Why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

From a public service advertisement by "Competitive Enterprise Institute":

You've seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting, we're doomed. That's what several studies supposedly found.

But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.

Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us?

Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let's force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives.

And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke, it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.

Atmosopheric carbon dioxide put into perspective

0.04% - current atmospheric CO2 level

0.1% -  level indoors, average house

0.28% - average prehistoric atmospheric level sine the Pre-Cambrian

0.5% - maximum recommended level for enclosed envirinments, such as ISS or submerged nuclear submaines

Data from Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer

(GT = gigatons)

Increased atmospheric CO2 has not resulted in temperature increases over the last 20 years.

Carbon dioxide is critical for life on the planet.

If atmospheric CO2 levels increased to 600 ppm (as compared to 300 ppm), it is estimated that:

Crop yield from Wheat (dry) = +38%

Crop yield from Oranges = +130%

New Pine tree growth = +248%

Just in the 25-year period, 1990-2004, inclusive, agricultural productivity increased 34%

This just too hilarious!! I wet my pants reading this.. xD When ever did someone mix up the consepts of CO2 beeing a greenhouse gass to beeing poisonous? This forum is only a lobby act pro-coal. Let's focus on the nice things of CO2, the neccessity for life, flora growth etc. and use that to hide the heat reflecting properties all together. Let's not talk about Saudi wimens lack of human rights on whitch we can't affect on during dependance on the cheap oil.. Yeah, CO2 is good for us and the planet. I bet there's study about how oceanic oil spills also benefits the growth of coastal plants. Carbon fuels do NOT make things better.

There are plenty of real pollutants, but not CO2.

The US Envorinmental Protection agency seeks to take over regulation of CO2 sources, so they have classified CO2 as a "pollutant."

The EPA is only a quasi-scientific agency, staffed mostly by politicians, bureaucrats, and naive idealistc do-gooders.  Here is what they have on their website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2013, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. The main sources of CO2 emissions in the United States are described below.

• Electricty: Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas.
• Transpotation: The combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. This category includes transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail.
• Industry: Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals. Fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. Note that many industrial processes also use electricity and therefore indirectly cause the emissions from the electricity production.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Sorry you don't like the source of the counterpoint.  But you seem unable to contradict it.

This forum sounds very republican, seems to ignore common sense and logic. Sorry Jamie, my respect is with you but this forum is wrong....

It's so silly it needs no one to contradict it.

This argument ignores the argument and is a logical fallacy.  You have attacked the man, but have done nothing to prove nothing against the perfectly valid points.

Congrats, five stars for failing logic.  Maybe actually using logic would sound better....

And no proof.  And stereotypical.  Did no one take logic class?

This posts sounds very democratican, ignoring logic and arguments.

It works both ways that argument you just used, and it is not even a logical argument...it is a logical fallacy.

I swear, if you're going to counterargument something, at least use logic.

Cause if this was everything counter-arguments depended on, I could debate that the earth was flat using these same logic...IT'S NOT LOGIC!

I have a opinion on this thing but I won't say anything, but I will say this.  If you are going to debate, do it logically.

The AGW alarmist frequently attack to sourse of oposing information, or the messanger, but rare deal with the contradictory data.

Example: "Dr X got paid to consult for Exxon, so he can be ignored,"

That is the guilt-by-association logical fallacy, which in a sub-type of  the ad hominem attack.

It appeals to emotion, without investigating the validity of the data presented.

Yes people don't like paradoxes. CO2 is as useful as O2 for human life, chlorophyl function gz exchange with trees and flowers, etc ... 

It depends on the rate in the atmosphere.

Uranium saved lives and is toxic, etc ....

Tobacco may e considered s dangerous, but is replaced by what ? etc ...

Topic : CO2 has not to be confused with CO, toxic, and 90% of people make no difference.

Btwi know nothing useful concerning CO. Does someoe know ?

Carbon monoxide C2O2 is toxc.

I have stated many times in many topics, that the Earth has been, in geologic history, warmer, moister, with more lush vegetation and greater biodiversity, when the ambient temperature and CO2 concentrations were higher.

ty C202 ok I learned in ole days CO , and realize how those threads can be instructive too

yes "past present and future are illusion" as said Caruana 

That's true ... it can be.  But carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth.  Plants with abundant CO2 need less water !