CO2 is a pollutant?

Recently the news and left wing blogs claimed falsely that the EPA had decided to classify carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. In reality, the EPA didn't really classify the potent, nutrient rich fertilizer as a pollutant, but claimed that it was the amount or concentration caused by the "unambiguous result of human emissions." that was the issue and a concern for the agency, which is just as absurd.

Carbon dioxide is a nutrient required to sustain life on this planet. Who's to say how much is too much? Currently there is approximately 384 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the atmosphere. But if it's not CO2 causing the problem then what is it?

The seas and oceans. Water vapor pumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other thing on the planet, bar none and accounts for 95% of ALL greenhouse gases. Throwing money at it or buying these ridiculous "carbon credits" isn't going to fix anything, except someone's bank accounts, like GE's and Al Gore's. This absurd notion of climate change, caused by the modern human industrial population, diverts attention away from other issues that really matter, such as a cure for AIDS, cancer research and other related problems of the world.

Climate change has been going on for the life time of this planet (for those of you who believe in this claptrap, that would be 4.5 billion years). Do a majority of people believe in global warming? Probably, but my skepticism wonders how the question was asked. Is there a scientific consensus? It's irrelevant, because science doesn't work in this fashion, but, if you want to play this game, then consider the 31,000 plus scientists that do not buy into this sham.

You see, here is the problem. People that push this agenda can't do it in scientific circles or convince the populace that we are in dire straights if we don't change our evil ways, can't reconcile the problem that CO2 can't be a pollutant if it's a potent nutrient rich fertilizer necessary to keep life going. So, what they do is infiltrate politics and con them into believing it, thus giving Congress a new way of extorting taxes from the American people. Have you ever noticed that not one single scientist that has a different point of view has ever testified before Congress? That's for a reason.

When true believers are presented with an opposing point of view or facts, they automatically jump to ad hominems and vitriol; they do this because they can't cogently respond to a counter view and this destroys their credibility. In short, true believers don't want to read or hear what another has to say when it runs counter to their religion, which is what it really is.

When they are presented a question they respond with a long and convoluted non answer. Now, why is that? Because they and others in their religion can't reconcile the issue of their assertion that CO2 is a pollutant and the fact that it's a trace gas nutrient that is required to sustain life on this planet, it's a sort of dichotomy that they have gotten themselves into.

True believers don't ask questions to members of their church because they know that by doing so, they risk being ostracized. They can't convince the masses so their religion infiltrates politics and then metastasizes like a cancer, then the next thing we know politicians have found a new way to tax people and bring down corporations (hence the consequences that were never thought about).

True believers shout the "debate is over...scientists are in a consensus!". However, when it is explained to them that science does not work in a consensus fashion, they scoff. When we try to play their silly game and note that over 31,000 scientists don't agree with anthropogenic global warming/climate change/ocean acidification, they claim that they are fakes and have not had any peer reviewed papers published or some other twaddle.

Sorry folks, but, argumentum ad verecundiam does not prove anything.