Fighting the Wrong Battle: Public Persuaded About CO2 As Pollutant – Not As Cause of Warming

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Skeptics are winning the battle to reject CO2 as the only cause of warming, but losing the war to the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant.

Some people generally know there is something wrong with claims of human created global warming or climate change, but governments, business, industry, mainstream media and AGW advocates succeed in the push for reduction of CO2 as a pollutant without protest from the public. All this despite massive and completely unnecessary costs.

Political advocates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set out to demonize CO2. They successfully shifted away from global warming to climate change and on to pollution when the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis began to fail. Influential AGW proponents like James Hansen thought skeptics were winning the climate debate so he began talking about coal “death trains”. Obama’s “carbon pollution” is scientifically wrong but works by frightening the public. His attack on the coal industry gets little opposition outside of coal producing States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proceeds with Supreme Court blessing as they limit a “harmful substance”.

It’s increasingly ineffective to explain what is wrong with the climate science. It is necessary to show that the switch to falsely calling it a pollutant became necessary to perpetuate the goal of eliminating fossil fuels. Most people don’t make the link and are turned against CO2 as a pollutant by the effective PR campaign.

Competing with PR experts.

Mr. Justice Burton’s October 2007 ruling on the showing of Gore’s docudrama An Inconvenient Truth in the classroom wrote,

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to “political indoctrination” and to the “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” in schools,

This is the battle as the counterattack by promoters of AGW proceeds. People who question the hypothesis and science, especially as manifest in the IPCC Reports, are attacked as skeptics and deniers, who are framed as apparently willfully lying for a political agenda paid for by coal and oil companies. The public is told not to believe these deceivers because of their funding, the debate is over, the science is settled and failure to support immediate political action makes them intransigent and complicit in pollution of the planet. Gore’s movie was a major part of the deception. It was a successful piece of propaganda produced in Hollywood, a world center for telling stories to the public. Justice Burton wrote in his judgment,

I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

No wonder the public are confused. Any responses to Gore’s movie relying solely on science are seriously challenged. I’ve been involved in this debate often. One example involved helping a group of retired scientists set up Friends of Science. They chose a purely scientific approach science partly because of being from Calgary and Alberta a center of fossil fuel production, but also as scientists they wanted facts and logic. They do a good job, but mostly for those who understand science.

The simplistic deceptions of PR have been a major and effective tool. DeSmogBlog was the brainchild of James Hoggan, Board Chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation and President of a PR firm. In a December 2011 email to Michael Mann, DeSmogBlog writer Richard Littlemore says:

(as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science).

Mann’s 2004 email to CRU Director Phil Jones confirms the PR connection of CRU/IPCC science. Confronted by challenging questions, they apparently developed a defensive mentality:

I’ve personally stopped responding to these, they’re going to get a few of these op-ed pieces out here and there, but the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing [sic] the PR battle. That’s what the site (Realclimate) is about. By the way Gavin (Schmidt) did come up w/ the name.

To overcome the combination of political PR and falsified climate science, people need to know answers to the basic questions of journalism; who, what, when, where and why it was done. Only “what” is addressed by explaining the science.

Stage of Evolution In Unveiling Misuse of Climate Science

Mahatma Gandhi said, First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. I’ve experienced all phases so far in the climate issue and believe we’re in the “fight” stage. For AGW proponents this involves grabbing headlines that backfire, such as John Holdren’s video that claimed the cold (polar vortex) is due to warming, or playing the “victim” card when evidence, like the hockey stick, is already known to the public. Paradoxically, it is counterproductive for those AGW proponents fighting because it accelerates the final stage. A comment after a presentation is I had my suspicions, but I didnt know enough to know. Extreme and illogical claims help the public move to the final stage. However, critical issues common for the public, like fear and lack of knowledge, must be recognized and addressed first. Global warming deception creators effectively exploited both, as people are learning. Now people are asking other questions and they raise other concerns. Who did it, how, and why?

The switch to climate change from global warming accompanied an increase in the claims of CO2 as a pollutant. PR agents through Gore and others convinced the world it was and President Obama reinforces it with the term ”carbon pollution”. This illustrates why attempts to help the public understand the science of climate change is unworkable. CO2 continues its hold because the public believes it is a pollutant. This happens because a majority proudly avoids science; can’t believe a small group could influence and fool the world; or that scientists would be subjective and political.

The person who understood these issues leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). From over 220,000 emails only 1000 were selected for a strategic release to undermine advancing the political agenda at the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen. That selection takes knowledge of the science, the participants and their activities, but more important what the public would understand. Focus was on malfeasance, including references to science with words like “hide” and “trick” used by the participants. Even now very few understand the science or statistics of the hockey stick. The emails provide a picture of vindictiveness, defensiveness, and malicious personal attacks that most could understand were problematic. Apparently the whistleblower knew that the COP makes decisions based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings. Most of the people at the CRU were also effectively in control of the IPCC so disclosure dammed both. Most COP participants are bureaucrats, politicians and NGOs so disclosures required that they were the same as those for the public.

The Time For Explanations

After challenging the prevailing wisdom of a simplistic ongoing global cooling trend in the 1970s I became more opposed to the simplistic trend prediction of global warming after the 1980s. From the start I made public presentations of what was wrong with the science to hundreds of groups and learned quickly what people knew and understood.

The pattern followed Gandhi’s pattern and public response changed as events altered how they were listening. It paralleled phone-in radio programs, which had 99 percent hostile calls through the 1990s. I learned that when I was on Greenpeace and others would line up people to call in. The solution was to bypass the first 20 calls. Nowadays there are rarely more than one or two hostile calls or emails about CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but most express concern about CO2 as a pollutant.

I waited a few years to publish my book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science because the public was not ready. Most are still not ready for a pure science expose. I believe they are ready now for a different approach as the pattern changes once again, but that also means they are asking different questions. Now they want to know who orchestrated the deception, how was it achieved, and most important what was the motive.

This is just one more step in the effort to counteract the anti – CO2 industry. It will be difficult because so many people are involved in perpetuating the “CO2 is a pollutant” myth.

Who knew and who just participated?

My template for the book was the basic objectives of the CRU whistleblower. This means there is not enough detail to satisfy any specialist group or special interest group, but enough to help the public understand what was done and why. It is a generalist book about the corruption and misuse of a generalist discipline – climatology for a political agenda. Very few people involved knew little about what was going on, and there were millions. A brief list of most participants direct or indirect who created the myth of CO2 and will oppose its debunking follows;

1. The Core Group of scientists mostly at or linked to the CRU at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The leaked emails explain everything you need to know about this group. They knew what they were doing as reference to the “Cause” identifies. They developed a classic case of Groupthink.

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

This group was closely linked to the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) Hadley Centre as they are today; witness the data sets produced by HadCRUT. The connection to America was through former CRU director Tom Wigley and CRU graduates like Benjamin Santer.

2. The group assembled by Maurice Strong to control the political and science agenda of global warming for the political agenda through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This included bureaucrats of every national weather office through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) who selected national scientists for the IPCC. Chief among these were UKMO, Environment Canada (EC), and NOAA. Most of them had no idea what was going on, but it was a nice secure bureaucratic job. Most knew the perils of stepping out of line. Three EC employees told me after a presentation in Winnipeg a few years ago that they agreed with me, but dare not say so. Direct participation in IPCC was as Richard Lindzen explained,

IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries, said Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the number

It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.

Once a bureaucracy is established or assigned a task it almost guarantees it is not going to solve the problem. Rather, it will evolve to perpetuate its own existence. In the case of climate, bureaucratic science experts confronted politicians who dared to question. Once the nations weather office adopted the IPCC position it became national policy. Then all other branches of government were required to do their planning based on this official climate position.

3. Maurice Strong resurrected the Non-government Organizations (NGO) for the 1992 Rio Conference. Of the 8,375 attendees at the recent COP 19 in Warsaw 3,031 were NGOs. Why wasn’t business and industry given such a prominent place?

4. Whenever business or industry was involved they only participated because they could benefit. They were open to government largesse and guarantees and worked to support politicians who practiced “crony capitalism”. One of the most dramatic self-serving meetings occurred in 1997 at the White House between President Clinton, VP Gore, and CEOs Ken Lay of Enron and Lord Browne of BP.

5. A change in research funding evolved almost coincident with emergence of global warming. Universities stretched for income realized they could reasonably add a fee for services, which was built into the funding application. The mantra for advancement changed from ‘publish or perish’ to ‘bring funding or perish’. Academics from all disciplines learned how to enter keywords to trigger a positive result in request for funding. In the 1990s I joked about seeking a connection between climate and AIDS to almost guarantee funding.

6. Tacit support through silence was a major strength exploited by those pushing the IPCC agenda. Many were bullied into silence partly because they watched those who dared to ask questions vilified and marginalized. The silence of this group facilitated the claims of consensus.

7. The mainstream media, more than any other group failed society and worse became a platform and promoter of the deception. The US Founding Fathers believed a free press was essential to exposing deception or attempts at control. Two publications were central to the failure, the New York Times and the Guardian. Complicity of their involvement and compromise of journalistic principles were exposed when reporter’s names appeared in the leaked CRU emails.

It was a child who said the emperor had no clothes – the adults recoiled in horror expecting retribution. Edmund Burke said The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It is very difficult to identify evil when you don’t understand the subject, it is a deliberate delusion and it is wrapped in the cloak of saving the planet and the children.

Failed predictions, cold weather and illogical responses were amplified by the “child” replacement, the Internet. Marshall McLuhan said, “The medium is the message. The Internet provided the ideal medium for democratizing information. Web pages like WUWT provided a forum for millions to question challenge and do what the media should have been doing. They significantly assisted in the exposure of CO2 climate science, but AGW proponents moved on to pollution.

Skeptics won the CO2 climate battle but are losing the CO2 is pollution war. Massively expensive, debilitating but completely unnecessary taxes, rules and restrictions will continue until the public understands that CO2 is not a pollutant. This will take a long time as too many people with power like President Obama or in powerful positions like bureaucrats in national weather agencies and thereby all areas of government are invested in maintaining the falsehood.

Appropriate Quotes detailing the challenge:


As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.


It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.

Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!


“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Yes, how many times do we have to say “CO2 is not a pollutant”?
I do not see those that do call it a pollutant curtailing their exhaling.

Ralph Knapp

Simple fact, without CO2, all life on earth would cease to exist.

Keep reporting the truth about the global warming disaster!


I think that the public in general hears “Carbon Dioxide”, and thinks “Carbon Monoxide”.

I wonder if anyone has complained to a fellow comversaionalist that “You are breathing
that noxious CO2 my way” . Of course, anyone that stupid likely is unaware of what people are exhaling. Better than simply saying CO2 is not a pollutant would be to say that “CO2 is necessary for all life forms. Reduction of atmospheric CO2 brings on the risk of massive reduction in crops and mass starvation.”


They are bound and determined to fulfill Malthus’ predictions. And one way is to deprive plant life of CO2.


CO2 is involved in the process of human respiration. It helps to saturate the blood with oxygen.



Geez. Ever wonder why War and Peace was so long?


So every time we exhale we are polluting. How long before the government mandated exhalation tax?

stas peterson

We need a new front to talk about here in North America. We need to emphasize bio-sequestration that takes place. The fact is that North America is the largest CO2 Sink in the World. We sequester all our CO2 emissions both natural and man made. And also sequester a goodly amount blowing in on the prevailing “westerlies”, the winds blowing from China and Eurasia.
We profit from that too. We convert that CO2 into increased biosphere which we then harvest for lumber, meat, fiber and grain to feed the World, as well as ourselves.
Mr. Idso needs more voices raised in this exercise which underlines that CO2 is not a pollutant.

There’s the general public, and there is conservatives. We as skeptics can help consolidate our strength among conservatives by joining the #1 conservative blog in the US, hotair, as a commenter.
Because Hotair is having open registration for new commenters tomorrow from 9am to 4pm eastern time. After that, registration is closed again. They haven’t allowed any new commenters since a single day in 2011. So tomorrow will be our only opportunity to join hotair in perhaps years. Please help!
It would be awesome to have more of us from wuwt on board hotair. Because with our position solidified among conservatives, we can then branch out to Independents, and hopefully, at some point, Democrats. So join hotair! Here is the hotair post on it:


Tim Ball:
It seems sensible to again link to the excellent paper on the corruption of climate science which Richard Lindzen published in 2008. A revision he published in 2012 is here.
It is a shocking read and it names responsible individuals.


“The poison of CO2.”
The carbonic anhydrases (or carbonate dehydratases) form a family of enzymes that catalyze the rapid interconversion of carbon dioxide and water to bicarbonate and protons (or vice versa), a reversible reaction that occurs rather slowly in the absence of a catalyst.[1] The active site of most carbonic anhydrases contains a zinc ion; they are therefore classified as metalloenzymes.
One of the functions of the enzyme in animals is to interconvert carbon dioxide and bicarbonate to maintain acid-base balance in blood and other tissues, and to help transport carbon dioxide out of tissues.


The most effective argument against CO2 “pollution” is to point out the well established fact that elevated CO2 in greenhouses is used to accelerate plant growth and that the extra CO2 of the industrial period is producing about 15% more food for the planet.
Most forms of life depend on eating plants to survive. And those that don’t eat those that do.
CO2 is LIFE ON EARTH , not a “pollutant”.

One thing we can all be watchful for is when someone is saying,
“we must cut back on carbon pollution”
when they are discussing CO2 emissions.
It would be helpful if we correct them every time we get the opportunity.


Co2 is a antipollution. It’s worse than we thought.

Gail Combs

Well Done!
Girls ❤ Carbon IMAGE
Trees ❤ CO2
It has been political from the start and that is where we need to fight.
Two weapons:
First plants were at starvation level: (Forget mentioning the difference in CO2 levels during glaciation and interglacials. If they ask mention the new 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? that says without high levels of CO2 we are due to head back into the deep freeze…NOW – keep it simple)
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
That title has three trigger words, Carbon, Starvation and Trees.

Then mention the increase in Carbon has ALREADY spurred plant growth especially in deserts. (Deserts are another trigger word)
Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as Carbon Levels Rise: Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments
Finally food on the table.
From CO2Science: Studies on the economics of crops has all been negative but they are based on models. Actual field studies are positive. (They LIED)

Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production
….Several analyses have been conducted to estimate potential monetary damages of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Few, however, have attempted to investigate its monetary benefits. Chief among such positive externalities is the economic value added to global crop production by several growth-enhancing properties of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. As literally thousands of laboratory and field studies have demonstrated, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been conclusively shown to stimulate plant productivity and growth, as well as to foster certain water-conserving and stress-alleviating benefits…..
The present study addresses this deficiency by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.
the observationally-deduced benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on crop production should be given premier weighting over the speculative negative externalities that are projected to occur as a result of computer model computations of CO2-induced global warming. [that is not happenning]


Co2 is a pollutant. It’s worse than we thought!

Abstract – 31 May, 2013
CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments
[1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. …….Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.…..
Abstract – May 2013
A Global Assessment of Long-Term Greening and Browning Trends in Pasture Lands Using the GIMMS LAI3g Dataset
Our results suggest that degradation of pasture lands is not a globally widespread phenomenon and, consistent with much of the terrestrial biosphere, there have been widespread increases in pasture productivity over the last 30 years.
Abstract – 10 April 2013
Analysis of trends in fused AVHRR and MODIS NDVI data for 1982–2006: Indication for a CO2 fertilization effect in global vegetation
…..The effect of climate variations and CO2 fertilization on the land CO2 sink, as manifested in the RVI, is explored with the Carnegie Ames Stanford Assimilation (CASA) model. Climate (temperature and precipitation) and CO2 fertilization each explain approximately 40% of the observed global trend in NDVI for 1982–2006……
Abstract – May 2013
The causes, effects and challenges of Sahelian droughts: a critical review
…….However, this study hypothesizes that the increase in CO2 might be responsible for the increase in greening and rainfall observed. This can be explained by an increased aerial fertilization effect of CO2 that triggers plant productivity and water management efficiency through reduced transpiration. Also, the increase greening can be attributed to rural–urban migration which reduces the pressure of the population on the land…….
doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0473-z
Abstract – 2013
P. B. Holden et. al.
A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation
Using output from a 671-member ensemble of transient GENIE simulations, we build an emulator of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration change since the preindustrial period. We use this emulator to sample the 28-dimensional input parameter space. A Bayesian calibration of the emulator output suggests that the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%. It is important to note that we do not represent all of the possible contributing mechanisms to the terrestrial sink. The missing processes are subsumed into our calibration of CO2 fertilisation, which therefore represents the combined effect of CO2 fertilisation and additional missing processes.


CO (carbon monoxide) occurs naturally in the body (at low levels) and regulates cell growth. Cancer researchers are using CO to control tumor growth and reduce the effects of chemo.


Carbon pollution is real. We must act now!

Real Clear Science – November 13, 2012
Why Is Life Carbon-Based?


Co2 is a toxic gas. We must act now!

BBC (Kid’s science)
Plants and photosynthesis
Before we look at food chains
we will go over the way green plants capture energy from the Sun to make food. This is the start of all the food chains we will look at.
Plants and photosynthesis
Animals eat food to get their energy. But green plants don’t. Instead they make their own food, glucose, in a process called photosynthesis. We say that plants can photosynthesise.
These are the things that plants need for photosynthesis:
carbon dioxide

Jeff L

In doing a quick web search, I was surprised to see how many CAGWers have made posts around the web claiming increased CO2 isn’t good for plants. Very surprising !! When you see the details, their arguments quickly fall apart / are easily dissected, however, it shows that the CAGWers / CIPs (Carbon Is Pollution) aren’t going down without a fight, including the premise that CO2 is a pollutant. Still a long battle ahead for the truth to prevail ….

Gail Combs

Greg says: @ February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm
The most effective argument against CO2 “pollution” is to point out the well established fact that elevated CO2 in greenhouses is used to accelerate plant growth and that the extra CO2 of the industrial period is producing about 15% more food for the planet….
I agree as you will see if my other comment ever gets out of moderation but as the people at CO2Science said:
“…Several analyses have been conducted to estimate potential monetary damages of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Few, however, have attempted to investigate its monetary benefits….
The incorporation of these findings [their paper based on field studies] into future SCC studies will help to ensure a more realistic assessment of the total net economic impact of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to both negative and positive externalities. Furthermore, the observationally-deduced benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on crop production should be given premier weighting over the speculative negative externalities that are projected to occur as a result of computer model computations of CO2-induced global warming. Until this is done, little if any weight should be placed on current SCC calculations.”
(link is in other comment)
In other words they tried to spike our guns by saying Yes But the rise in temperature due to CO2 wipes out any gains… Only there hasn’t been a rise in temperature are real droughts.


Take better care of the production of O2, for example, by growing algae.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

This is quite easy in my opinion. All known life on earth is based on three atoms: oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. Human body contains 18% of carbon.
Carbon dioxide passes also a more detailed analysis with flying colors: UNECE GHS criteria can be used for assessing hazards of any chemicals. The assessment results into hazard pictograms, which are glued on the back of chemical transporting trucks etc. Even 100% carbon dioxide assessment doesn’t merit any of these pictograms in normal temperature and pressure.
EU has enacted UNECE GHS and has considered carbon dioxide harmless. It’s even added on a very short list of chemicals, which have been exempted from the widest red tape of REACH regulation (annex IV).
Naturally, this doesn’t prevent Obama to claim carbon/carbon dioxide to be pollutant. But by riding this horse, he risks underestimating his electorate and, thus, undermining his own credibility.


We aren’t fighting the wrong fight.
There is more than one fight, and we need to engage on all of them.


Co2 is a dangerous trace gas whose effect is logarithmic not linear.

John F. Hultquist

Maybe the battle is shifting but it is still the same “war.” There have been several groups of people that came together to use “global warming” as a grandstand to either persuade others to follow their lead, or failing that, to force their agenda via whatever means they could muster. It is possible to believe that GHGs contribute to atmospheric warming without also thinking of CO2 as a pollutant. Those that want to redistribute wealth, such as the UN, have lost the “global warming” battle, so they have just moved on. “Sustainability” might work, so they try that. “Pollution” might work, so try that. The groups come together, disagree, reform and move on.
In the USA, the president does have various executive powers. He and his advisers currently believe they have more ability pushing the “pollution” theme than some of the other (more democratic) levers. There is not much to be done about this. Work to explain to the voters that they voted unwisely. Good idea. Are they paying attention to this sort of thing? Not much. Which do you think will be more on voter’s minds, (a) CO2 is not a pollutant, or (b) we can make history by electing the USA’s first woman president?

Alan Robertson

John F. Hultquist says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Which do you think will be more on voter’s minds, (a) CO2 is not a pollutant, or (b) we can make history by electing the USA’s first woman president?
There I was, having such a nice day…


dihydrogen monoxide is a pollutant!!!

Walter Allensworth

Anytime I hear the trendy words “carbon pollution” I immediately categorize the speaker as:
1) Ignoramus
2) Charlatan
An I don’t think, for one minute, that the current President of the United States is ignorant.
So, sadly, that leaves but one choice…

Gail Combs

Thank you Dr. Ball
This is the part that is hard for scientists and engineers to understand. It is political
(Mods I changed e-mail addy to see if WordPress would quit plying football with my comments. So far it is wordPress 20, Combs 3)

M. Nichopolis

Two other sage quotes:
All individual observations are biased by our individual expectations. – Some wise man
We can only make decisions designed to please ourselves in one way or another. – Some other wise man

When the President and his cronies say “carbon pollution”, it is a lie.
When the President and his cronies refer to CO2 as a pollutant, it is a lie.
When the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, it is a lie.
At any rate this whole climate change thing is based on a lie, that’s what I hate about it.
Somehow there must be a way to get the word out to the general public.

Gail Combs says at 1:19 pm: link is in other comment
Remember that I think we get two free links in each comment before it goes into moderation, if that is your concern. Also, Gail, this gives me an opportunity to press you in particular to join Hotair (the #1 conservative blog in the US) tomorrow because you would be a great asset on the skeptic “team” when hotair posts on climate.
It’s important to join hotair because conservatives in America make up the juggernaut leading world opinion against the warmist lunancy. Conservatives elsewhere haven’t quite got up to speed like in the US, but they are following in our lead. WE are the bellwether. But there are still some laggard conservatives like Christie that are in league with the leftists on climate. That’s why it’s important that we fully consolidate our strength among conservatives in the US by more of us from wuwt joining hotair.
AND TOMORROW IS THE ONLY DAY WE HAVE to join hotair. As I said, not since a day in 2011 have they opened up registration to new commenters, and tomorrow it happens again for just a few hours, get details:

Alan Robertson

Arthur says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:35 pm
dihydrogen monoxide is a pollutant!!!
No! Because even when the message was about Global Warming, instead of Carbon Pollution, none of the “concern ninnies” knew what you were talking about. They’re still clueless.

Peter Bühler

The battle is lost anyhow.
How to believe in some kind of scientific truth?
There is no such a thing in the real world. It just doesn’t exist.
Keep your eyes on the administrations, the local, national and international bureaucrats, there industrial partners, the corruption … they have won the game/the war by lengths already.
Anything new under the pale moon light of enlightenment?

glen martin

Enough worrying about carbon pollution, the real priority should be hydrogen pollution.
Just look at this scary image of hydrogen pollution.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but long-lasting psychological stress is damaging to human health. As a precautionary measure doom prognosticating AGW proponents should be X-rated and GHS08 classified, category 1, with signal word DANGER.


I believe, that you, like many scientists, have been incredibly naive. Science isn’t the issue here; it’s simply a matter of making people believe what you want them to believe. Government has experience with this, using the manipulation of the masses brought to a fine art by Edward L. Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays got Americans to eat bacon, join a war they had no interest in in europe, got women to smoke cigarettes, despite a societal taboo against it, (by conflating the right to vote and the pervasive influence of fashionable upper class young people that were paid to smoke cigarettes and be photographed by newspapermen smoking at a prearranged moment at a massively attended suffragette demonstration. The next day,adventurous young women were smoking and the taboo was lost in a flood of liberation and talk of cigarettes as ‘torches of freedom’. Bernays also engineered the fluoride program
as a brilliant solution to the dumping of fluoride wastes and offering a way for Monsanto and Alcoa and DuPont, among the guiltiest of all corporations for widespread poisoning of the environment and their workers and the public at large.Fluoride, one of the most dangerous substances on the planet, was essential for mining aluminum, and uranium and plutonium.They used endless amounts of money to create propaganda and appeals to authority along with cover-ups, destruction of evidence and silencing of witnesses, to sidestep the flood of fluoride litigation that would make the lead controversy look like a Sunday school picnic. Scientists and MD’s have always gone along with these heinous plans, why you sound surprised, beats me. I have been on this site for 6 years and my observations about the political naivete of science people are confirmed every day. It will take more than well meaning hand wringing to change anything in this country. I suggest the brilliant video series ‘Century of the Self’,available freely on the internet and you will learn a lot.


Your post at February 5, 2014 at 2:12 pm provides a long list of excellent Red Herrings.
However, I write to offer some advice.
When attempting to troll it is most effective to dangle at most three Red Herrings. This is most likely to start a serious side-track of the thread. Dangling more than three Red Herrings can lead to people grabbing more than one, and the deflections of the thread soon disappear because they compete with each other.

Gail Combs

Eric Simpson says: @ February 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Gail Combs says at 1:19 pm: link is in other comment
Remember that I think we get two free links in each comment…
Even my comment without any links went to moderation.
And yes I will try to remember to join tomorrow.


These people who think co2 is a pollutant ought to be forced to farm in a bubble purged of the stuff. Lets see how long they last. Co2 literally puts food on your plate.
Most members of the public cannot conceive how little free co2 we have. I tell them to hold one arm outstretched and hold the other out to the elbow. That is 1.5 metres.
Then tell them to note the thickness of their thumbnail. 0.6mm – 0.04% of 1.5metres.


It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.
It might take some convincing, even hard earned lessons, but I think impossible goes a step too far.
I’ve done it many, many times. Maybe even today.
Sometimes you don’t realize it till later.
Once you’ve been given time to think about it (a propagandist’s nightmare ), doubts may arise.
I take exception to: Epictetus.


Jimbo says CO2 is a dangerous trace gas. Maybe his name should be Dumbo, because he didn’t learn anything in 7th grade science! CO2 is not dangerous at all, it’s an essential trace gas!! No life without CO2! More CO2 = more life. Are you really that ignorant or are you just lying for the sake of it? Our nuclear subs have nearly 10k ppm of atmospheric CO2 aboard. If it was dangerous maybe the submariners would have shown damage after all these years.


It is a wonder that, since our own human windpipes and car tailpipes exhaust water vapor into the atmosphere, water vapor has not been id’d as a ‘major pollutant’ as its ‘greenhouse’ capabilities far far exceed those of harmless old CO2. Or maybe I shouldn’t give them the idea?

Bob Weber

Eric Simpson says @ February 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm
“But there are still some laggard conservatives like Christie that are in league with the leftists on climate.”
Don’t leave out the flipflopper Mitt Romney, who is now “believes in” climate change after being against it … of course that could change tomorrow. Which way is the wind blowing?