When Turnbull and Rudd speak of 'carbon pollution' they do so in the context of 'global warming'. They mean CO2.

Yet no-one disputes - here or elsewhere - that CO2 is esential to life. Sancho argues that it's a matter of dosage. I responded by pointing out how, for CO2 to be a pollutant (toxic), it would require dosages of CO2 of such volume that even Al Gore does not suggest they will be reached. Sancho responds by saying my argument is "odd" - which may appeal to the like-minded but does not advance an argument. He suggests that I am arguing that "mass asphyxiation" is the problem with "excess CO2". He does this, I think, because he cannot argue rationally against the proposition that CO2 is essential to life and indeed (to quote the Marxist-influenced Spiked website) "Makes the world go round". He cannot counter the fact that before CO2 becomes toxic it has to reach levels that are around five hundred times the present levels.

Protagoras responds by saying I'm being dishonest because I must know that "many carbon-based industrial chemicals are bioaccumulative". But the issue is not "many carbon-based chemicals" but rather whether CO2 is a pollutant. He/she then offers a link to a news report - a report that in no way provides supporting evidence for his/her belief that CO2 is a pollutant.

Sancho and Protagoras are examples of how the promotion of the idea that CO2 is a toxic pollutant is designed to conjure an emotional rather than a reasoned response.

I don't want to buy into a debate about over-population here, but will say that it's just more right-wing reactionary claptrap from the future-fearers.

I always appreciate a good bait-and-switch, byork, but I addressed exactly what you said: that carbon pollution only becomes a problem if it saturates the atmosphere to the point that people begin asphyxiating. You even used an example of oxygen deprivation.

Then you had to invent a statement I never made in order to try and score some points for self-righteous morality.

You appear to know almost nothing about this topic, and try to carry an irrelevant and bizarre argument with straw men and insults. Pretty weak.

Explain for us, in your own words, just what you think this debate is about, because so far you've made a convincing case that you haven't a clue.

I must say, though, that I'm chuffed at being branded a "right-wing reactionary...future-fearer". You'd have been closer if you claimed I'm actually a Martian invader. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, since you only want to invent arguments on my behalf that you can shoot down triumphantly.

Byork,
The problem with your reasoning is that CO2 is essential to life but in prescribed concentration RANGE.
Exceed that optimum level and things start to go wrong. We are not talking about a binary state (enough/too much). Anthropomorphic Climate Change can be likened to an INERTIA wheel....it takes a lot to get it rotating but once rolling it takes a little to keep it going. Note also once in motion it takes disproportionately smaller increases to move it faster. But it takes incredible effort to stop it. The wheel will continue for some time for it to return to stop on it's own.

Arguments about CO2 being toxic are irrelevant ALL life (as we know it?) on earth will have gone long before we reach that scenario think Venus etc.

Where that actual "instant" (tipping point) is where the increase in speed of change becomes anti life depends on which element/component of the environment you are looking at.

But current indications across several disciplines indicates different rates. Notwithstanding the trend is progressively towards pending destruction of life supporting environment.
No one is really paraphrasing 'chicken little' only that the inertia wheel is turning and that we have a limited window in which to stop it gaining unstoppable momentum. We will progressively find ourself losing control and ability to influence this environment unless we start the slow down process now. Like the inertia wheel the effort to stop it must be more concentrated and greater than simply 'business as usual' or simply stopping. The process will take decades to slow-stop and reverse what we as humans have done for Millenniums.

Without this CO2 trace gas, the planet would be a frozen snow-ball.

Increase concentration marginally to 350 parts per million - it's sweet.

Double the concentration to 700 parts per million - life as we know it is stuffed - nuff said.

Exterminator, Nothing you say is a case for CO2 being a pollutant.

Sancho, you are yet to prove that CO2 is a pollutant - you do realize that, don't you?

As for your claim that I said that "carbon pollution only becomes a problem if it saturates the atmosphere to the point that people begin asphyxiating. You even used an example of oxygen deprivation". I suggest you read gaain what I actually did say. For the record, I said: "CO2 can have toxic levels. But so too can oxygen". And I then provided data on the levels at which CO2 becomes toxic, a pollutant. The context for all this was and is my refutation of Turnbull and Rudd's use of 'carbon pollution' to account for a current crisis, as they see it.

Yes, I do think the green outlook is right-wing and reactionary - there's certainly no established left-wing theory that justifies it, especially not Marxism. And, yes, when you say there are too many people and they have outsripped a sustainable level of population, I happily rub your face into your own misanthropy

ps:

Could the good Senator Fielding be wrong?