Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

No the science is not settled. No not all scientist agree.The truth is coming out.

"Overreach exploded in 2009 when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide, also known as CO2, is a pollutant and poses a "danger" to human health and welfare, and, therefore, it must be regulated.

This has become known as EPA's "endangerment finding," which was used as a basis for many of its regulations on fossil fuels during the past eight years.

A new study published recently by three veteran researchers reveals that "EPA's basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false."

The authors - Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo - stated there is "very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world."

The study stated after naturally occurring events - solar, volcanic, and oceanic - have been accounted for, there is no "record setting" warming to be concerned about.

"At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures."

"Many critics of EPA's endangerment findings point out that the findings are lacking in scientific basis and consist primarily of models showing how EPA thinks the atmospheric heat transfer system works."

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/stor...finds-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutant/101322116/

 

Hmmmmm so where is this research paper and who published it?

Ps the authors read like a round up of the usual oil industry funded sceptics

 

I assumed the first comment from true believers would be to attack these people as oil company shills. I was right again. Any scientist that disagrees with AGW is immediately attacked as such.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2V7OIT3Qb73nefBChrfsJN

If that link doesn't work just Google the followiing. Interesting stuff.

Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo

 

CO2 is a natural atmospheric component which is toxic to animal life in large quantities. It is required for our atmosphere to remain stable and important to our biosphere. In high percentages it will kill off most life and adaptation requires extremely long timeframes....The speed of our current increase is what is most alarming.

 

Also required for flora, which generates O2, which animal life depends upon for existence. Our submarines have exponentially higher levels of oxygen with no problem. We inject higher levels of co2 into greenhouses for healthier plants.

co2 is a natural atmospheric gas needed for much of the life on this planet. The percentage of co2 has varied throughout the history of life on this planet, and has been much higher in the past and life did just fine. Never to our knowledge has co2 levels led to a mass extinction of life. The earth seems to have a system which has been able to handle varying co2 levels. Probably still does.

If one is bothered by co2 levels, environmentalists, climate scientists, gov't, then by all means begin a new land management program world wide and add flora, and stop the deforestation of rain forests which is astounding at how much is being cut down, old forests, rain forests. Just the destruction of rain forests should cause a rise in co2. But it is ignored, even by the hysterical. I find that very odd, incoherent and troubling.

 

Funny thing is, big oil spent millions on this subject while the people you like have been given billions. With the goal being....carbon taxes, a redistribution of income, to the top. Follow the money. Meanwhile if this was really a serious threat, you, gov't and environmental groups would be screaming for the ceasing of rain forest deforestation which is huge, and a demand for world wide land management to add billions of co2 extracting trees and flora. Since that has not happened, and since climatology is still a soft science, not a hard science, and cannot even construct a predictive model which is accurate, some of us do not buy into the hysteria. Not in spite of science but because of science.

 

This particular study in the OP starts out by saying it's independent and financed by nobody.

 

So they did it for free? How do they earn their living? This is not the way research works. Grants are needed. A univ. prof may do some in his spare time of course, but that is seldom done, for the requirements and science are costly.

 

Heretic!

 

I just agree with freeman dyson that climate change which involves a warming is probably more positive than negative once the addition and subtraction is done. My only fears would be in regards to an ice age, which will happen eventually. That kind of catastrophic climate change. I understand that climate inevitably changes. Plus, at this point, and given the vastly limited knowledge, these assertions and nightmare predictions of a soft science is just background noise. And once politics is injected into anything, and money, one has to be very careful.

 

Not peer reviewed

And the authors read like a who's who of big energy shills

 

And it is not a peer reviewed article ergo is not a scientific publication

 

Go to the study I linked in the OP. Clearly says it's pro bono research.

 

Peer reviewed is code for certified by true believers.None others need apply.

 

And it is still not peer reviewed

It also does not negate the fact that the authors read like a who is who of funded climate science denialists

 

That may all be correct, but it aint gonna cut it. The peer review process and publishing is standards for this stuff.

 

Now we have conspiracy theory thinking

What do you think peer review is?

Do you realise that each journal ( and there are hundreds in each fields) has a different panel of peer reviewers?

 

No it isn't.

 

Pro bono research can also be submitted for peer review.

 

Relying on models while ignoring monitoring is why the Chesapeake Bay is still in ruins. google it

 

The standard is a rigged game as climategate showed.

 

The study is available for review anytime the true believers care to dig into it.

 

Ok, I am an undergraduate environmental science student, and

Climategate was not a good look for the scientific community. However, It was not everyone. The root of all science is the ability to prove something is false. Why would anyone ever say something is settled?

 

Too busy reading published papers right now.