Why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

It's useful for a non violent sucide.

Mice, rats, and wind kill people. Oh what should we do?

http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/hps/transmission.html

They had to bring in an exterminator from the mainland after the University of California field research station on Santa Cruz Island tested positive for hantavirus.  Too many rats and mice.

I can't quite recall right now, but I think the reseach station had been an out buildng on the Stanton Ranch

Interesting post. 

Another conspiracy theory unfolded. 

There are two facets to the AGW arguments.

First, the rise in average global temperatures over the past <fill in the time frame> has been largely caused by humans, and largely the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and ...

Second, such rise in temperature is bad.

The Climate realists look at all the data, and recognize the AGW storyline is flawed on several levels.

The AGW data is suspect, because it evidences significant manipulation - primarily to force the data to fit their Doomsday models.

Their methods have defied replication - a benchmark in the validation of scientific results.

And lastly, the predictive ability of their models have been uniformly failures.

This blog looks at and pokes holes in the Doomsday scenario.

This is the firsth time I've seen the actual creator of a thread miss the topic by this much.

Clarify.

Well, I read forum threads every so often and usually the creator sticks to the point more than here. For me, it would make as much sense to write about falling beeing safe because some dude fell in a YouTube video and didn't hurt him self.

Btw, "Clarify." made me feel at home. Finns tend to struggle with good mannors too! xD

@ Juhomorko   Be glad you live in Finland, you will be one of the last to be burned alive in the oncoming inferno.

It has comes out of my lungs for the last 66 years. A possible side affect of CO2 could be old age.

@  AlphaA   Doesn't all the living Green Stuff on earth suck it up?

It's a effing miracle isn't it?

No place is going to "burn."  Because about 80% of this planet is covered in water, a warmer atmosphere meaner a moister, more lush planet.

In our lifetimes though, the scale of natural warming is so slight that it will go unnoticed.

The most abundant of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, which constitutes about 400 parts per million (ppm) in the current atmosphere.

When the concentration drops below 150 ppm, plant life begins to die, as do the animals which depend on plants.

The studies they cited to make their claims about increases in ice were from 'Science' magazine. However the editor of 'Science' said that their ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the 2 cited 'Science' papers . . . by selective referencing" (This is another way of saying fraud.) The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia said, "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. - from Wikipedia

IPCC says water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas

1. Water vapor

"Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect."

Better get as many hot showers in as possible, before the AGW police take away your right to bathe.

Of course somebody is going to complain.  And those "sombodies" are AGW alarmists.

"When talk turns to global warming, there are only three socially acceptable opinions that may be expressed. 1) It's going to be bad, 2) terrible, or 3) catastrophic. As our leading alarmist, former Vice President Al Gore, makes clear in his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, "the negative impact of climate change vastly outweighs any local benefits."

"Researchers" have warned us that a temperature rise of a few degrees will bring about plagues of jellyfish on our shores, more poison ivy in our gardens, maple syrup shortages, drowning polar bears, invasions by hordes of smaller and smaller ants, and a proliferation of new types of crime (at least in Australia). Dry areas will become deserts, wet places malarial swamps. Sea levels will rise faster and, worst of all, the effects will fall hardest on women, minorities, children and the poorest people in the poorest countries.

Yes, rising sea levels, if they happen, would be bad for a lot of people. But a warming trend would be good for other people. At the risk of committing heresy, I'd like to suggest that the debate about climate change include, for once, a fair assessment of the benefits alongside the declamations of harm."

From: https://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/love-global-warming

(Emphasis added)

Prevalence and bias to the use of fossil fuels is the death sentence of this planet jamie thought you should know this mate