I just watched Fox News

To paraphrase you - "Is it mere coincidence that those you believe in AGW are the same as those who believe 911 was an inside job?"

Yep..CO2 by some can be considered an pollutant-

link

This author makes the argument that TOO much CO2 in the atmosphere throws the balance out of wack and makes the general atmosphere potentially not liveable for humans etc.

If APK recalls his 9th grade science, the earths atmosphere is also made up of appx 21% oxygen.

Too much OXYGEN in our atmosphere would also throw things out of wack....

Is oxygen a pollutant?

"Alex", the arguement is again that when you throw off natures balance that ANYTHING can be a pollutant.

So yeah if we were to toss the balance of oxygen to CO2 out of balance then it could be harmful, since our atmosphere must be in perfect balance for us to LIVE in it.

Also, are we as humanity ADDING to the problem, throwing the atmospheric balance out of wack? If so then it could be considered a pollutant.

Thanks for the compliment and I agree with your statement, however the atmosphere is not approaching toxic levels of CO2.  Historically there have been levels of CO2 10 times higher than today, during all the previous epochs from Cretaceous back to Cambrian the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere wer 1000's of ppm.  Some of those eras had warmer temps some were similar to todays temps, but they supported life and abundant life on this planet.

The scre stories about drought and famine and rising seas, etc. are only partly true.  If weather patterns change then some areas with abundant rainfall may see less, but other areas with less rainfall may see more.  The sahara wasn't always a desert, but climate changes made it so.  Vast coal deposits in the western US are remnants of ancient peatboggs.  the climate now is semi arid desert.

Climates change.  As for mans influence through CO2, ridiculous.  Cas in point, if we as humanity are responsible for all the CO2 increase, then why, during this recent econimic downturn when less energy and fossil fuels were being consumed, didn't the average CO2 in the atmosphere decline?  Simply put, because the miniscule amount we contribute to the total is irrelevant.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

Now we are getting somewhere

APK agrees about balance, BUT to think mankind has more power over mother nature in "unbalancing" and "balancing" the earths system is foolish

 

The Earth went through many stages of high volcanic activity, low and high co2 and oxygen levels...

THE EARTH SURVIVED AND ADJUSTED

The Earth has gone through at least 4 ice ages

THE EARTH SURVIVED AND ADJUSTED

Many spices have been here for quite a long time, and adapted to Earth changes....
Humans have adapted over time too, and will continue to do so

i never figured you for such a bigtime Gaia theorist walls

Well, I don't know anyone credible who believes 9/11 was an inside job. You certainly aren't referring to me there. My foreign policy views are hardly liberal or Buchanan-isque.

My point was that they are both issues that tend to ignore the future for the advantage gained in the present.

Probably not an inside job but I would bet my life and future childrens' lives that the US government knew/ is concealing all the facts and information regarding 9/11. There is too much that happened coincidentally for them to not have known or not have tried stopping it.

Most secure building in the world doesn't even have video of a plane hitting it yet there are countless video of all the other plane crashes and even the plane that crashed in the Hudson. There is a lot of things that don't add up and the government ignores these questions. Too many people profited off 9/11. Its sad and scary to think the government would allow such a thing to happen but it has happened in the past with other countries.

Back to global warming debate. I said this before a long time ago on this website and I will say it again.

If a specialist/doctor tells you that you have a potential life threatening disease/condition that will kill you in the future. Do you refuse treatment to possibly fix the problem and wait ti the last moment when you realize "damn the doctor was right" and now it is too late to do anything. Or do you go along with the treatments and live longer than you would have and possibly defeat/eliminate the problem before it becomes unfixable.

There is no logical, good reason to not want to produce/create greener, safer technologies. It has been proven that cars and other equipment create pollution and cause problems. The scale of the problems are what people bicker and argue about.

Was there smog in LA 100 years ago. Was rain as acidic as it is today. This is a prime example of pollution and just the beginning of how it affects the environment.

I am not a theorist of anything, just a common sense thinker most of the time.

When something makes SENSE, I usually go with it. And in this case I agree that if WE throw the environment out of balance it can harm our existance.

jpero's comment about acid rain and smog is right in the wheel house of my thinking, it makes sense, it is tangible and it is something we can correlate to the larger argument/debate.

There may be an argument that the US had some prior knowledge of the likelihood of an attack, but it stops there. The rest is well-documented. Can't speak for others, but I have seen video of every plane crash except for the PA.

I agree with that analogy to a point. The first doctor "doctor A" however is not certain, it is only a possibility it MAY happen the way he thinks.  I go to another specialist and ask him, "doctor B" says something different, that in his opinion, the odds are much less that this will develop.  Doctor A's treatment will cost me alot of money, control every aspect of my daily life and people he is in business with will handsomely profit from my treatment.  Doctor B does not have a direct influece on my daily life or will not profit from any treatment, but still encourages me to do certain things to improve my overall health.

I am going to accept Doctor B's advise, especially when the "symptoms" doctor A said I should begin feeling, aren't materialising.

I apologise for implying you were a 911 conspiracy theorist.

It is only just recently the habitants (that would be us) have started to cut down the rain forest.

Also another thing to consider is that with the way we pollute now the earth's temperature might grow a few degrees but so what?

Well that would trigger the beginning of the end.
The permafrost melting in Siberia will lead to a disaster.

Then we are on the path of no return.

No worries. I am always one for a good conspiracy theory (Oswald did not act alone, etc.). 1st Amendment gives all the right to question our government, but I have always been saddened by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Oswald did act alone (read "Case Closed" by Posner and make an attempt to refute it....not possible).

Those who don't think 9/11 was legit (ie. the government was responsible) are complete morons.  Google "debunking 9/11 consipricies" and read the facts. 

Agreed on 2nd paragraph. When I said sad, I meant in the way that people actually think it was a conspiracy.

As for good ol' Gerald P., read Reclaiming History by Vincent Biglosi and your opinion of him may change.....