Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Read this:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MASSACHUSETTS et al. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html

The USSC ruled that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2.

 

There Is a problem when they use a law for other pollutants and try to apply it to natures gas. This gas is why our gardens grow and our world is green.

Science has not determined as of today the actual danger level to humans. Wait, if they did, the level may be millions higher than our current system.

 

I'm just positive you were looking in a mirror talking about yourself....

 

Science is pretty clear about what a greenhouse gas is.

 

How is about the third hand, one just one person against tens of thousands of scientists ?

Do tens of thousands of scientists have any other argument besides stumping their hooves on anything which can happen across their way to a feeding station?

The funny thing is that that sooner or later they will be slathered.

Human freaks and cattle will face the same destiny, as it has been proven in history.

 

And it has been proven that blowing smoke up someones arse is not an effective method of resuscitation but I am sure you will find one kook at least who will advocate for it

 

And what it is not

 

Nobody is claiming its pollution. What they are claiming is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gasses have a heat trapping effect.

 

EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

http://dailysignal.com/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/

 

Which is harmful to the health and welfare of humans, i.e. the coast of Massachusetts being destroyed by rising sea levels due to melting polar ice caused by CO2 levels being elevated in the atmosphere to the point that they create the greenhouse effect, Massachusetts vs. EPA.

 

Wouldn't know what in my words you quoted makes you think that I will even think about finding such a cook.

I guess as usual you have no argument and just trying to blow the smoke.

 

Something that is literally essential for life to exist is NOT a pollutant. Technically if we had to much oxygen in the atmosphere it would be bad but oxygen is not considered a pollutant.

 

Being essential to life is not the criterion. Lots of things that are essential to life -- like cobalt -- are pollutants when emitted in typical quantities. CO2 is not a pollutant because it is not harmful in any plausible anthropogenic concentration.

 

Talk to us when people exhale Cobalt

 

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

If it's not obvious to you I won't bother explanation

 

My biology teacher in 10th grade taught us that CO2 is required for life to exist on the surface of planet earth, just like every HS student in biology learned.

The idea that CO2 is something bad is hogshat.

Next it will probably be oxygen on the EPAkshole hit list.

 

Let me guess;

Maybe, because all elements may be said to be essential for life, because “Nature does nothing in vain…”

But without CO2 you wouldn’t have a chance to worry about cobalt and many other elements.

Burning carbonates and releasing CO2 in atmosphere has been the base process necessary for life with or without humans worrying about cobalt. It is obvious that EPA, NAS, NASA, IPCC and 96.56% of scientists just hate life, because there may not be hateful and directed against life idea than condemning such a process.

Burn baby, burn, it has been good and it will be good.

 

The majority are known not to be.

Sorry, but I'm none the wiser for this.

 

Listing at least a third of the 60 would be nice, it should take you no more than a minute.
I am very interested, and there may be some others.

What particularly does cause difficulties?

It looks very simple to me.

May be because I swallowed the word "more"?

Here we go:

"Burning carbonates and releasing CO2 in atmosphere has been the base process necessary for life with or without humans worrying about cobalt. It is obvious that EPA, NAS, NASA, IPCC and 96.56% of scientists just hate life, because there may not be more hateful and more directed against life idea than [the idea of] condemning such a process.

Burn baby, burn, it has been good and it will be good."

Is it all good now?

 

Only three of the elements above atomic number 30 are considered necessary for human life. A handful of others are needed by other organisms:

https://2012books.lardbucket.org/bo...-v1.0/s05-08-essential-elements-for-life.html

 

Nonsense. Submainers live for months in environments with 20 times the CO2 we have today with no ill effects whatsoever

As for additional CO2 being harmful to the biosphere perhaps you should watch this



This whole AGW agenda is about controlling people not climate. Why else do you think its always the politicians who are the ones most shrill in their pronouncements of doom based on finites and absolutes that do not actually exist ? Extra CO2 represents a net benefit for mankind with longer growing seasons and higher crop yields being the result

 

Yeah...you are obviously right...I suggest you celebrate and prove it with a colorful plastic bag head covering. CO2 will be good for you.

 

Perfect example of how the agw crowd can't tell the difference between a plastic bag and the complexities of the Earth's climate and it's atmosphere.

 

Doggone it, my grass is completely greened up and out of dormancy.

Thanks, carbon dioxide, and thanks, sunshine. Photosynthesis resumes at ground level.

Time to change the oil and put new filters on the eXmark, and grind some blades on the Magna-Matic.

Gimme that old-time carbon dioxide,
gimme that old-time carbon dioxide,
Let us worship carbon dioxide,
It's beautiful but flighty,
It's doesn't wear a nightie,
But it's good enough for me.