Remember me
▼ Content

Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i



Page 1 of 212>
Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about it wro12-10-2016 20:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 21:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.

The "everything is a pollutant ... therefore CO2 is a pollutant" argument simply renders the word "pollutant" utterly worthless.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 21:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Except that I didn't make that argument.
12-10-2016 21:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Except that I didn't make that argument.
12-10-2016 22:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What?
12-10-2016 22:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.


So...now you've decided to try to create an entire thread on redefining the word 'pollutant'.

Why do you like to redefine words so much?

(I actually know the reason, I'm wondering if you do.)


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's not redefining it. That is the definition. We don't figure out whether things are harmful by "are they on a list of pollutants" - the latter is determined by whether or not it is harmful!
13-10-2016 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's not redefining it. That is the definition. We don't figure out whether things are harmful by "are they on a list of pollutants" - the latter is determined by whether or not it is harmful!


It is NOT the definition.

Did you know that pollution can be beneficial?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 03:23
13-10-2016 04:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

It can also have positive effects, but for a substance to be pollution, it needs to have negative effects. This means that it is dependent on the environment into which it is introduced - introducing oxygen to anaerobic bacteria colonies would be pollution, for instance, as it would kill them.
13-10-2016 05:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

It can also have positive effects, but for a substance to be pollution, it needs to have negative effects. This means that it is dependent on the environment into which it is introduced - introducing oxygen to anaerobic bacteria colonies would be pollution, for instance, as it would kill them.


Won't work. All substances are pollution using that definition, therefore nothing is pollution. The term is meaningless.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Nothing is inherently pollution. All substances can be pollution. This is true.

That does not make the term meaningless, only meaningless out of context.
13-10-2016 09:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nothing is inherently pollution. All substances can be pollution. This is true.

That does not make the term meaningless, only meaningless out of context.


No, it makes the word meaningless in all contexts.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 19:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How so? If I say that water can be dangerous, well, everything can be dangerous, so the word "dangerous" has no meaning anymore, right? How about the word "good"? Water can be good. But sometimes you might be happy to have found some hydrogen cyanide. Maybe you want to kill yourself or somebody else. Maybe you want to run some experiments on it. Anything can be "good". Does that mean that the word "good" is meaningless in all contexts, or just meaningless out of context?
13-10-2016 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so? If I say that water can be dangerous, well, everything can be dangerous, so the word "dangerous" has no meaning anymore, right? How about the word "good"? Water can be good. But sometimes you might be happy to have found some hydrogen cyanide. Maybe you want to kill yourself or somebody else. Maybe you want to run some experiments on it. Anything can be "good". Does that mean that the word "good" is meaningless in all contexts, or just meaningless out of context?


When you use 'dangerous' in this way. It similarly becomes meaningless.

Remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But in the case of the Boy, he said that there was danger when there was none.
14-10-2016 00:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, the semantics are moot. What's important is - does Substance X pose a threat to the environment or ourselves? Arguing about definitions doesn't prove anything safe.
14-10-2016 03:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But in the case of the Boy, he said that there was danger when there was none.


But there was. The danger the wolf might attack.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But he was suppose to call if the wolf actually did attack. I don't call things pollutants when they're a dubious threat - "pollutant" just means "harmful amount of substance for the environment to which it is added". The "amount" part can be discussed, but the context is integral to the definition.
14-10-2016 14:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: But he was suppose to call if the wolf actually did attack. I don't call things pollutants when they're a dubious threat ...

Is CO2 pollution, independent of quantity?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 18:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.
14-10-2016 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

You're still missing the point. You are trying to declare as "pollution" a natural, life-essential component of the atmosphere itself. CO2 is not pollution anymore than nitrogen or oxygen.

Is water polluting the river? There's enough water in the river to kill you, which, the last time I checked, is a harmful effect.

Of course water is not considered pollution. It's the main component of any river (or ocean). Water can become polluted. CO2 is not pollution but it can certainly become polluted.

To argue otherwise is to absurdly erase all meaning of the word "pollution" and to declare everything as pollution.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 18:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But you haven't actually shown that CO2 has no harmful effects with that argument.
14-10-2016 19:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: But you haven't actually shown that CO2 has no harmful effects with that argument.

Nor have I shown that water has no harmful effects.

Nor have I shown that nitrogen has no harmful effects.

I'm not the one claiming that CO2 is pollution. You are the one who just made another lame attempt to shift your burden of proof.

According to those who claim that CO2 is pollution, our atmosphere is therefore currently polluted with CO2 (are you following the logic?). What are the harmful effects of the CO2 polluting our atmosphere today? Remember, it is pollution today therefore I need today's harmful effects.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 21:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
*sigh*

What I meant was: That argument could be used to argue that anything found in nature cannot be pollution. Since many pollutants are natural or can be naturally produced (ozone pollution, VOCs, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides, ferex), there must be something wrong with the argument, or some confusion from differing definitions.

Pollution: "The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste."
Edited on 14-10-2016 21:08
14-10-2016 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
*sigh*

Is CO2 "pollution"?
14-10-2016 21:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If AGW is occurring as a result of GHGs, then yes. If not, then no.
15-10-2016 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But he was suppose to call if the wolf actually did attack. I don't call things pollutants when they're a dubious threat - "pollutant" just means "harmful amount of substance for the environment to which it is added". The "amount" part can be discussed, but the context is integral to the definition.


But you ARE calling things pollutants that are a dubious threat.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 01:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.


Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-10-2016 01:53
15-10-2016 01:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If AGW is occurring as a result of GHGs, then yes. If not, then no.


Since AGW is a circular argument, CO2 is therefore not a pollutant, by this definition.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-10-2016 01:56
15-10-2016 03:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.


Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?


That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 03:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.


Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?


That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.


As soon as you put the minimum qualifier on the definition, that's what you've done. You've MADE the minimum density a necessary AND sufficient part of it being a pollutant.

Thus, the word is rendered meaningless through the case above.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 03:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.


Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?


That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.


As soon as you put the minimum qualifier on the definition, that's what you've done. You've MADE the minimum density a necessary AND sufficient part of it being a pollutant.

Thus, the word is rendered meaningless through the case above.


What? Pollution is "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects." So a polluting substance is any substance that has harmful effects in the environment into which it is being introduced.

For something to have significant harmful effects, it usually has to have a minimum density. So a polluting substance is any substance that is capable of being harmful in concentration within the environment to which it is being introduced AND being introduced in sufficient quantity. It's an and, not an or.

Another way of looking at this is the word "qualify". It means to make more reserved or limited. So if the definition of pollutant is qualified, it means it would cover less substances.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 04:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.


Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?


That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.


As soon as you put the minimum qualifier on the definition, that's what you've done. You've MADE the minimum density a necessary AND sufficient part of it being a pollutant.

Thus, the word is rendered meaningless through the case above.


What? Pollution is "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects." So a polluting substance is any substance that has harmful effects in the environment into which it is being introduced.

For something to have significant harmful effects, it usually has to have a minimum density. So a polluting substance is any substance that is capable of being harmful in concentration within the environment to which it is being introduced AND being introduced in sufficient quantity. It's an and, not an or.

Another way of looking at this is the word "qualify". It means to make more reserved or limited. So if the definition of pollutant is qualified, it means it would cover less substances.

You have still left unchanged my argument. You seem to be making a counter-argument to some other argument.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 07:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
My definition involves quantity being necessary for a pollutant, but not sufficient. You appear to be arguing that my definition would necessarily imply quantity becoming a sufficient condition for a pollutant.
16-10-2016 03:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:
My definition involves quantity being necessary for a pollutant, but not sufficient. You appear to be arguing that my definition would necessarily imply quantity becoming a sufficient condition for a pollutant.

Nope.

The definition of "pollution" is independent of quantity.

Your definition, which involves quantity, is in error.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2016 03:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Aaaaand we're right back to "yes! no! yes! no!"

Can't we discuss in a more interesting manner? Like making a bunch of conflations of "necessary" and "sufficient"?

Whether or not something is called pollution is beside the point, then. What's important is if something has a significant detrimental effect on the environment.
16-10-2016 03:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:For something to have significant harmful effects, it usually has to have a minimum density.

Your downfall is your reliance on qualifiers.

If I have a cup (small, unspecified quantity) of industrial goop and I pour it into Lake Tahoe, I am polluting the lake. No discussion is required to determine if there were any "significant" harmful effects. There is no need to figure out if I met any particular minimum quantity. If I were caught in the act and arrested on the spot, I could not argue that we somehow must wait to see if there were any "significant" harmful effects as a requirement to conclude that I polluted.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2016 04:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But what if I put a molecule in there?
16-10-2016 04:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:But what if I put a molecule in there?

Alas, a question about quantity.

One molecule of industrial goop thrown into Lake Tahoe is one molecule of pollution going into the lake.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2016 06:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, okay. Quantity determines whether pollution is significant or not, but not whether a substance pollutes or not.


Whether or not something is called pollution is beside the point, then. What's important is if something has a significant detrimental effect on the environment.


Can we get back to this?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16417-10-2019 22:28
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact