As Viv notes, CO2 is not actually a pollutant.. the stuff we notice is sulphates and particulates. But the really weird part is that the Chinese are setting up trial carbon trading schemes in response to citizen concerns about pollution, where those schemes supposedly affect the only part of the mix that doesn't add to local pollution. Wild stuff..

A statement saying billions of people dying from starvation going back in time. Going forward in time without change that surely will be the outcome.
We are in excess of 400 ppm of co2 never before recorded without massive change in global weather and extinction. Earlier rises in co2 can be volcanic action. Now it is human intervention.

Climate change is not a conspiracy, it is real and it is now. Nobody can dismiss co2 as not a major part of the problem. The more ocean temp rise the more release of co2 the more ice melt.

We have a problem and it is not going away without proper resolutions , and surely not statements of climate change as crap.
It’s not ground level pollution it’s the excess of co2 that rises into the upper atmosphere. We are producing more co2 than the world can absorb.

Abbott is finding a way of squirming out of his green army by hiring a climate change denier for propaganda pollution

oh dear another anti-science post on OLO.
Rephrasing climate scientist as "affluent urban alarmists" just shows what lengths some people will go to to protect their world view.
That fact that this guy links to Mockington says it all, no fact just fiction.

Far from being easy to refute, the claims that CO2 is a pollutant are impossible to refute. Indeed they are completely proven. CO2 is a pollutant in two separate ways: reducing the pH of seawater and rainwater, and absorbing a greater proportion of infrared energy than the atmosphere in general, then reradiating it causing warming. This is an observed, irrefutable phenomenon, and there is no evidence contradicting it. What we don't yet FULLY understand (though we understand it much much much beer than you do, and models are constantly improving) is how it interacts with water, which (UNLIKE CO2) does have a moderating effect. Water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (which is a way of saying it absorbs and reemits much more infrared), and there is a strong positive feedback mechanism: the warming from the CO2 results in more water being in the vapour form, causing further warming.

Please take the time to understand the above, otherwise all you're doing when you write about it is spreading ignorance.

The people burning wood and briquetted paper in stoves and home heaters are the people who have solid fuel stoves and wood heaters. That does not correspond to "urban environmentalists" though it probably doesn't exclude all of them either.

You also misunderstand technology. Nobody wants to set us back to the past (though you yourself come close). Renewable energy technology now is way ahead of anything we had in the 20th century, let alone the 17th. Nearly all technologies continue to be developed, and an advantage a technology has over the competition at one time is unlikely to last for ever as both technology and requirements change. You remind me of those people who oppose high speed rail because "railways are a 19th century technology" (and considering how many roads were built by the ancient Romans, roads could be labelled a 1st century technology).

I don't think anyone opposes all hydroelectric power, but many rightly acknowledge that the environmental effects of some specific dams would be so severe as to exceed the benefits of building them.

579,

Hint: if you want to present a credible argument, don't over-egg it - slightly under-state it if anything, that gives you some room to manoeuvre.

e.g., billions of people starving ? Where and when ? over what time scale ?

CO2 levels like never before recorded ? Ask a geologist, they will tell you of times when the CO2 level was many times higher than now, hence massive vegetation growth in the Carboniferous.

Ruler-of-the-World Robert,

"To solve all problems of global warming, smog, deficit of oil, deficit of food and water, just remove people."

Your Majesty, how do you propose raking that fascist option ? You and whose army ?

Unleashing IS on the rest of the world - yes, that might do it.

Killing off all people over 60 ? Yeah, you could give that a go. At least, until YOU're sixty.

Slaughtering all new-born babies ? Didn't even work for Jesus.

The truth is, my poor idiot friend, developed countries have negative population growth rates. China's will fall precipitately in the next century. So who are you trying to target ?

Ah Africa, is that it ? Give it a chance and - if only we were around a hundred years from now - they will transform the continent: irrigation, electrification, road and rail and ports - it could be the powerhouse of the world, as well as bailing out elderly Europe, the US and Australia by emigrating care-workers. No, maybe not, why should they ?

And probably on nuclear energy, not idiotic wind or solar.

Please come back to Earth.

Joe

loudmonth, yes geologist (even better climate scientist can too) can tell that is the past C02 level have been much higher. There is however two very important points your leaving out.
1) The cause.
2) There were not any higher life forms on land at the time.

It's about as moronic as saying animals can live under water so why worry about floods.