Nobody_ wrote:they will convince us that since Co2 is colourless and odourless and plants love it then it can't be causing warming.
No, just that it shouldn't be called "pollution" merely because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.
The total greenhouse effect on the Earth's surface is about 33°C. Even if you believe the current slight warming trend is mainly due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere, that does not magically transform the gas from a naturally occurring atmospheric gas to "pollution".
I also don't really like the word pollution being used to describe C02, however in the context of being an unnatural increase in levels due to human activities then it probably would fit the strict definition of pollution.
I believe not calling CO2 a pollutant would have been more productive right from the beginning however that's not going be happening now. I however will be more than happy to just call CO2 a GHG which it is.
(No don't bother with the Wiki. I doubt that will take us any further)
This is much better than "colourless odourless plant food gas" AND "pollution".
lens wrote:The total greenhouse effect on the Earth's surface is about 33°C.
so GHG it is then.
[EDIT]And while were clearing this up we can also say that those who say that GHG (Co2 included) are irrelevant because it is only PPM ("just a trace amount" etc) of the atmosphere are talking crap as even you agree that the existing GHG's are responsible for 33 degrees of the planets existing temperature.[/EDIT]
Last edited Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 12:21am by EricOlthwaite