Comments on: Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:03:01 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: sacopenapa http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5310844 sacopenapa Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:16:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5310844 <em>Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant</em> Well then... lets lock him up in a chamber filled with Carbon Dioxide for a day. If he survives, he is right. If not... Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant
Well then… lets lock him up in a chamber filled with Carbon Dioxide for a day. If he survives, he is right. If not…

]]> By: shoeless http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309782 shoeless Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:50:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309782 Seems that just about the only trools we get around here anymore are those concerned with denying global warming. The RNC seems to have given up, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Petroleum Institute still have plenty of money to fund their propaganda distributors. Seems that just about the only trools we get around here anymore are those concerned with denying global warming. The RNC seems to have given up, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Petroleum Institute still have plenty of money to fund their propaganda distributors.

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309756 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:48:20 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309756 pbg--no apologies necessary. You are very astute with your post and I appreciate your comments. Well blogged, good sir. pbg–no apologies necessary. You are very astute with your post and I appreciate your comments. Well blogged, good sir.

]]> By: pbg http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309744 pbg Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:51:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309744 Sorry. I'll stop shouting. Sorry. I’ll stop shouting.

]]> By: pbg http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309742 pbg Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:50:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309742 Is selenium a poison? It's required for life. Take too much (and it's not very much) and you'll die. The ozone layer is an important protector of life. So is ozone a pollutant? Damn straight it is. Does oil occur naturally? Are there organisms who just lovem love crude oil, who live in it and use it as nutriment? Absolutely Is oil a pollutant when its buried deep in rock? No. Should we then not be worried about oil spills? Of course we should. It's a medieval argument, replete with false equivalences. 'Pollutant" does not equal 'essentially bad". It does not equal 'poison". It means a substance that <b>in certain situations and in certain contexts, can have bad effects and should be controlled. Sodium is vital for life. Sodium channels in our cell membranes control chemicals coming in and out. But if you put a piece of pure sodium in your hand, it'll burn it horribly. If you eat some, you'll die. Is sodium then a 'poison'? Should we avoid it ay all costs? Do that and you'll die too. Tough world, isn't it? Especially when you try to treat science like medieval rhetoric.</b> Is selenium a poison?
It’s required for life.
Take too much (and it’s not very much) and you’ll die.
The ozone layer is an important protector of life.
So is ozone a pollutant?
Damn straight it is.
Does oil occur naturally? Are there organisms who just lovem love crude oil, who live in it and use it as nutriment? Absolutely
Is oil a pollutant when its buried deep in rock? No.
Should we then not be worried about oil spills? Of course we should.
It’s a medieval argument, replete with false equivalences.
‘Pollutant” does not equal ‘essentially bad”. It does not equal ‘poison”.
It means a substance that in certain situations and in certain contexts, can have bad effects and should be controlled.

Sodium is vital for life. Sodium channels in our cell membranes control chemicals coming in and out.
But if you put a piece of pure sodium in your hand, it’ll burn it horribly. If you eat some, you’ll die.
Is sodium then a ‘poison’? Should we avoid it ay all costs? Do that and you’ll die too.

Tough world, isn’t it? Especially when you try to treat science like medieval rhetoric.

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309684 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:55:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309684 mauro7inf #36--I do believe that too much of anything that causes an effect that is chaotic to the environment is a pollutant in the literal sense of the word. I do understand your reasoning, but CO2 emissions are a major concern without regulation and control. Algae is not a pollutant either, but too much can choke off a river or lake by wrecking havoc with healthy oxygen levels. Nitrogen in itself is not a pollutant, yet emissions from the Mississippi River (runoff from farms) are causing dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico. Because there is too much of it in concentration. Basically, it's too much of what would normally be a good thing in the wrong place. mauro7inf #36–I do believe that too much of anything that causes an effect that is chaotic to the environment is a pollutant in the literal sense of the word. I do understand your reasoning, but CO2 emissions are a major concern without regulation and control. Algae is not a pollutant either, but too much can choke off a river or lake by wrecking havoc with healthy oxygen levels. Nitrogen in itself is not a pollutant, yet emissions from the Mississippi River (runoff from farms) are causing dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico. Because there is too much of it in concentration. Basically, it’s too much of what would normally be a good thing in the wrong place.

]]> By: mauro7inf http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309668 mauro7inf Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:30:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309668 CO2 is not a pollutant, any more than water vapor is a pollutant, or oxygen. It's a component of the atmosphere. When you think of pollutants, you think of toxic chemicals dumped into the water and the air, the basin-wide gyres of trash swimming in the Pacific, mercury in our fish, etc. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Really, it's not. It's a normal part of our atmosphere. It just happens to be a particularly opaque one in the infrared, which means that, by the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface temperature warms, which could have worldwide disastrous consequences. But it's a bit of a stretch to say that this agent is pollution. CO, black carbon, CFC's, NOx, ground-level ozone, those are pollution. CO2 is not. It's not a health hazard; it's perfectly harmless; it won't kill anyone or anything. It just happens to be of the wrong color, so if there's too much of it, bad things happen to us. CO2 is not a pollutant, any more than water vapor is a pollutant, or oxygen. It’s a component of the atmosphere. When you think of pollutants, you think of toxic chemicals dumped into the water and the air, the basin-wide gyres of trash swimming in the Pacific, mercury in our fish, etc. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Really, it’s not. It’s a normal part of our atmosphere. It just happens to be a particularly opaque one in the infrared, which means that, by the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface temperature warms, which could have worldwide disastrous consequences. But it’s a bit of a stretch to say that this agent is pollution. CO, black carbon, CFC’s, NOx, ground-level ozone, those are pollution. CO2 is not. It’s not a health hazard; it’s perfectly harmless; it won’t kill anyone or anything. It just happens to be of the wrong color, so if there’s too much of it, bad things happen to us.

]]> By: dbadass http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309594 dbadass Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:32:20 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309594 Tim Vaculik, you were joking about that thing about believing the physicist right? Tim Vaculik,
you were joking about that thing about believing the physicist right?

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309574 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:06:46 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309574 It's not really that Tim, it is just that you had to have bypassed thousands of articles from scientists with contrary viewpoints from this particular physicist to make a point. Not to mention you had to go all the way back to 2001 to do it. Anyone with a brain knows that a huge majority of scientists all over the world believe that CO2 is trapping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, creating a spiraling effect on global warming. I just don't know what you profit from supporting such a draconian flat-earth theory. It’s not really that Tim, it is just that you had to have bypassed thousands of articles from scientists with contrary viewpoints from this particular physicist to make a point. Not to mention you had to go all the way back to 2001 to do it. Anyone with a brain knows that a huge majority of scientists all over the world believe that CO2 is trapping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, creating a spiraling effect on global warming. I just don’t know what you profit from supporting such a draconian flat-earth theory.

]]> By: motorfingaz http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309570 motorfingaz Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:00:24 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309570 <strong>I guess when you and your ilk are full of shit you wouldn't know the difference!</strong> I guess when you and your ilk are full of shit you wouldn’t know the difference!

]]> By: Tim Vaculik http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309560 Tim Vaculik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:55:33 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309560 Lone Voice, Well, every time I come here I'm challenged to "prove my assertions" or back up what I say with some facts. The very fact you are not impressed with what a physicist has to say makes my point. Lone Voice,

Well, every time I come here I’m challenged to “prove my assertions” or back up what I say with some facts.

The very fact you are not impressed with what a physicist has to say makes my point.

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309550 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:53:08 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309550 Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. 2001 was so seven years ago--get up to speed Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming.

2001 was so seven years ago–get up to speed

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309542 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:50:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309542 Quote from Tonto Vaqculik "I’m no impressed." "I no impressed" with your cut and paste either. Quote from Tonto Vaqculik

“I’m no impressed.”

“I no impressed” with your cut and paste either.

]]> By: Tim Vaculik http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309538 Tim Vaculik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:46:55 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309538 Lone Voice, I've seen evidence of your intellectual level and I'm no impressed. But, hey... you are free to express your opinion like the next person. Lone Voice,

I’ve seen evidence of your intellectual level and I’m no impressed. But, hey… you are free to express your opinion like the next person.

]]> By: Tim Vaculik http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309534 Tim Vaculik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:44:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309534 Physicist Gerald Marsh's letter in the December 29 Financial Times: "Sir, While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of "political correctness" ("The price of carbon emissions," December 27). Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for life - the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it plants could not grow and all animal life would die. In no way is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is misleading. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is a political statement, not a scientific one. Behind the politics is the claim that the small observed global warming trend is due to the burning of fossil fuels rather than being of natural origin. Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded. We do not yet understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels..." Gerald E. Marsh, Chicago, IL 60615, US Physicist Gerald Marsh’s letter in the December 29 Financial Times:

“Sir, While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of “political correctness” (”The price of carbon emissions,” December 27).

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for life – the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it plants could not grow and all animal life would die. In no way is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is misleading.

Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is a political statement, not a scientific one. Behind the politics is the claim that the small observed global warming trend is due to the burning of fossil fuels rather than being of natural origin.

Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer models of the earth’s climate. However, the problem is so complex that the art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties are so great that the claim by the IPCC that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” is “likely” to be unfounded. We do not yet understand the earth’s climate well enough to be able to assess the long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels…”

Gerald E. Marsh, Chicago, IL 60615, US

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309506 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:26:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309506 Not your friend, guy. I have higher standards, such as having intellectual conversations not based on racist or religious ideology. Not your friend, guy. I have higher standards, such as having intellectual conversations not based on racist or religious ideology.

]]> By: Tim Vaculik http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309502 Tim Vaculik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:23:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309502 Lone Voice, Nah, I just got back from voting in Ohio. Two can play that game, my friend. Lone Voice,

Nah, I just got back from voting in Ohio. Two can play that game, my friend.

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309478 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:12:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309478 Hello troll Vaculik. Not in Virginia handing out "vote on Nov. 5th fliers" today? 'smatter, the KKK rally run a bit longer than you thought? Hello troll Vaculik. Not in Virginia handing out “vote on Nov. 5th fliers” today?
’smatter, the KKK rally run a bit longer than you thought?

]]> By: the Lone Voice of Reason http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309474 the Lone Voice of Reason Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:08:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309474 Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant”? Has this guy been sucking on a tailpipe? Seriously Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant”? Has this guy been sucking on a tailpipe? Seriously

]]> By: Tim Vaculik http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/comment-page-1/#comment-5309470 Tim Vaculik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:03:21 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/dhe-co2-pollutant/#comment-5309470 Alejandro, You are exactly correct, but don't count on the true believers here to listen to arguments based upon real science! CO2 is NOT a "pollutant" as any sane person with half a brain knows! Further, CO2 isn't causing any type of catastrophic warming. In fact, increased levels of CO2 are the RESULT of warming temperatures on earth, not the CAUSE. Alejandro,

You are exactly correct, but don’t count on the true believers here to listen to arguments based upon real science!

CO2 is NOT a “pollutant” as any sane person with half a brain knows! Further, CO2 isn’t causing any type of catastrophic warming. In fact, increased levels of CO2 are the RESULT of warming temperatures on earth, not the CAUSE.

]]>