Planet Save Calls Trace Gas Necessary For Life A Pollutant

Warmists are weird. Supposedly, the following was left as a comment by a “conservative “

(Planet Save) It appears that many right-wing politicians/pundits are on this bandwagon in recent times to debunk Global Warming and ridicule the movement to set it back. Being right-leaning myself, I couldn’t help but begin to believe their argument against the Global Warming crowd. However, after pondering the issue for some time, I am now a re-believer in Global Warming based upon the simple fact that we now have 7 billion human beings spewing pollution into the world ecosystem. We have doubled the world’s population in a mere 40 years and the planet has not seen anything like this, pollution-wise, in its history. Many Global Warming naysayers talk of the Earth going through cycles and controlling itself in the long-run. Well, there is no long-run left since, in the short-run, we continue to spew pollutants to a catastrophe theory tipping point. Hence, we’ve put so many people on this planet in the last 100 years of major industrialization that just on that fact alone it’s nearly impossible to doubt the validity of Global Warming.

That’s a heck of a lot of brainwashing in one seriously long running paragraph. I love how CO2, a gas necessary for life, is called a pollutant in the fevered mind of this Warmist.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Planet Save Calls Trace Gas Necessary For Life A Pollutant”

  1. Black Flag says:

    Planet Save – another human hating, industry hating site that refuses to take their own advice and either stop using industry entirely or go out and kill themselves.

  2. mojo says:

    I think the Siberian Kills era may just possibly have given Humans a run for the money in regards to “most air pollution ever”… See as how they killed off a good 70% of the life on this planet at the time.

  3. Michael R. says:

    A generalized, but well-made point. You demonstrate that one can arrive at the same conclusion from different starting points; a purely population-based approach (such as yours) will do.

    To the commenter who ridicules the idea of CO2 being both “necessary for life” and labeled a pollutant (actually, a greenhouse gas, to be precise)…your scientific ignorance may be showing here…Oxygen is necessary for life, and yet some species (forms) of O damage cells and promote cancer…likewise OZONE (O3) is a pollutant (commonly emitted in car exhaust) that is poisonous (in large amounts) but which is vital (in the upper stratosphere) for repelling solar radiation back into space….etc. Other examples can be made here (e.g., nitrogen species; both good and ozone-destroying)…

    THE POINT IS that in nature, there is no either/or, good/bad duality (that’s meaningful)…it is a question of PROPORTION and DEGREE…too much vs. too little (in different locations, like O3 near the surface of the Earth vs. in the upper atmosphere)…as always, it’s about balance, and tipping the planet’s ‘energy budget’ so far out of whack that it can not easily recover (especially as we continue to pump more GHGs into the atmosphere).

    I think you should examine your hatred of Planetsave (“human hating, industry hating site”)…Upon examining the content of the site, you will see that it is the opposite of ‘hating’…and, like many who are blindly pro-industry (never seeing the bad consequences, only the ‘good’) you equate any criticism of industrial practices (which are clearly and often wasteful and harmful to the natural resources that we depend on for life) as “hatred”…your thinking is muddled contradictory and ideologically prejudiced.

    If you want to talk about things that are ‘fundamental’ to life, perhaps you should start with the basics: land, air and water (the quality of which is continuously threatened by ignorant industrialism / note: many industries are going ‘green’ because they see that pollution = waste = $$$ ; it saves them money all along their supply chain).

    To be continued…

    (a writer)

  4. gitarcarver says:

    note: many industries are going ‘green’ because they see that pollution = waste = $$$ ; it saves them money all along their supply chain).


    Most companies lose money on “green production” and are forced into it not because of cost benefits, but because of government over regulation.

  5. Michael R. says:

    Right back at ya, pal.

    Show me your proof that this is so, as it makes no sense. Going ‘green’ can be as simple as installing more efficient lighting (better light for less cost per KWhr), or decreasing the amount of water used in washrooms…these changes pay for themselves and save money almost immediately.

    You may be confusing recent figures on SALES of green products (like detergents and cleaners), which are declining somewhat (over initial booms in sales), as they tend to be more expensive and we are still in a slow-growth, recessional phase (people don’t want to spend more on basic products, like cleaning products).

    Most major industrial centers have resource recovery and recycling operations integrated with production/manufacturing operations; while there is an initial cost (depending on the industry), any such recycling of unused or ‘waste’ products can only save that industry money. How you can not grasp this basic economy reality is beyond me.

    If you look at the total supply chain of any major industry, at every point in the chain, there are ‘externalities’ (by-products, waste, etc. from that component) that are frequently not included in the cost of doing business…even though these externalities will accumulate with time and impact that industry, as well as the greater economy (and society) of which it is a part. Minimizing or eliminating these externalities creates a more efficient /cost-effective supply chain….something that everyone benefits from, not just the company/industry (and that it is the ultimate point of ‘green’ = benefit for the many)

  6. The Quadfather says:

    You say that you can come to the same conclusion from different starting points? Duh yeah, if the conclusion is foregone. You say that all the people conducting all that industrial activity just has to be destroying the earth, so it is? Bull. Too bad the evidence doesn’t say so. The problem with that arguement is that the atmosphere is such a vast ocean of air, that man’s output is like a drop of water in a swimming pool. What of all this CO2? It’s still less than one percent of the atmosphere. Hardly a problem, even if it had the properties it’s supposed to have. You greenies are just communists trying to use environmentalism to push your commie agenda. NAZIism, Stalinism, Pol Potism, Maoism, Chavezism, Castroism, Marxism, and environmentalism it’s all a bunch of murdering thugs pushing collectivism. When you sieze power, you always have to murder those who won’t go along with the program of lies. Screw you!

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Show me your proof that this is so, as it makes no sense.

    I repeat: BULL.

    Take your example of lights. The government mandated new lights. While the lights cost more, the efficiency allegedly made up in long usage. Unfortunately, bulbs are not reaching half of that light span, so the costs are actually higher.

    Recycling, while a good thing, is also mandated. Thus it is not the idea that recycling is cheaper than not recycling, but rather that not recycling is more expensive when the fines and fees are added into the equation.

    Your example of low volume toilets is another good one. While in theory low volume toilets are great at saving water, in many municipalities the low volume of water to solid waste has resulted in clogged waste pipes and failed lift pumps at treatment centers requiring municipalities to look at re-pumbing the entire waste system within the city at a cost of 100’s of billions – a cost that will never recovered in water savings.

    Want more?

    People like to use those wonderful cloth grocery bags, but the bags actually cost more in energy than plastic bags. The CDC recommends the bags be washed after each use to prevent cross contamination. The energy used to wash the bag once is the same energy used to make 5 plastic bags. Even better the plastic bags are made from recycled plastic. Removing a marketable item from the recycling stream has areas who have had to raise rates on plastic recycling because there is no market for the plastics. What you end up with is a higher cost, and more energy use, but people “think” they are doing the right thing when in fact they are not.

    I respect your passion, but your passion cannot displace facts and real world scenarios. As hard as you and your ilk try, you cannot escape the truth.

  8. Michael R. says:

    Wow…you went from zero to sixty on 3 seconds flat….as to your first comment, no, it is not because it is a foregone conclusions (re: arriving at the same conclusion from differing starting points)…rather, it is because industrial GHG pollution is often a function of population (depending upon the nation); one can discuss the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, or, one can talk about sheer population size. etc.

    The ‘atmosphere is such a vast ocean of air’…is your argument against human-caused climate change? In other words, you believe that the atmosphere has an unlimited capacity to absorb CO2 and other GHGs, right? Even if you allow tht most of the CO2 uptake is via the world’s oceans (the ‘carbon pump’ as its called’), there is still a limited capacity for oceanic carbon sequestration (and by warming the oceans, we are interfering with that capacity).

    As to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere; CO2 build up is measured in ppm (part per million); it takes time to accumulate (esp. given the ocean’s carbon pump, which is slowing down), and, in fact, total atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

    So, some historically and nominally “left”, totalitarian/authoritarian states, drunk on power, killed many (as in all struggles for dominance, left or right)….and, since environmental concern is common amongst the progressive-liberal left,…then/therefore, environmentalism = NAZIism, Stalinism, Pol Potism, Maoism, Chavezism, Castroism, Marxism….environmentalist want to kill people?….right?

    You are hopelessly lost in a muddled understanding of history and political ideologies..egad! I shudder for the future of the human race!

    It is always amazing to me how people with ‘forgone conclusions;’ (about what they just KNOW is the truth) can be so blind to simple realities; Today, an environmentalist, or social justice advocate, working in a developing nation that is being exploited by western or global industrial corporations is likely to be killed (as was the case in Brazil just two years back, also in Nigeria, Central America, etc.). This is the reality, today: advocates of economic, social and environmental justice are imprisoned, tortured and/or killed, daily…yet they persevere.

    To anyone reading these comments: do some balanced research and you will find these common patterns to hold true. It is not the environmentalist (as over-zealous as they can get at times) who are threatening culture and societies the world over…quite the opposite.

    The truth is out there, but it might not be what you are expecting.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    You are hopelessly lost in a muddled understanding of history and political ideologies..egad! I shudder for the future of the human race!

    The mirror is a harsh image, isn’t it?

Pirate's Cove