5 ms·

CO2 is not a pollutant; that is a mind-trick used to justify control by powermongers (socialist or otherwise) over 100% of everything , since everything, includ

CO2 is not a pollutant; that is a mind-trick used to justify control by powermongers (socialist or otherwise) over 100% of everything , since everything, including YOU, emits CO2. Now if you are talking about a refinery that does lead smelting, that is quite different. BTW I suggest you read up on the CO2 trading scams that came to light in Europe a while ago, and that a rational person would realize are endemic to such markets ... relatively non-partisan link from Canada's CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-c...

VladRussian 16y ago
>CO2 is not a pollutant unbalanced (by say consumption by forests) emitting of CO2 shifts the make-up of the atmosphere and thus energy balance of the planet's surface. unbalanced (by say atropine injection) emitting of VX gases into your body would shift the make-up of enzymes in your nerve system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_c... How about "toxin" instead of "pollutant"?
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Name me a toxin that does that ... CO2 != mercury in the water supply
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. great. We're making progress. You've just recognized the fact that CO2 emissions affect ecosphere. Supposedly you pointing to the negative feedback in this dynamic system [more CO2 - > more plants -> more CO2 consumption]. Next step - show that this dynamic system is stable (or at least not unstable) as mere presence of negative feedback doesn't guarantee stability and may even be cause of increased instability. Let suppose there is some stability. Normal (as of 1900 lets say or pick any other) CO2 , increased CO2, decreased CO2 [back to normal?], and repeat ... The issue, is what happens with energy surplus [Quantum Mechanical "green house" effect] and its effects accumulated during periods of increased CO2.
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      Actually the entirety of the onus to show anything in any way, is on you. I am not the one suggesting that huge amounts of changes need be made, including a fraud-ridden scheme like the current carbon credit scam, which makes me guilty, simply due to my entirely natural and necessary respiration. You want to claim that CO2 is something dangerous, and should be lumped in with radium, cadmium, mercury (all actual, true pollutants)? Prove it.
      - VladRussian 16y ago
        >You want to claim that CO2 is something dangerous, and should be lumped in with radium, cadmium, mercury (all actual, true pollutants)? Prove it. The gamma radiation of radium and absorbtion wavelengths of CO2 [ if absorbing CO2 molecule is flying in the atmosphere it is frequently called "green house" effect, if you don't like this term we can use another - "decreasing permeability of the Earth atmosphere for radiation with wavelengths corresponding to the black body radiation with temperature 14-15C by increasing atmospheric CO2 content" ] are pretty much from the same page of Quantum Mechanics. QM couldn't be proven even to Einstein, though. So there is no way i can prove it to you. Sorry.

VladRussian 16y ago

>CO2 is not a pollutant unbalanced (by say consumption by forests) emitting of CO2 shifts the make-up of the atmosphere and thus energy balance of the planet's surface. unbalanced (by say atropine injection) emitting of VX gases into your body would shift the make-up of enzymes in your nerve system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_c... How about "toxin" instead of "pollutant"?

patrickgzill 16y ago
What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Name me a toxin that does that ... CO2 != mercury in the water supply
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. great. We're making progress. You've just recognized the fact that CO2 emissions affect ecosphere. Supposedly you pointing to the negative feedback in this dynamic system [more CO2 - > more plants -> more CO2 consumption]. Next step - show that this dynamic system is stable (or at least not unstable) as mere presence of negative feedback doesn't guarantee stability and may even be cause of increased instability. Let suppose there is some stability. Normal (as of 1900 lets say or pick any other) CO2 , increased CO2, decreased CO2 [back to normal?], and repeat ... The issue, is what happens with energy surplus [Quantum Mechanical "green house" effect] and its effects accumulated during periods of increased CO2.
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    Actually the entirety of the onus to show anything in any way, is on you. I am not the one suggesting that huge amounts of changes need be made, including a fraud-ridden scheme like the current carbon credit scam, which makes me guilty, simply due to my entirely natural and necessary respiration. You want to claim that CO2 is something dangerous, and should be lumped in with radium, cadmium, mercury (all actual, true pollutants)? Prove it.
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      >You want to claim that CO2 is something dangerous, and should be lumped in with radium, cadmium, mercury (all actual, true pollutants)? Prove it. The gamma radiation of radium and absorbtion wavelengths of CO2 [ if absorbing CO2 molecule is flying in the atmosphere it is frequently called "green house" effect, if you don't like this term we can use another - "decreasing permeability of the Earth atmosphere for radiation with wavelengths corresponding to the black body radiation with temperature 14-15C by increasing atmospheric CO2 content" ] are pretty much from the same page of Quantum Mechanics. QM couldn't be proven even to Einstein, though. So there is no way i can prove it to you. Sorry.