Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Seems like you are the one watching too many scary movies. As you have admitted Earth did just fine with much higher C02 levels and man wouldn't drop dead if levels were that high now so I'll ask you again how is C02 a pollutant?

 

The deniers conundrum.

There is no increase in CO2.
If there is, it’s not caused by man.
If it was, there’s nothing we can do about it.
If there is something, it’s too expensive.
If it does help the economy to change to renewable resources, I’m afraid of change because Faux News hasn’t told me what to think.
Please, our collective denier heads hurt, that’s way too much thinking,
Education is bad and science is bad cause it all makes my head hurt when I have to think for myself.
Let’s just pray. It’s easier and we don’t have to think.

 

Now your happy just, not dropping dead. To heck with anyone else in third world countries who are suffering and dying and trying to migrate here. It’s too bad you were so poorly educated. You’d be a more informed voter then just being happy we didn’t dropped dead yesterday.

 

Yet earlier you and others said C02 was pollution and your evidence was you drop dead if you put your head in a plastic bag. Now you see we are nowhere near those levels and in fact C02 has been far higher well before man ever got here with his industrialization so once again I ask you how is C02 a pollutant?

 

Well who can argue with that?

 

I need to get a grip?

You asked "Just name a major corporation, or country other then Trump that agrees."
I posted a list of 196 countries that agree and you pivot to trade wars. I think it's you who needs to get a grip.

 

I never said that. But just to be clear, the reason you suffocate with a plastic bag, is that the CO2 you exhale during conversion displaces the O2 in the bag and changes the proper mixture. Humans are very limited to the time they can survive with either too much CO2 or too much o2 or nitrogen for that matter.
So, any of these gases needed in breathing but out of the correct ratio can become toxic and cause death.
https://www.scubadiving.com/training/basic-skills/are-you-ready-rebreathers
Read about rebreathers. It explains how too much CO2, o2 and even nitrogen can be toxic. They use scrubbers to keep the right mixture constant as ANY extreme of any gas in the atmosphere can be toxic and cause death. The right mixture in the essential quantities is essential for human non toxic respiration and even too much o2 in higher concentrations is toxic over time. Rebreathers work on the principle of keeping the correct ratio of mixtures and allows divers to stay underwater longer. But you knew that, right ? If you were a diver, you might remember basic has high school , biology.

 

No, you have a list of speakers and claimed they represent the countries official position. They are speakers at an event. The countries that signed the Paris accord, the countries whose web site INSTITUTIONS determine the official position. You’re still on This ridiculous kick and claiming people on a list represent your POV. . Trump did not sign the Paris accord yet the official positon of all the major institutions of the US is still on board with climate change. Still waiting for an INSTITUTION of higher learning and a country that agrees with you, not a list of frauds.
https://www.usa.gov/topics
Now, just type in any related institution within the US and climate change, then read it. Do the same for any other country.

 

You said "Just name a major corporation, or country other then Trump that agrees with deniers."

I named one. Iceland. THAT satisfies your request. DONE!

But you disagree that it was 196 countries, and you're right. It was 195. - http://www.businessinsider.com/195-countries-that-signed-paris-climate-agreement-accord-deal-2017-5

 

You said Iceland ? This is one of many references to the official positon of Iceland and what Iceland is doing about man made climate change.
You’re welcome to browse the web site. Read the address....it’s Govt. Sanctioned material, Iceland does not agree with deniers.
https://www.iceland.is/iceland-abroad/un/nyc/statements-and-news/energy-security-and-climate/6749/


Want to try another... maybe a corporation like Exxon ?

 

We can do this for the other 165, but you’d just be as foolish trying to rationalize this fool’s errand like other deniers who try claim they’re “well read.” enough to denigrate ligit science which saves lives and reduces our suffering daily. . The only thing worse then being a hypocrite is being an ignorant hypocrite.

 

Yes. You said "A country other then Trump"? and I replied "But now who? How about Katrín Jakobsdóttir? There's a country."
Katrín Jakobsdóttir is the prime minister of Iceland. You asked the damned question but you didn't bother to find out anything about my answer?

Hold it. None of this is making sense. Based on my attempt to decipher your comments in post #236, I understood you to doubt the validity of climate change. But at this point I think I need to ask which side you are, in fact, on. Are you in agreement with climate change science or not?

 

My position has never changed. I’m a staunch believer in the scientific method and that there are no institutes of higher learning, no countries and no major corporations that support deniers of man made climate change. How simple can I make it. I repeated this several times.

 

It is not the Co2 effect on any individual - it is the effect on the atmosphere

 

Irrelevant to your claims that C02 is a pollutant and we are reaching toxic levels in the atmosphere. Nice try at deflection though.

 

And what effect would that be that puts Earth in jeopardy?

 

Strawman

Show me a research paper claiming that it is

 

Sorry you don't even know that?

This is like some one insisting that homeopathy is a beneficial treatment for trauma because they understand that being hit with a car hurts

 

The argument in this thread is that C02 is a pollutant because it's reaching toxic levels in the atmosphere. Strawman?

 

As I posted earlier Earth has had much higher levels of C02 in the past than it has now so again I ask what are the effects of increased levels of C02 that you consider harmful to the planet?

 

Earth has also had much more dangerous reptilian creatures in the past, much more volcanism, more methane, more ice, lions with bigger teeth, Furry elephants...I even heard tell there was giant deadly sharks.
CO2 will become harmful to humans (the earth will be fine) when it become too hot or when the Methane seeps melt because of Ocean/Permafrost melt off....as in NOW.

 

How is it harming humans "NOW"? Earth has had more C02 less C02 more ice less ice more volcanoes less volcanoes. Man just got here and is just along for the ride. Man revolves around the earth not visa versa.

 

Hmmm...good question. I suppose all the dead kids in cars, massive storm deaths, incredible temperature increases worldwide...etc....are mere coincidence. Or are they all "Fake News"....maybe just the normal stuff eith more coverage?

 

Unfortunately no institution of higher learning is here, so thank you for another demonstration that no believer in evolution is capable of rising at least a half intelligent objection, less an argument.

 

It’s hard to imagine there are people out there who slept in the back row during biology class, and just woke up in time for the revision of the Old Testament. You guys all beleive in the same BS. Trump and deniers.