Is the US Supreme Court's decision that CO2 is a pollutant accepted by the American public?

Question

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

the_keys78 I haven't assumed anything

To those who provide a denial based on bodily functions I am sure that they would regard a factory discharging a few hundred gallons of a warm fluid of similar composition to human urine into a river as pollution. Man's activities result in the emission of 5,500,000,000 tonnes per year of carbon into the atmosphere http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/Images/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html&h=417&w=540&sz=53&tbnid=AwjX7Nz5XT9WIM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarbon%2Bcycle%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1 It is a question of scale.

Mr Jello, I think it is a combination of scientists, politicians and the press which have been pretty united for some time in Europe. Fear that denial will set in amongst the general public if it affects their lifestyle has delayed really significant remedial action. A lot of us have admired America as very scientifically advanced and because of that have wondered if there was something in American scepticism.

It is spelt 'sceptic' here in UK and it can just mean doubtful of any view. As you well know (or should) the difficulty in predicting exact temperature rises is due to uncertainty over feedback mechanism as CO2. Would you do without the US Reserve setting interest rates just because they can't predict exactly what the US economy is going to do?

edit add 'increases' after CO2 above

No judges anywhere are not known for their scientific training but I am sure that those here who criticise them on this basis would be relying on them to hear evidence if they were involved in an industrial accident or medical malpractice.

Hi jbtascam a few % of natural levels is indeed a small amount but as anyone know who saves money at these sort of interest rates it can build up to a nice increase over the years.

Hi jbtascam a few % of natural levels is indeed a small amount but as anyone know who saves money at these sort of interest rates it can build up to a nice increase over the years. (as the document you refer to shows)

Thanks Mr Jello for additional comments. I refer you to http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm (chart of the growth in the US economy for each quarter since 2000) Chances are the US economy will continue to grow. Would you now like to forecast quarterly increases to within 1% for the next six years? I thought not. The earth's weather/climate system is probably of even greater complexity but we know that there is an effect that drives averaged temperatures up over the years.

Answer 1

Mostly they couldn't care less, just want to be left alone with huge gas guzzling vehicles, excessively cold air conditioning, overwhelmingly hot central heating, and.........

Answer 2

Funny thing, CO2. It's produced on a grand scale by nature, dwarfed by anything we do, and yet we think we're destroying the planet with it.

How does our 21 billion metric tons per year even come close to measuring up to 370 billion metric tons produced by nature every year?

The linked page has a graph showing that 95% of all CO2 emissions are NATURAL, which jibes pretty well with the above numbers.

So it's not like releasing a million gallons of urine into a clean river, Robert. It's like being the 20th guy to go into a toilet that won't flush! Yeah, you may raise the level a little, but you certainly won't cause any additional stench.

The whole Global Warming "house of cards" is built upon the idea that the Climate is this finely tuned system just waiting to go into "overdrive" at the drop of a hat. Pull one card (add a couple percent CO2) and all of a sudden the whole thing collapses.

That, as we are learning, is complete and utter balderdash. CO2 has always LAGGED warming (as it has done coming out of the mini-ice-age). Solar Cycles are tied very closely (long term) with Climate (so any short-term divergence will even out in the long run). The Arctic Ice Cap melts and refreezes as it should, and Britain is returning to the sort of rain-intensive summers that made their weather the laughingstock of Europe for hundreds of years!

Give it 3 years, maybe 4, and this whole argument will seem silly. Hopefully we can avoid doing any serious damage to our economies before then.

Answer 3

Americans are smart enough to know the courts don't determine what science is.

Generally you'll find Europeans depend on politicians to decide what is science.

Added: Interesting that you use the word skeptic. This word indicates doubt towards religious principals. (I'll forgive the spelling errors)

If you are afraid of doubters, just prove what you say is true. That will shut us up for good. Since the climate can be measured, since we know the forcing values of green house gases, and we know the amount of ghg's being emitted, just tell us the temperature of the climate in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years from now.

If everyone just believed what royalty said was true, without question, then we would still believe the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Added: The temp doesn't have to be exact. Get it within 1% every 6 months over 5 years. That will be good for me.

I global warming is real, this shouldn't be a problem.

Answer 4

Here's a counterpoint from an article I just read on a major new scientific study which concludes that the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant.

The impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to joke, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." He acknowledges that the temperature of the earth is increasing (and has been since the early 1800s), but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

The article goes on to say that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 Kelvin by 2100 A.D." This refers to a note written by an astronomer named Ian Wilson to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol. He stated, "Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.

Answer 5

The supreme court have only managed to expose their ignorance by this decision. CO2 is a natural and vital component of our atmosphere.
Without it there would be no photosynthesis, therefore no plant life and no food for animals.
Without photosynthesis there would be no oxygen, therefore no plant or animal life.
I would like to bet that not a single judge has any scientific qualifications.
Maybe, next time I need some legal advice, I'll consult a chemist or physicist :-(

Answer 6

No. Most Americans are intelligent enough to know the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are NOT appointed for their grasp of chemistry/biology.

Answer 7

Stupid rulings are never accepted. That's why American's dispute and argue over them even after rulings are made. As for Europe rock hard stupid ideas to skim from the public purse and control thoughts just seem to come naturally from there.

Answer 8

Lets hope not.
The Yanks seem to be the only normal people left in all of this CO2 stupidity.

Answer 9

No, its one of the stupidest decisions ever by the supreme court. CO2 is essential to the cycle of life. If it is a pollutant, the humans are polluting the earth every time they exhale.

Answer 10

Yes.

I have stopped exhaling.

And I always try to walk on tippie-toes to reduce my carbon footprint.