Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

CO2 by in of itself is not a pollutant. Otherwise we'd have no plants.
 
So, everything else is a pollutant. Just not CO2. Dang, I feel a strange urge to inhale a bottle of it for good health.
 
We'll be fine in an environment of 1000 ppm CO2. We won't keel over and suffocate.
 
I didn't say anything about burning but just the fact that at 1000 ppm won't hurt us.
 
CO2 doesn't create haze. Ever worked in a greenhouse where typical CO2 concentration is between 600 and 1000 ppm?

souggy, CO2 isn't a pollutant. Air pollution isn't the result of CO2 but ozone, small particulates such as smoke, dust, and other sources that affects human health which can include Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead......
 
Okay.

Try drinking a few gallons of water... and tell me it's not dangerous for humans. :)

Far as I can tell, listing it as a pollutant will only have an effect on how corporates and factories are allowed to discard waste.
 
souggy said:
Okay.

Try drinking a few gallons of water... and tell me it's not dangerous for humans. :)

Far as I can tell, listing it as a pollutant will only have an effect on how corporates and factories are allowed to discard waste.
Click to expand...

Er, inhaling air containing 1000 ppm of CO2 will not hurt you.

They are using CO2 as an excuse to ply additional taxation based on faulty and erroneous claims.
 
While generating money for the economy because then factories would be forced to upgrade to reduce CO2 emission...

...which create demands to produce those parts... which create jobs to build those parts... which put money into taxpayers' pockets...

Which allow us to pay for healthcare... and pay off the deficit. ;)
 
souggy said:
While generating money for the economy because then factories would be forced to upgrade to reduce CO2 emission...

...which create demands to produce those parts... which create jobs to build those parts... which put money into taxpayers' pockets...

Which allow us to pay for healthcare... and pay off the deficit. ;)
Click to expand...

Dare I dream of a chateau in the Alps? :shock:
 
souggy said:
While generating money for the economy because then factories would be forced to upgrade to reduce CO2 emission...

...which create demands to produce those parts... which create jobs to build those parts... which put money into taxpayers' pockets...

Which allow us to pay for healthcare... and pay off the deficit. ;)
Click to expand...

CO2 emission isn't the problem since CO2 isn't a pollutant in the first place. It's the pollutants that have direct and immediate detrimental affects on plants and animals (humans, too) and how it can cause acid rain, create ozone and so on.

It does not create jobs since it cost us taxpayers even more money. Do you think companies will simply absorb the costs on their own? No. They'll pass on the cost to consumers as always. And at the same time hurt jobs as companies are forced to downsize.
 
souggy said:
Two sides to every coin. ;)
Click to expand...

No. It's a fact. If it were the case we'd see solar panels everywhere and giant wind turbines as the main sources of our energy.

Again, CO2 isn't a pollutant. Not even at 600 to 1000 ppm. Else greenhouses everywhere would be condemned as a health hazard. Laughable.
 
Back
Top