Nicco - No, the article did not explain the idea of a pollutant. It said "....criticised those who correctly describe carbon dioxide as a pollutant ". It would be nice to see a reply from you which is not so condescending, particularly as you are so obviously wrong. Pollution applies to introduced or foreign substances, not natural substances in their normal environments.

BAC explains the point well.

The truth is that the word "pollute" has been redefined by the pro-AGW lobby in order to imply that CO2, an entirely natural compound necessary for life, is a foreign and dangerous substance.

"Carbon pollution" due to CO2 also implies "oxygen pollution" according to this definition because its the whole CO2 molecule which stresses AGW people.

This redefinition means that all substances are or can be pollutants in their natural environment, a patently stupid idea. AGW people like this redefining of terms because of the emotional charge the word "pollutant" provides.

The truth is that the word "pollute" has been redefined by the pro-AGW Atman, Thursday, 26 May 2011 6:35:04 AM

Nobody is implying "that CO2 is a foreign substance.

They are implying that doubling or tripling atmospheric and general environmental levels is upsetting a balance, and reflecting the dramatically increased recent release of carbon from vegetation (especially forests) and from previously decayed forests - as oil reserves previously deep in the ground - is having an effect.

There is no implication of "oxygen pollution" according to this definition, or attempt at redefinition like yours
.

McReal you have misunderstood what was said.

As I previously stated, BAC was forced to explain the obvious - that the word pollute never previously applied to relative amounts of a substance in its normal environment. It applied to to the introduction of a foreign and usually toxic substance. The AGW lobby has arbitrarily redefined the word to mean excessive (in their opinion)amounts of a substance in its normal environment.

The reason for this is due to their hope that "pollute",a more emotive word, will scare the population. Perhaps they will seek to call it 'evil' next.

Following from the AGW 'pollution' logic, CO2 is not just carbon pollution but also oxygen pollution because oxygen, being part of the CO2 molecule, is also contributing to the problem.

It is now clear to see that redefining the term pollution is nonsensical and self-serving.

Its also disturbing to see how easily some people are convinced.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Atman says;

>> Following from the AGW 'pollution' logic, CO2 is not just carbon pollution but also oxygen pollution because oxygen, being part of the CO2 molecule, is also contributing to the problem. <<

Absolute utter nonsense!

There are two double bonded oxygen atoms on either side of the carbon atom forming the linear heat-trapping CO2 molecule.

Carbon is carbon, oxygen is oxygen, carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide!

For Christ's sake Atman, if you want to open your mouth do some simple homework like any high school science student.

But wait ... if you did science at school you should know the basics of CO2.

Therefore, logic points to you deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the truth.

(apologies to runner but I am sure even Christ understands)

Bonmot - Again, your reply makes no sense. Your point exactly? Stating that 'oxygen is oxygen' and 'Carbon is carbon' is a little, well, odd and unrelated ot the point being made. Unfortunately, you have little or no understanding of science which is revealed by you Wikipedia definition of CO2.

Understanding that oxygen is a large part of your 'evil' CO2 would be a good beginning lesson in Chemistry for you and help you get a grip on logic involving science.

Then you might be able to coherently argue the point.

LOL,
Double degree, honours in science (chemistry) and chemical engineering; post-doctoral work in ocean/atmosphere coupled systems.

Following your logic ... don't drink water.