Yes! Carbon dioxide is vital to life on Earth, but it is potent stuff. Just 280 parts per million in the atmosphere allows plants to grow and keeps surface temperatures about 30 °C higher than they would be otherwise. And you want to double or tripple the amount of this potent gas? You think that won't have any affect on the climate? You're mistaken. Water is also vital to life, but you can still drown in it.
US Supreme Court Decided April 2, 2007 is authorized to do so. No. 051120. Argued November 29, 2006. The date of this decision is interesting, don't you think?
I am unsure what you are getting at with this comment, but based on your comment on other videos I believe you think the Courts decision is a wise one. There are two reasons the Court voted the way it did. First, they are not scientists and don't have a clue of what they are doing. Second, their decision clearly illustrates that the Clean Air Act is so loosely written that it can be used to declare almost anything a pollutant. It is therefore not science, but politics. Bad politics at that.
Yes! Carbon dioxide is vital to life on Earth, but it is potent stuff. Just 280 parts per million in the atmosphere allows plants to grow and keeps surface temperatures about 30 °C higher than they would be otherwise. And you want to double or tripple the amount of this potent gas? You think that won't have any affect on the climate? You're mistaken. Water is also vital to life, but you can still drown in it.
CarbonQuilt 2 months ago
Kristiue Peletier STFU!
Same crap as Sarah Palin.
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
Good information- I didn't know that the EPA considered declaring carbon a pollutant.
Clouseau411 2 years ago
US Supreme Court Decided April 2, 2007 is authorized to do so. No. 051120. Argued November 29, 2006. The date of this decision is interesting, don't you think?
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
I am unsure what you are getting at with this comment, but based on your comment on other videos I believe you think the Courts decision is a wise one. There are two reasons the Court voted the way it did. First, they are not scientists and don't have a clue of what they are doing. Second, their decision clearly illustrates that the Clean Air Act is so loosely written that it can be used to declare almost anything a pollutant. It is therefore not science, but politics. Bad politics at that.
mscoffman 2 years ago