RTS, I think what you have posted reflects a basic misunderstanding of what a pollutant is. At its most basic definition, a pollutant is a resource out of place. Carbon dioxide is absolutly necessary to maintain the earth's life cycle. It is necessary to provide a mechanism to carry the sun's energy to our bodies. Just don't try to live on an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide. The same is true of nearly anything you can think of. Even the most toxic metyl-ethyl terrible may have a very important use. Radioactive substances can kill or they can provide energy. Simple corn can be a great food source. Put too much of it in a creek and the fish in the creek will die. Potasium is necessary to regulate heart beat. In high enough dosage it will stop the heart. Too much of the debate on global climate change seems to be populated on both sides with people who don't have even a basic understanding of science, the carbon cycle, long term weather patterns, the insignificance of anecdotal evidence or even simple logic. I think that a simple declaration that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant reflects that lack of understanding. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the proper location at the proper concentration. Change the location and the concentration and it is not only a pollutant, it can be a deadly pollutant.

I understand your valid points here, but the crux of the argument it that those that believe that we're causing global warming by the CO2 we release is flat out wrong.

First off, there is no "global warming", there are natural cycles that cause temperatures to fluctuate. This, to the dismay of those on the Gore side of the issue, is nothing new or man made.

Secondly, I'm all for a clean planet. I just don't want ridiculous legislation passed that's going cost tons of money and will have zero effect.

I understand your valid points here, but the crux of the argument it that those that believe that we're causing global warming by the CO2 we release is flat out wrong.

First off, there is no "global warming", there are natural cycles that cause temperatures to fluctuate. This, to the dismay of those on the Gore side of the issue, is nothing new or man made.

Secondly, I'm all for a clean planet. I just don't want ridiculous legislation passed that's going cost tons of money and will have zero effect.

 

Saying that CO2 is not a pollutant and listing all the benefits of CO2 have zero to do with the discussion of man induced global warming. That was the point of my post. Much of the discussion of global warming from both sides has no logic or science behind it. Saying that man isn't causing global warming because the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past has no logic to it. By the same token, saying that Katrina proves global warming is just as silly. For that matter, showing that the Greenland ice cover is melting also does not prove anything. And guess what else. Even if the global temperatures have dropped in recent years, that doesn't prove that man induced global warming is not happening. As you have properly pointed out, there are natural fluctuations - up and down. If we are in a natural down cycle you would expect the effect of man induced warming to be mitigated. I am not an expert on global climate change. I suspect that no one on this board is. I do have a pretty fair understanding of science and most of what passes for "proof" on these discussions doesn't pass the smell test. Instead we get political opinion in search of psuedo science to back it up.

 

I approach energy policy from a much different direction. First I believe that there is some evidence of warming over the past 100 or so years. Second, there is a plausible theory and computer simulations that offer an exlanation that at least a portion of that warming is man induced. They do not come close to proving what has happened or establishing the validity of what they project will happen, but they aren't the wild eyed lies that some would have you believe. Third, there are economic consequences if there is a global rise in sea level. These economic consequences will range from small to severe. Fourth, any energy policy that results in widespread economic disruption is a bad policy. That includes a policy that would make the US economy non competitive in the world and a policy that would ignore the economic disruption of global climate change. So what is the solution? First energy conservation and "green" energy are good policy. They don't disrupt the economy they are a hedge against the chance that the doomsayers are right. Second, our dependence on oil in general and Middle Eastern oil in particular is our largest single foreign policy problem. The war on terrorists has its root in our oil dependence. We need to establish an energy policy that gets us out of the Middle East. We should have done it forty years ago, but it won't get any better by waiting. As long as the world price of oil is manipulated by the oil producing nations, we cannot achieve energy indepandence by market forces alone. We have to establish a floor cost for energy. It doesn't have to be much different than the current cost, but it does have to establish a floor so that domestic energy sources can come to market. As the market exists today, major alternative energy sources can't come to market because their cost of production is much higher that the cost of the Middle eastern equivelent. Note that I said cost of production, not price. A floor under energy prices would provide new energy sources with the price they would need to justify the large investmeent required.

Saying that CO2 is not a pollutant and listing all the benefits of CO2 have zero to do with the discussion of man induced global warming. That was the point of my post. Much of the discussion of global warming from both sides has no logic or science behind it. Saying that man isn't causing global warming because the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past has no logic to it. By the same token, saying that Katrina proves global warming is just as silly. For that matter, showing that the Greenland ice cover is melting also does not prove anything. And guess what else. Even if the global temperatures have dropped in recent years, that doesn't prove that man induced global warming is not happening. As you have properly pointed out, there are natural fluctuations - up and down. If we are in a natural down cycle you would expect the effect of man induced warming to be mitigated. I am not an expert on global climate change. I suspect that no one on this board is. I do have a pretty fair understanding of science and most of what passes for "proof" on these discussions doesn't pass the smell test. Instead we get political opinion in search of psuedo science to back it up.

 

I approach energy policy from a much different direction. First I believe that there is some evidence of warming over the past 100 or so years. Second, there is a plausible theory and computer simulations that offer an exlanation that at least a portion of that warming is man induced. They do not come close to proving what has happened or establishing the validity of what they project will happen, but they aren't the wild eyed lies that some would have you believe. Third, there are economic consequences if there is a global rise in sea level. These economic consequences will range from small to severe. Fourth, any energy policy that results in widespread economic disruption is a bad policy. That includes a policy that would make the US economy non competitive in the world and a policy that would ignore the economic disruption of global climate change. So what is the solution? First energy conservation and "green" energy are good policy. They don't disrupt the economy they are a hedge against the chance that the doomsayers are right. Second, our dependence on oil in general and Middle Eastern oil in particular is our largest single foreign policy problem. The war on terrorists has its root in our oil dependence. We need to establish an energy policy that gets us out of the Middle East. We should have done it forty years ago, but it won't get any better by waiting. As long as the world price of oil is manipulated by the oil producing nations, we cannot achieve energy indepandence by market forces alone. We have to establish a floor cost for energy. It doesn't have to be much different than the current cost, but it does have to establish a floor so that domestic energy sources can come to market. As the market exists today, major alternative energy sources can't come to market because their cost of production is much higher that the cost of the Middle eastern equivelent. Note that I said cost of production, not price. A floor under energy prices would provide new energy sources with the price they would need to justify the large investmeent required.

I agree it's been politicized to death and I have no problem with finding alternative sources of fuel, and cleaner ones at that.

My problem is that the Dems and those on the doomsday side of the issue are trying to do nothing more than shake down business and citizens for money. And for what? I always say follow the money.

You have those like the Goracle milking this for all it's worth because he's making a mint off it. You have poorer countries making outrageous claims that our SUVs are "drowning their country" while they try to shake down countries like the U.S. for money. It's gotten out of hand.

Truth is, water vapor accounts for 95% of green house gases of which 94.9999% occurs naturally. C02 accounts for 3.6% of green house gases of which 3.5% occurs naturally. All other gases accounts for 1.4% of green house gases of which 1.2% occurs naturally. Simple math shows us that 99.7% of green house gases occur naturally which only leaves us 0.3% that are manmade. I just don't see how 0.3% is doing the damage some claim.

I agree it's been politicized to death and I have no problem with finding alternative sources of fuel, and cleaner ones at that.

My problem is that the Dems and those on the doomsday side of the issue are trying to do nothing more than shake down business and citizens for money. And for what? I always say follow the money.

You have those like the Goracle milking this for all it's worth because he's making a mint off it. You have poorer countries making outrageous claims that our SUVs are "drowning their country" while they try to shake down countries like the U.S. for money. It's gotten out of hand.

Truth is, water vapor accounts for 95% of green house gases of which 94.9999% occurs naturally. C02 accounts for 3.6% of green house gases of which 3.5% occurs naturally. All other gases accounts for 1.4% of green house gases of which 1.2% occurs naturally. Simple math shows us that 99.7% of green house gases occur naturally which only leaves us 0.3% that are manmade. I just don't see how 0.3% is doing the damage some claim.

Add to this the fact that self-imposed regulations in the U.S. have our autos, factories, aerosol cans, refrigerants, etc., etc., etc. putting out far less contaminants than ever in past industrial age decades. Developing countries like China, North Korea, India, etc. are however, dumping more into the air and water than ever before. If anything, restrictions should be placed upon reckless development by these countries. U.S. technology for reducing environmental impacts should be sold to these nations. But, that would do nothing to balance power by pulling down the strong in an attempt to elevate the weak.

Add to this the fact that self-imposed regulations in the U.S. have our autos, factories, aerosol cans, refrigerants, etc., etc., etc. putting out far less contaminants than ever in past industrial age decades. Developing countries like China, North Korea, India, etc. are however, dumping more into the air and water than ever before. If anything, restrictions should be placed upon reckless development by these countries. U.S. technology for reducing environmental impacts should be sold to these nations. But, that would do nothing to balance power by pulling down the strong in an attempt to elevate the weak.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I heard the interview on WLW with the founder of the link in the original post. Good interview and, as I said, compelling. However, I was reading an article today that talked about how much misleading info is out there from "scientists." So, I wondered about this guy.

 

I googled the website referenced and it has some people that doubt its claims or claim that while partially true they would be misleading.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/07/plantsneedco2org/plantsneedco2org-claim-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutan/

 

This article would also call into question the agenda.

 

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-04-big-oil-creates-phony-climate-denial-site-lies-about-it/