Balance? Science is not political. Reality and facts do NOT bend to political bias.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jeff Fink <rev...@ptd.net> wrote: > I must have heard over a hundred times in the past year that CO2 is a > pollutant. I thought we could use a little balance. > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 AM > To: vortex-L@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture > > Jeff Fink wrote: > >>Repeat after me 100 times: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is not a >>pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant. > > Of course it is a pollutant! That is an absurd assertion. Excessive > CO2 causes harm, and it is injected into the atmosphere by people, > therefore it is a pollutant. > > Any substance is a pollutant in some circumstances and in some > amounts, but not in other circumstances or concentrations. Take salt, > for example. Two-thirds of the earth is covered by salt water, and we > cannot survive without eating salt, so it is obviously not a > pollutant in the ocean or in your body. However, if you plow salt > into a productive field in a farm, the way the Romans supposedly did > in Carthage, it permanently destroys the land. If you spread salt > over roads in the U.S. to melt snow, it causes terrific damage to the > surroundings. Therefore it is a pollutant. > > Please do not replace scientific analysis with empty slogans. > Repeating simplistic, mindless nonsense 100 times does not make it > true. This is a science discussion forum, so let us have rigor. > > >>If we have to capture the carbon in CO2, then we really can't burn >>it in the first place. > > We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it > will probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric > oxygen which is a growing problem. > > - Jed > > > >
