Monday, April 20, 2009

The absurdity that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-to-4 decision that carbon dioxide was a pollutant and the Environmental Protection Agency has a right to regulate it. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) comprises currently about an average global concentration of 387 ppm (parts per million) by volume in the atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is a mixture of gases with the principal constituents being nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.

However the court singled carbon dioxide in the case (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, 549 U.S. 497). Twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

The 5-to-4 decision (by the usual suspects plus Anthony Kennedy) disagreed with the Bush administration which has maintained that the government (EPA) does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court's ruling did not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide but said it could if the agency determined that carbon dioxide was a pollutant (and the majority opinion more or less demanded it to). Naturally the Obama EPA found “scientific” evidence to support the conclusion it wanted to reach, by disregarding all evidence to the contrary.

The lawsuit centered on a section of the Clean Air Act that provides that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "shall" set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the only way the agency can “avoid taking further action” now is “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. For the Obama administration the decision provided a convenient basis to regulate carbon dioxide emissions not only in the auto industry but wherever the agency can reach and therefore further the plan to enact global warming legislation and the “cap and trade” program.

It is important to note the Supreme Court did not itself say carbon dioxide was a pollutant, though it strongly implied that it was. Therefore the basis for government regulation of carbon dioxide is its conclusion that the gas, carbon dioxide, living beings exhale is a pollutant.

The first issue decided by the Court was whether there was a basis for the suit (“standing”) then the Court addressed the argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law.

Writing for the majority Justice Stevens said “The statutory text forecloses (the Bush administration) E.P.A.’s reading,” and that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” The justices in the majority also indicated that they were persuaded by the existing evidence of the impact of automobile emissions on the environment. The agency (Bush EPA) itself “does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made gas emissions and global warming,” Justice Stevens noted, adding that “judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The evidence clearly shows the Justice Stevens majority decision was not based on all evidence available and that the Obama EPA is using the Court’s decision to enact its expansion of government control under the aegis of protecting against global warming. The administration could care less about pollution; it’s the ability to extend government authority that is the object.

Consider the following regarding whether carbon dioxide is a detrimental “pollutant” or a beneficial component of the atmosphere. (

MYTH 1: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year, which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming (remember carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.03% of the atmosphere), let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere LAGS changes in temperature, up and down,

Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put “effect” before “cause” — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise. Geological field examination in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2, and amounts of carbon dioxide vary correspondingly as a result.

MYTH 2: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases (in total) form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist in varying amounts; about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.03% of the atmosphere; the human portion of that 0.03% is incredibly small.

But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

In summary, water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 3: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, when in fact CO2 does not drive climate, and they do not take into account the Sun, which has the most significant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time (correlated to the number of sun spots), and this happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. Again, models are in essence: Computer models: GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT. (Maybe they should also take note that when the Earth warms, so do other planets in our solar system. Now please explain how earth-produced CO2 can cause that?)

MYTH 4: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft; they are: 1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

MYTH 5: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, many governments have included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as a means for the government to politically control it. In the US it's really quite terrifying and is a slap in the face to science.

MYTH 6: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet.

FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels because the cause and effect is the other way round. It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

MYTH 7: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration, which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.”

Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to us about global warming, aside from money and control.

1. The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown.

2. Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to us because their funding depends on it. If there is no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. htttp://

3. Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to diminish western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets and more power will be given to international organizations such as the UN and their agencies.

4. New taxes and restricted freedoms are certain. Carbon taxes will be imposed on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing the public that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and we must all must pay to emit them (cap and trade). (Note: the oceans cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally)

The motives for deception are there; don’t you agree?

The fact is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually beneficial. Without carbon dioxide plant life would not flourish and would die. Carbon dioxide actually increases productivity of food crops.

Farms benefit from CO2. Reducing CO2 is now a judicial mandate and if the EPA imposes new rules, what will be farmers potential yield loss? This may seem odd to some but the Alarmists now have opened up a Pandora’s Box by creating such nonsense. Circumventing the legislative process by EPA regulation may yield short term political benefits, but it would create a lot of long term disasters to our food supply. (2008 Richard de Sousa (09:02:04)

Unfortunately politicians have not considered the harm of limiting or reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if that could be done. Since CO2 is food for plants, to tamper with CO2 is to harm vegetation. If the Endangered Species Act protects certain species from harm then we should find a plant specie which requires large amount of CO2 to survive and propagate therefore cutting down amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is a danger to this plant specie survival. Perhaps the Endangered species Act can be used to trump or at least confuse the issues and the EPA? (2008 Phillip Bratby (09:17:43).

No body of science has yet definitively shown CO2 to be deleterious to anything under current atmospheric concentrations. Models and speculations are not scientific proof.

Since water vapor and carbon dioxide are naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere, and both are necessary for life to exist, how can they be considered to be pollutants?

Consider also that though some car emissions are toxic, CO2 is not one of them. What sense does it make for one segment of the industrial community to be forced to reduce it (via exhaust controls) while another generously pumps it into greenhouses to improve plant growth and health?

In my opinion the concept of the EPA was faulty from the beginning. It is the most powerful agency in the country not only because it enjoys reduced oversight but it places incredible power in the EPA administrator. DDT was banned by the action of a single individual, the EPA administrator, and its removal from use created a huge malaria epidemic in Africa; there are many other examples. The EPA is almost a fourth branch of government and four, essentially one - Justice Anthony Kennedy – just handed Obama the tool to increase control of our lives even further.

1 comment:

mikesac said...

Good to read this article to know exactly what is happening up there and the statistics in the true sense.All that is necessary to make sure that you have clean sky over your head.Pollution less.
Manhattan Air Specialists