Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/27/2009 1:15:35 PM PDT by NoobRep
"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry
If we go ahead and KILL all the green growing things on this earth that require CO2 for food (and in return put out oxygen), we can solve the problem overnight. We will all be dead. No problem then.
Listen if you have to read a site to tell you that your already making concessions to the enviro marxist common sense tells you all you need to know. If I hear about how its been cooling over the last 10 years I am going to puke who cares its all bs and by saying idiotic things like that you open yourself to compromise which is no different from submission. I dont need a scientist to tell me that a entity as large and old (3 billions years) with as many complexities as the earth and ecosystem that man by breathing and driving cars is going to destroy the planet. Wake the hell up and see there is no argument man is not God and has no way of comprehending something so vast and complex.
Even if they had 200 million years of data they couldnt come close to predicting anything close to what they presume to know let alone 100 years
ONLY if SCOTUS reverses itself.
It doesn’t matter about the science of global warming, global cooling or anything else the idiots can come up with. It’s all about the US being punished for all the wrongs we have inflicted on the Earth. Things like keeping the world free from dictators, feeding nations that can’t feed themselves, giving up the hopes and dreams of our soldies who have perishe defending freedom. Heck, what am I talking about?
No dah....
Since first grade and all through school, we were taught CO2 was needed for plant life.
No, I did not go to school in the States.
P.S.
With the exception of 2 months in Indiana. I was in 3rd grade.
More proof that many environmentalists are communists who care nothing for the environment.
The truth is, just about anything in high enough concentrations becomes a pollutant, that is, life threatening. Remember, the solution to pollution is dilution.
Instead of pegging the level at some arbitrary time (what, 1960s levels?), they should take data from over the last 65 million years, or if they want to, since the lower Paleolithic (about 2.5 million years ago - you should at least include a couple of ice ages) and look at the highs a lows of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then, find the mean and calculate two standard deviations out. Anything higher and the EPA could get involved to lower the levels. Anything lower than two standard deviations from the mean and they could get involved to try and increase CO2 levels. Terra-forming at its best.
But this idea is completely separate from the idea of global-warming. That's all about the sun.
Their idea is all about control.
“highs and lows”
Why do I always see it after I post?
Well there’s apparently a lot of people that really don’t understand and many of them are probably in the Senate. Did you know the EPA classified Carbon Dioxide as a health hazard this past Monday?
My 7th grade Natural Science course taught me photosynthesis. Also taught me the plants (trees, grasses and such) absorb CO2, process it, grow, and push out Oxygen. This simply means, more CO2, more and better plants; which make more oxygen for us mammals to breathe (dolphins, whales, humans, monkeys, etc). Less CO2, less plants, and that means less oxygen. Less oxygen means people and critters develop breathing problems (asthma anyone), or just die.
It’s a BAD idea.
Freeman Dyson has said that carbon sequestration would be disastrous for both plant life on Earth and for the soil where it would be pumped.
No wonder why Jim Rodgers (investor) moved his whole family to Singapore he knew this was coming
I say let’s be safe and eliminate ALL CO2 in the atmosphere. I know it will cost a lot but since it is a pollutant, there should be NONE of it in the air.
I demand prez obi get rid of all CO2 ASAP!
Simple grade school science stuff, you'd think. Seems our senators should know this. I think they want to reduce the number of cows. I'm sure when/if the CO2 levels actually fall because of their caps (they really just want the money generated from the carbon offsets, etc) and they see the resultant damage to the green world, they'll need to put their heads together for a new tax to raise money to manufacture CO2 to save our forests. And still blame it on the cows. See - ch-ching - it's all good. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.