Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Don't call C02 pollution

Re: "B.C. walks a tightrope; LNG at odds with plans for environment," Nov. 12.

It is now officially confirmed that there has been zero net global warming since 1997, so it is rather peculiar for anyone to claim that greenhouse gas emissions are of any concern. The article uses the term "meeting its ambitious 2007 greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets," but CO2 is not in any way toxic at the current 393.82 ppmv level (2012) because it is perfectly safe, even at a 5,000 ppmv level of exposure.

So why is this called pollution when humans actually breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 40,000 ppmv?

For that matter, the IPCC defines a "greenhouse gas" as an atmospheric gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect, but since the greenhouse effect decreased from 35.56 C in 1980 to 35.42 C today, the 70.9 per cent increase in CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect; so according to the IPCC definition, CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas! The ludicrous claims of GHG emissions causing catastrophic global warming emanate from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, but the record shows that global warming had already ended by December 1997, when world leaders met at the IPCC climate summit in Kyoto, Japan, and signed on to this idiotic accord.

With the Earth now cooling for over a decade in spite of increasing CO2 emissions, the media needs to exit the fantasy world of environmentalists' silly global warming dogma and instead support measures like this LNG plant to address the "real world" threat posed by global cooling.

Norm Kalmanovitch

Here more
nonsense by Norm!