2 concentration that is 'IDEAL' globally that is NOT 'harmful'?

Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants

Ya, that's true enough...

Now, let's look at a REAL definition of pollution...
Pollution | Define Pollution at Dictionary.com
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted. (Not important)
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.
There we go : HARMFUL SUBSTANCES into the environment.

So, NOT ONLY have you NOT shown a CAUSAL relationship between CO2 and global climate, you've NOT SHOWN that Co2 is EVEN HARMFUL... NOT without at least TRIPLING current atmospheric concentrations... but get much higher then that and people might start dieing of respiratory problems... YET, once it gets to that point, plants begin to grow MUCH more efficiently absorbing MORE Co2, growing faster as a result which will create MORE plants soaking up MORE Co2...

I'm sorry that I've got such a nuanced viewpoint that you are stuck resorting to insults... it shows the true strength of your argument. So I accept your concession.

 

[Catawba]

I am not going to debate you. Since you know nothing about the subject I would be wasting my time.

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants

I've provided the definition of pollutant to him before and he just ignores it as he does the science and emprical evidence regarding AGW.

Yet, he's not a science denier............ Just ask him.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I've provided the definition of pollutant to him before and he just ignores it as he does the science and emprical evidence regarding AGW.

Yet, he's not a science denier............ Just ask him.

No, I do not deny science, I am a heretic against your religion however.

 

[Catawba]

No, I do not deny science,

When you make statements like this, "I've gone over the definition and how CO2 does NOT fall INTO the category of a pollutant UNTIL you increase the concentrations to levels that become toxic." You are publically stating that you deny science.

I am a heretic against your religion however.

What is your beef with the Church of the Brethren?

 

[BmanMcfly]

When you make statements like this, "I've gone over the definition and how CO2 does NOT fall INTO the category of a pollutant UNTIL you increase the concentrations to levels that become toxic." You are publically stating that you deny science.

Look, you can't just make up a definition to make your case... also, this is a non-sequitar, my pointing out that CO2 ONLY CAUSES HARM AS PROVEN BY THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOWS that there is ONLY even negligible HARM caused by Co2 and ONLY when the concentration is increased to ridiculous proportions, that, even if present co2 "pollution" continues will literally take CENTURIES before even APPROACHING this point... which, since you also believe in peak oil having been passed since the 70's... then you'll know that there's NOT EVEN ENOUGH OIL OUT THERE to create this 1000+ ppm concentration of CO2, that's stated in the scientific papers.

So, NO, I"m not denying the 'science' I'm denying this ASININE demonization of CO2 as the cause of the destruction of the earth... when it's truly a life giving gas...

You might as well say mercury is good for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyR2XeLjYTU

What is your beef with the Church of the Brethren?

It's doing a SERVICE to call this church of climateology a real religion... the reality is that it's much closer to a cult.

And my main beef is how short-sighted it's followers really are...

You got the push for ethanol, which increased food prices world wide, causing untold numbers of people to be reduced from poverty to starvation. Now the push is for direct carbon taxes / caps which will be a detriment to farming, causing food prices to go up further and causing further problems in the poorer areas of the world where they can no longer afford that food...

And so, places like Egypt and the neighboring countries are now erupting in revolts over food inflation, which to us is barely noticeable... but to these people a 10% increase in food price means they are eating 10% less food.... the lack of food is a major motivator to getting people all riled up and revolting.

But no, there's no way that Food could be used as a weapon. There's no chance that the billionaires of the world might get together to try and tear apart the current system to create a global revolution through which this 'sustainable' model can be implemented world-wide.

 

[Catawba]

Look, you can't just make up a definition to make your case...

Here is the the definition of pollution from the Encylopedia Britannica (not normally known for "just making up a definition"):

"pollution, also called environmental pollution - 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. The major kinds of pollution are (classified by environment) air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution. Modern society is also concerned about specific types of pollutants, such as noise pollution, light pollution, and even plastic."
pollution (environment) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

The reason man-made sources of CO2 are considered pollution is because they are being added "to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

 

[BmanMcfly]

Here is the the definition of pollution from the Encylopedia Britannica (not normally known for "just making up a definition"):

"pollution, also called environmental pollution - 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. The major kinds of pollution are (classified by environment) air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution. Modern society is also concerned about specific types of pollutants, such as noise pollution, light pollution, and even plastic."
pollution (environment) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

The reason man-made sources of CO2 are considered pollution is because they are being added "to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

Oh funny... no mention of CO2 in their article...

But anyway... by your logic :
- Air is a pollution because plants produce it faster then it can be stored.
- Water is a pollution because when it comes out it's produced faster then can be dispersed and causes flooding sometimes.

A key component that you forgot to mention is the nefarious effects... cause when you put that in consideration; you got these false prophets of climate who are ALWAYS WRONG IN EVERYTHING!!! Yet they are constantly trumpeting the bad of CO2 and how it will cause droughts and storms and hurricanes the world is going to flood by next year if we do something NOW... think about the kittens and polar bears.

When you weigh CO2 against ACTUAL pollution you can see just how much of it really is just a red herring. But you guys are so single-mindedly opposed to Co2, I'm surprised you don't occasionally forget how necessary it really is...

 

[Catawba]

Oh funny... no mention of CO2 in their article...

It was not an article, it was the definition of pollution from the Encylopedia Britannica, and yes there was. Did you not read, "any substance?"

But anyway... by your logic :

It is not my logic, it is the scientific determination.

- Air is a pollution because plants produce it faster then it can be stored.

Let's see your proof that air is being "added to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

- Water is a pollution because when it comes out it's produced faster then can be dispersed and causes flooding sometimes.

It is true that too much of something can be a bad thing. Hmmm, I wonder if that might apply to other things.....................like CO2?

A key component that you forgot to mention is the nefarious effects... cause when you put that in consideration; you got these false prophets of climate who are ALWAYS WRONG IN EVERYTHING!!! Yet they are constantly trumpeting the bad of CO2 and how it will cause droughts and storms and hurricanes the world is going to flood by next year if we do something NOW... think about the kittens and polar bears.

Quote the scientific consensus that the world is going to flood by next year. I think it is obvious who is making things up here.

When you weigh CO2 against ACTUAL pollution you can see just how much of it really is just a red herring. But you guys are so single-mindedly opposed to Co2, I'm surprised you don't occasionally forget how necessary it really is...

CO2 is actual pollution, the most serious pollution that we face as a world population. Does that mean that we don't care about other forms of pollution, no. This, however is a thread about global warming. So, do you think that might have something to do with why we focus on that topic here?

 

[BmanMcfly]

It was not an article, it was the definition of pollution from the Encylopedia Britannica, and yes there was. Did you not read, "any substance?"



It is not my logic, it is the scientific determination.



Let's see your proof that air is being "added to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."



It is true that too much of something can be a bad thing. Hmmm, I wonder if that might apply to other things.....................like CO2?



Quote the scientific consensus that the world is going to flood by next year. I think it is obvious who is making things up here.



CO2 is actual pollution, the most serious pollution that we face as a world population. Does that mean that we don't care about other forms of pollution, no. This, however is a thread about global warming. So, do you think that might have something to do with why we focus on that topic here?

Except that Co2 is a NUTRIENT. NOT a pollutant. It's only when concentrations exceeds a certain threshold that it starts to cause ACTUAL problems. Further, it's happened where Co2 levels have been far beyond 1000ppm of CO2...and I don't doubt there was natural fluctuations similar to the fluctuations seen today.