Is it not irresposible and illogical to call carbon dioxide a "Pollutant"?

Question

The amount of hysteria being propagated by the zealots behind anthropogenic global warming has gotten to the point where this is more about Eco-Jihad, and Political dogma against anyone with a dissenting point of view, than a thorough and balanced discussion on the many factors that effect earth and its climate. i.e. urbanization, solar output, greenhouse gases etc. Even though you may feel exactly how Al Gore feels on the subject, I fell it is completely illogical to call the single most important element on this planet "pollution". I'm I right on this? Or am i just another right wing hate mongering corporate toady funded by Big Oil? lol, the latter would justify my initial point about what the advocates of this topic have turned this debate into.

I'm clearly referring to the Bobby Kennedy Jrs. of the world.. not the scientist... this doctrine of Global warming has become its own church, so i feel it is fair to say that a war of ideas is being pushed forward by the ill informed followers of this church.

though 99+% is a convincing percentage.. it is factually inaccurate. There are thousands of scientist that do not agree that man made greenhouse gases is the lone reason the earth has gotten warmer in the last 100 years. Look up the Oregon Petition over 17,000 different types of scientist signed that and I'm sure there are many others... you cant just throw pretty numbers out there...

Another clever misconception is that trees simply absorb carbon dioxide, and release oxygen. though this is true through photosynthesis, they also release CO2 as do ALL living organism on this planet. Plants release about 10 times more CO2 than man does, so to simply say plant a tree save the earth, man is bad, is understating the problem, and not really understanding what its really about.

Well you all know what i meant... it doesnt change what i was trying to say... i know its a compound.. i just wrote that without realizing.. thank you for the ones that answered this question without the usual diatribes...i see some of your points... and im no scientist but im sure CarbonDioxide is about as important as water for life on earth...

Answer 1

Technically, just about anything can be classified a "pollutant". A factory can take water from a lake, use it for cooling, and return it to the lake in exactly the same chemical composition as before, albeit warmer, and that would be classified "thermal" pollution, and can be just as deadly as dumping in known toxins.

However, I agree with you that it IS irresponsible to call carbon dioxide a pollutant simply based on the current "findings" of global warming "science". You are absolutely right in saying that carbon is the most important thing on the planet - all life forms depend on it (and I don't get hung up on the semantic molecule vs element thing, everyone knows what is meant by "carbon emissions", "carbon credits", "carbon trading", etc - we know what you meant.)

I also find it odd that people say that the burning of fossil fuels is not "natural", or that the CO2 is not "natural". All of that CO2 existed in a "natural" state long before man ever came down from the trees. Why is it that actions of every other living thing on the planet to manipulate its environment is considered "natural", but somehow, man's actions are not? From the time of the first multicellular organisms, the "natural" atmosphere contained a far greater amount of CO2 than today. Is the reason that the original sequestering of all that carbon is considered "natural" because those organisms were not sentient? If they had been sentient, would they have argued against forever altering the "natural" environment?

What if man's "natural" role in life is to return the Earth to its original natural state - a global reset, if you will - ready for a whole new set of dominant species?

Sounds ridiculous. doesn't it?

But no more ridiculous than those who profess to know what is natural for the atmosphere, what the temperature that the globe is supposed to be, what man, either as individuals or as a species, owes to either the planet or to each other from a purely scientific standpoint.

Answer 2

No more illogical than calling climate scientists zealots and comparing them Jihadists.

Perhaps you should endeavor to actually understand the theory before dismissing it out of hand.

Edit: But of course it hasn't become its own church. And you know that. you're simply trying to stir up controversy. Perhaps you would be better served by raising some legitimate objection to the theory.

If anthropogenic carbon dioxide is negatively affecting the climate then it is correctly classified as a pollutant. Natural atmospheric carbon dioxide is part of the carbon cycle and is thus not considered a pollutant (although both anthropogenic and natural CO2 are considered greenhouse gases).

Edit numero dos: You're right, plants do release CO2. However, the CO2 released from plants is part of the carbon cycle. It doesn't force the climate. The CO2 we release, on the other hand, has been sequestered away for millions of years and thus results in a net increase of atmospheric CO2, and forces the climate.

Answer 3

It is a medium or way to calculate or measure the effect of global warming. For example, methane is 21 times potent than carbon dioxide. Although it is natural, it is really the cause of the global warming. It used to be balanced when trees where still around but today, not many trees are out there absorbing the carbon dioxide. Humans are really the one to be blame for chopping down all the trees for their selfish act. So if you want to contribute something, try planting a tree to keep the earth green. That way, the amount of carbon dioxide can definitely reduce.

Answer 4

I think this has nothing to do with Gore or Corporate, Travel to China and try to see through the brown haze, polluted rivers are green .
What is Illogical and Irresponsible is that no one will get out and adjust their lifestyle or even change light bulbs, and recycle. Too lazy to get up and do a simple chore but not lazy enough to spend hours reading or chatting about who Paris Hilton is bonking that week.
Priorities in a lazy society that is good for complaining without action, and more interested in useless gossip.

Answer 5

In context and by definition it's quite correct to say that CO2 is a pollutant.

A pollutant by definition is a contaminant or undesirable matter in an environmental medium.

Out of context then it's incorrect to describe CO2 as a pollutant. Similarly, we have mercury and arsenic in our bodies, in the right place and in the right quantities they're essential but too much of them or in an environment outside the body they could be harmful pollutants.

In the context of global warming, climate change and other environmental concerns than it is appropriate to describe CO2 as a pollutant.

BTW, CO2 isn't an element and it's far from the most important thing on the planet.

Answer 6

I think you could compare it to a mineral like iron in the human body. While we need a certain amount of iron to function properly, and would die without it, too much can be toxic and fatal. Not every good thing is good in excess.

You are right though, that many scientists are not part of the so-called "consensus." I think a lot of people who are passionate about global warming tend to underestimate how many skeptics there truly are, and they could be a bit more open to the possibility that global warming may not be as man-made as they think.

Answer 7

The US Supreme Court doesn't think so.

And 99+% of all scientists disagree with you.

This isn't a deal about politics. It's about real scientific data and proof.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Good websites for more scientific info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - The Oregon Petition was a scam. The "signatures" are just names emailed in, and some are known to be bogus. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

You're right about trees. Their interactions with CO2 are complex. But prserving tropical rain forests will definitely help with global warming.

Answer 8

I looked up the Oregon Petition, and found out that it is fraudulent:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition


"Pollution is the introduction of pollutants (chemical substances, noise, heat, light, energy and others) into the environment which result in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment. "

All pollutants are found naturally in the environment, but like CO2, their natural levels have become imbalanced by human activity leading to problems, and the classification of "pollutant".

Your statement about plants releasing 10 times more CO2 than humans may be correct. However, it is a meaningless statistic if you don't understand the numbers behind it.

Human activity releases 3% of all CO2 emmisions or 26.8 gigatonnes i challenge you to find out why 3% is actually a big deal, i won't tell you, do your own research, start here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new.html



its obvious that your getting fed pseudoscience from right wing .org propaganda sites. You need to stick with .gov and .edu until you get up to speed with the science.

Answer 9

This is the usual hogwash you get from people trying to make an intellectual argument they are not up to.

Your argument applies equally well to petroleum and sewage. Placed into the drinking water and other places where they affect people adversely, yes, they are pollutants.

CO2 is not an element. Have you ever considered an education?

Answer 10

co2 is a pollutant and you are polluting every time you breath out.

never mind that plants breath in co2. and when there is an abundance of something nature steps in to balance it.

example: if the deer population increases, that means more food for mountain lions.

so the mountain lion population increases, until a new balance is met.

so more co2, more plant life will grow, and faster.

but that doesn't make sense. instead, you need to buy carbon credits from the gov'mint so you can live your life.