I reject that premise.
Climate Change Denier Tells Fox & Friends Carbon Dioxide ‘Not A Pollution’
That is, he was simply stating the obvious. Take away carbon monoxide and the air is cleaner. It’s because that is a pollutant. Take away carbon dioxide and we all die. We need it to live. Yes, you can have too much, but the same is true of water. And we are currently in a CO2 drought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs&t=5s
L8r
No propaganda value in that writer’s biased choice of every other word, is there?
From the article:EPA doesn’t state that CO2 by itself is a pollutant given that humans and plants exhale it,...
Xxxxxxxxxxx
Do plants exhale CO2? I thought plants “inhale” it then “exhaled” O2???
Help.
the scientific community’s consensus on climate change ??
How can you have anything scientific to hang your hat on regarding Global Warming, if you don’t take into account that big ball of Radiation we call the Sun??
Thats what I though, Hang Him!
Beto is a Loser.
This is a textbook example of the Left’s strategy of manipulating language to win arguments in advance. We absolutely have to stop letting them do this. There is no such thing as a “Climate Change Denier™”, and there is no “Scientific Consesus™”. In fact the phrase “Scientific Consensus” is absurd - political ideologies have consensuses, not actual scientists. This constantly repeated trope that “97% of scientists agree” has no more validity than the “17 intelligence agencies” that concurred about Russian Collusion.
We should refuse to even discuss terms such as “Climate Denier” and “Scientific Consensus” How about we substitute “Communist Climate Hoaxer” and “Orwellian Scientific Fraud” and start our own arguments?
CO2 is not a pollution. It is a natural gas. It is currently blamed for ALL the Earth’s heating, while the Sun is completely overlooked.
Read “The Neglected Sun.”
It’s true.. it is NOT a pollution...
Newsweak denies reality ever day.
Pop quiz, how many sexes are there?
The planet is suffering from an Epoch level drought of CO2.
I wonder how many Climate Change Hoax Deniers are even aware of the fact that plants convert CO2 into oxygen.
Did he also point out that CO2 accounts for only 4/10ths of 1% of our atmosphere?
If you want to see how the Climate Change Hoax affects your pocketbook, look at California. The cheapest gas out here is just a hair under $4 a gallon.
What would we get for that $5 trillion?
1. Unreliable power that go out with regularity
2. Very high power prices, probably double, maybe triple today’s prices
3. Tens of millions of dead raptors and bats and possible extinction
4. Billions of dead butterflies and possible extinction
5. America’s spectacular vistas blighted and ruined forever. Wind turbines as far as the eye can see all ove America
6. An area as large as California covered with solar panels blinding airline pilots and cooling the ground underneath. Prime agricultural land gone to waste.
7. Enormous rare earth mines opened all over the earth’s crust on every continent but Antarctica.
8. A gigantic expansion of concrete and steel production and consumption. Huge increase of CO2 from cement calcining.
9. Huge expansion of noise pollution from wind turbines across the U.S. huge increase in annoying flickering shadows from wind turbines. Tens or hundreds of thousands of families forced to leave their long-time and ancestral homes because of deleterious health effects.
10. Gigantic hazardous waste stream from disposal of EV, residential, and utility energy storage batteries.
Compared to today’s world, this is goi g to be a colossal disruption and environmental nightmare. The greenies and politicians are heading us down a disastrous path compared to the highly evolved and optimized conventional power systems we use today.
How do you cover objectively when you lable your subject a denier? Denier = heretic?
Back in the 1960s through 1980s, environmentalists focused on actual pollution: foreign substances not naturally found in nature that were released into the environment by people and that were harmful to people, animals and plants.
The only solution was more government control and higher taxes.
Then the Iron Curtain fell and it became undeniably obvious to everyone that the countries with the most government control were toxic cesspools of pollution. In capitalist countries, people own property and want to keep their own property clean. In communist and socialist countries, the government owns most property and the people and government use it as a common dump.
So in the 1990s, environmentalists switched to carbon dioxide, a natural substance that not only is not harmful to life, but is essential to the existence of all life on Earth. Why carbon dioxide? Successful (i.e. capitalist) countries produce more carbon dioxide per person because they produce more of everything per person. Communist and socialist countries produce less of everything including carbon dioxide. By focusing on carbon dioxide instead of actual pollutants, the environmental left can point the finger at capitalism and free markets instead of too much government control.
The only solution is the same, more government control and higher taxes.