Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Is Carbon Dioxide a polutant?

I hear many argue in support of the EPA ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. On the site www.stwr.org I found the following statement:

One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!

I understand this site purports to be a scientifically based unbiased site. But I would think the fact that Venus is quite a bit closer to the sun would account for most of the difference in temperature. Also, the difference of a water vapor atmosphere affecting planetary shading would secondarily affect the temperature difference much more than the CO2 level. Even Al Gore admitted in sworn testimony to the U.S. congress water vapor is the main green house gas. In fact more than 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. So maybe we should be more concerned about the amount of water on the planet. I suppose then water should be classified a pollutant as well.

The following excerpt comes from the same site:

Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste.

To follow that logic one could argue as follows: Men plant crops. These human planted crops produce oxygen as a waste product. Oxygen is already at 21% in the atmosphere (many times higher than carbon dioxide). Therefore oxygen should also be regulated by the government as a pollutant.

This site also argues in so many words that we should immediately dismiss any points raised by any party having a financial interest in a side to an argument. So, any argument coming from the farmers who profit from this business should be completely dismissed and they should have no voice in the argument. Of course they also fail to point out that billions dollars of funding go climate research organizations that depend on the ongoing portrayal of an impending crisis to stay in business. Therefore, any "non profit" or government sponsored research organization should be immediately suspect. Keep in mind that "non-profit" doesn't mean that those running the organizations are not paid handsomely.

If these sites want to be taken as scientifically valid then the silly arguments should stop. Real science requires the use of scientific method. Man made global warming is a theory. In order to be a scientific fact it must be validated scientifically. By the way, consensus is not scientific method. At one time the consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. Scientific method proved that to be incorrect. So far scientific method has not proven that man's activity has caused any harmful global warming. Temperature data has been tampered with by those with salary to be earned by continuing the portrayal of crisis. The number of sampling stations have been reduced dramatically. The reductions have been heavily biased toward removing the sites reading lower temperatures. The reduction produces the perception of a warming trend. Even with all that tampering there has been a cooling trend since 1998 event though the CO2 level has continued to rise.

Climate changes continually. It has changed dramatically before man lived on the planet. It has been warmer than the present if you go back more that the tiny 150 period many site. That is minuscule by geological standards. Imagine looking outside and observing the darkness has increased from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM and extrapolating how dark it is likely to be in 60 days. There is a light to dark cycle that repeats every 24 hours so any trend must be many times that to be meaningful. Similarly, there are cycles of around 800 years in geological history where we go from very warm to very cold and back again. Look at the temperatures over a few thousand years to see a trend. We are within the range of normal. Imagine the arrogance of someone declaring a specific temperature arbitrarily plucked from 150 years ago as being more ideal than the present temperature.

Let's focus on reducing real pollution and real waste. Let's promote the use of natural gas as a bridge fuel to cut current levels of pollution in half. Let's promote the use of nuclear energy that produces a very small amount of waste material that reduces naturally to equal the background radiation level in around 100 years more or less and does not produce CO2. Let's continue to research and develop wind, solar and geothermal energy sources to the point that they are financially feasible. Let's not fall for the carbon trading schemes that put money in the pockets of people portraying a crisis for the purpose of becoming personally wealthy.

No comments:

Post a Comment