CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".
You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.
If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:
A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.
This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.
And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed.
The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment