Again, CO2 is not a pollutant...but do feel free to provide any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence proving otherwise....opinion pieces certainly don't qualify. Lets see some actual evidence. Your exhalation is around 40,000ppm and certainly does you no harm...we breathe in 40,000ppm to victims needing CPR and it doesn't kill them, CO2 monitoring systems on submarines don't sound an alarm till CO2 reaches 8000ppm which is higher than natural CO2 levels have been on earth in over 500 million years...but again, do feel free to provide any evidence that CO2, especially at levels under 8000ppm is a pollutant..
You truly will believe anything won't you...the first claim in your idiot article that is not backed up by any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming....there certainly wasn't anything like actual evidence in your opinion piece.
The second claim not backed up by any actual evidence and in fact, directly contradicted by numerous peer reviewed studies is that CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere. Of the 37 peer reviewed studies below, only 6 find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than a decade....and two, one from 1957 and the steaming pile from the IPCC say more than 2 decades...and your idiot paper claims that it "might" hang around for centuries....here is a clue for you leftie...just because someone you trust says a thing, and just because the name is scientific anything does not mean that it is true.
And yet, excessive CO2 kills, and is killing even today:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-81/Intro/facts-sheet/GasKillingTrees.html
"After drought and insect infestations were eliminated as causes, a geologic explanation was suspected. USGS scientists then made measurements and discovered that the roots of the trees were being killed by exceptionally high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the soil. Today, areas of dead and dying trees at Mammoth Mountain total more than 100 acres. The town of Mammoth Lakes, just east of this volcano, has not been affected."
http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html
"For the first time in human history, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen above 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide at the historic Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This observatory is where Scripps Institution of Oceanography researcher Charles David Keeling created the “Keeling Curve,” a famous graph showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing rapidly in the atmosphere for decades.
Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, when humans began releasing large amounts of the
gas
into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. On May 9, 2013, the reading was an alarming
400.08 ppm for a 24-hour period. This number would be even higher, however, if it were not for the help of the oceans. [
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Breaks 3-Million-Year Record]
Scientists already see ocean acidification harming marine animals like oysters, mussels and clams as well as coral reefs and floating marine snails called pteropods, dubbed the “potato chips of the sea” because of their significance to marine
food webs. In the last decade, ocean acidification killed many oyster larvae at the Whisky Creek oyster hatchery in Oregon, shrunk the shells of pteropods in the Southern Ocean and slowed coral growth on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html
"An argument, made by those who deny man made Global Warming, is that the Carbon Dioxide that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. Their argument is based on the logic that, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.
It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the area available for crops.
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?"
