- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 7428 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by sansukong at 2013-8-7 11:55|
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013
Carbon Dioxide a pollutant? That's Claptrap!
(Top) Fake PhotoShopped Pollution in lying
Labor Party Advertisement (link)
(Bottom) Same Disused Power Station
surrounded by invisible CO2.Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant; it's natural and essential for life. This is a reality and NCTCS blog recently addressed this when busting the "Ten Myths of Climate Change."
Recently, both PM Rudd and Greens Leader Milne have talked of "carbon" pollution. The US President Barack Obama also uses the term carbon pollution.
The plan that President Barack Obama announced on June 25 directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish carbon pollution standards for power plants to limit the amount of carbon pollution these plants can emit.They are all Socialist politicians with an agenda. Perhaps it is because of their lack of knowledge, that they mistakenly use "carbon" when they mean carbon dioxide.
More likely it is deliberate to intimate something somehow grimy like in the lying advertising from Australia's Labor Party depicted at right.
It is a pity when some-one from the other side scores a home goal. Professor Davidson.
Sinclair Davidson is Professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. He has written extensively on taxation policy in Australia and is a regular contributor to public debate. (link - IPA)Recently Professor Davidson wrote: ([size=14.857142448425293px]link
I have no problem describing CO2 emissions as “pollution”. Pollution here has a definition – the unwanted by-product of some or other production process that gets abandoned into the commons. and -
If co2 is produced but on-sold then it is not pollution. If it is dumped into the atmosphere it is pollution – whether it is good or bad doesn’t change the fact that it is ‘pollution’.
A good friend of this blog who contributes to debate under the nom-de-plume "Cohenite,"
has come in to bat for the "CO2 is not a pollutant" side with:
Nah, that’s (Claptrap). What has happened as part of the AGW lie is that the definition of what is a pollutant has changed from something which has a negative impact on humanity to anything which compromises pristine nature. The import of this subtle but profound change in meaning has missed all of the main stream media and most of academia and the political elite. The consequence of the change is, since humans change nature to produce a civilized lifestyle which is based on cheap, plentiful energy and technology, all activity by humans can be classified as polluting and or it’s even more insidious sibling, unsustainable. Every school, hospital, road, dam, power plant [except, ironically the landscape destroying wind towers and solar 'farms'], house built by humans is a pollutant on nature. This view informs the misanthropic basis of AGW and the green ideology generally.
CO2 is not a BY-PRODUCT of some production process; it is a marker of civilization and indeed life.Discussing esoteric methodologies for taxing CO2 merely gives an imprimatur of legitimacy to the whole edifice of green ideology and AGW.
Posted by Geoff Brownat 10:39 AM