One thing I don't get about climate-change deniers.

[Karthak]

It's that they say that there is no way humanity's actions could influence the climate of the world. Really? All right, the world itself is huge, but the atmosphere is a seriously tiny layer on top of it, which is hideously vulnerable.
If you like Terry Pratchett, I recommend you buy his book The science of Discworld. There's an appalling amount of examples in it of how easy it is for life on this planet to get truly fucked up by the smallest of things (poor Rincewind). Humanity already has the ability to change the world's entire surface into a smoking heap of charcoal (nukes), so why would it be impossible for our actions to impact the climate?

[Jetsetlemming]

God job making a thread about your own shortcomings I guess

[stsparky]

At least it isn't offensive.

Some idiots who are short sighted view warming as a good thing. Missing the point that warming always leads to Ice Ages.

Others don't grok the science. We can't wait for them to catch up.

[Mastiker]

You're using science fiction to prove your point? That's worse than anecdotal evidence.

The way I see it is this; since the late 1800's, we've been going through phases of "oh lordy, we're all going to melt/freeze" and nothing's happened yet. We have better science now, of course, but eh. I don't think we know enough to say for certain whether or not climate change is due to human involvement, or whether this is just the natural state of the world.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Others don't grok the science. We can't wait for them to catch up.
It really comes down to this. People either just don't understand the science, or don't want to understand the science and ignore it; and would rather listen to the "criticisms" of a scientist who hasn't had his "findings" published in a peer reviewed journal.

Why they want to ignore it is going to vary.

[Samurai_Pooh]

What I personally do not understand is why we shouldn't try to reduce our pollution REGARDLESS of climate change.

We can all agree that pollution is bad shit, right?

[Kyletherealninja]

I'm all for taking care of the environment. The problem with "climate change" is that it's a political agenda pushed by power-hungry globalists. Contrary to the delusional beliefs of many people, scientists are just as susceptible to greed and personal agendas as anyone else. They're really no better than politicians (and in the case of the climate change crowd, practically in bed with them.)

I'm amazed that someone actually made a thread about "climate change deniers" whenever very recently it was discovered from emails that the CRU has been manipulating data, the "climategate" scandal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

And now the East Anglia CRU has basically admitted to trashing massive amounts of data, probably all the information they found inconvenient:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

I'd say the global warming farce is about done for. What will be interesting is to see how the pissed-off masses react to theirs governments that stick their heads in the sand and pass inane legislation anyway. My guess is that it will get messy.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'd say the global warming farce is about done for. What will be interesting is to see how the pissed-off masses react to theirs governments that stick their heads in the sand and pass inane legislation anyway. My guess is that it will get messy.
Haha, no it really isn't done for (nor is it a farce). There's still a multitude amount of data supporting climate change and if you're really in doubt you should email some academic journals about getting your doubts published. The only people I see making a huge deal out of this are right wingers and libertarians.

[Zero]

Haha, no it really isn't done for (nor is it a farce). There's still a multitude amount of data supporting climate change and if you're really in doubt you should email some academic journals about getting your doubts published. The only people I see making a huge deal out of this are right wingers and libertarians.

Links to said data please?

k thx

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Links to said data please?

k thx

So you think all the research performed and documented into scientific literature can be summed up in one link, I'm impressed. Here's a link to page from NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/) to get you started with the basic evidence. Even though it is Wikipedia, here's the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) on the current scientific opinion of climate change. The whole thing is largely a nonissue and the things revealed in these emails have been greatly exaggerated. The people who are believing all this can come back to me when the foundations of scientific opinion on climate change have actually been affected by all this.

[stsparky]

Look up the "Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)" and I hope we all understand that politics is never good science.
1. The leaked e-mails were cherry-picked by a group with a counter agenda.
A. Shocking they diagree - isn't it.
2. They don't disprove climate change.
3. What they show is that alarmist titles in scholarly papers equals more funds.
Knowledge that the world temperature rising by 9° globally would trigger an ice age was known in the 1960s.

Of the WhiteChapel forum discussion on the topic (http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7293&page=1) - I like this response:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars I believe this ArsTech article puts the emails and what's occurring in them into perspective. However... it's already been touted about as a tale of climate fraud and conspiracy. In the household I'm part of, I've already been an unwilling participant in tales of how the scientists are out to get us, and it's not the first time I've heard such paranoid keening over the dinner table. Science is scary to a lot of people, and seems to be growing comprehensibly complex and pervasive, with 'scientists' not being viewed as human beings, but as more archetypal figures, kept on pedestals and tossed labels according to current whim and fad. Its easier than thinking of them as people, or of science as a process that is constantly changing.

I believe the 'threat' of green living comes from a very basic human fear. The fear of the different, and the unknown; and a willingness to lash out at what we don't understand and fear. It's easier to panic and lash out then to put that fear on a leash and try to understand something. In different cultures, the threat level is different; as is the social pressure for living greenly.

Anyhow. What I believe we're viewing is a human fear reaction to something different and 'scary'; a scientific community with its guts and offal spread out for the public eye, far from the mythic white-labcoat wearing, pristine and jargon-speaking creature.

[Karthak]

You're using science fiction to prove your point? That's worse than anecdotal evidence.

I took it as an example because the book follows our worlds history, as seen from the outside by the wizards of unseen university. Half the book is a discworld story, and the other half is scientific discussion.

[Mastiker]

I took it as an example because the book follows our worlds history, as seen from the outside by the wizards of unseen university. Half the book is a discworld story, and the other half is scientific discussion.

Speaker for the Dead is a book in which humans interact with a new, less advanced civilization. Even though half the book is discussion about the morals of anthropology (oh and they mention relativity in space travel, as well as major theological issues!) I would never use the book itself as an example in a serious discussion about science as it is a work of fiction.

[Zero]

I can't say man made climate change doesn't exist. However, from all the study I have done I also can't agree with the IPCC opinion of 90+% that humans are causing the warming. For me, there isn't enough evidence to justify crippling regulations.

I try to live green via conservation of energy and materials. Again though, if you look at most "green" options you can see most are not much greener than what they are supposed to replace. I'm for reduced pollution, but reduced CO2 would be last on my priorities.

I would also venture a guess that you guys who are confident in climate change and wish to pass laws to regulate it don't work in industry.

The responses to the CRU case are very interesting though. It makes me wonder if any evidence could ever disprove climate change to the hardcore believers.

Oh yea, the sky is falling.

[Plekto]

The problem here is that people and the media think in black and white. That is, they think that it's entirely man's fault or it isn't. The actual truth is that it's a complex set of feedback cycles that mankind is making worse. We would have gone into an ice age in 200-300 years anyways. We're just accelerating it to the point where the cycle is triggered in 50-60 years from now.

Of course, before that happens, the ice caps will all melt, causing massive flooding. (which reduced the oceans' salinity, thereby causing the ocean currents(gulf stream/etc) to stop... yada yada...

[SlickWilly440]

We can't afford to go green because it hurts the economy. If everyone decided to spend less and conserve, people would lose their jobs, especially in the manufacturing. So basically using more than what we have to and being wasteful is actually good for the monetary economic world we live in. The media's advice on going green is a joke because in this world we live in we still need to drive our cars, have electricity, etc and those activities play more a role in harming the environment then anything else.

The real question's what do we really need in our daily lives to survive? Is it really necessary to manufacture and produce things that don't contribute to the peoples survival, other than making money? If the resources that are needed for survival exist, then is there a logical reason for me to work a job that doesn't contribute to helping the people's survival other than to get "money" to purchase those resources?

The only way to make an impact on the condition of the environment is for the world to change its' monetary economic ways and realize that intelligent use of natural resources is key to survival with the absence of the monetary system. For starters, determine what is needed/not needed, and shut down all production of those unnecessary needs, which will reduce the pollution from all the manufacturing and distribution of those goods.

On top of that, businesses are taking advantage of this "Go Green" phenomenon to make money by saying their products are green, in order to make a buck. That's pretty lame.

......I could go on all day......

Unfortunately this change is not going to occur because we are so indoctrinated into this monetaryalisitc world that most of us would end up dead for quitting our jobs that contribute to the environmental harm, because we do not have the money to purchase the necessities for survival. So we are just forced to keep on, day after day, going to our jobs/schools to ensure our individual survival, unknowing that in the long run it's not going to matter.

Well nothing really matters, so this climate change that will eventually lead to the end of all living things on the earth is exactly what we need to ride us of solving this problem and finally bring totally peace to us all.

So I take back what I was saying....we should be more wasteful in order to pollute the environment more and accelerate climate changed.

We really don't need to save the earth because even if an ice age occurs or the crust boils, the earth will be fine. The earth has been through much worse....it's people and all living life that are screwed.

[Zero]

SlickWilly440,

Good solution. Everyone die.
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/save-planet-kill-yourself.jpg

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm all for taking care of the environment. The problem with "climate change" is that it's a political agenda pushed by power-hungry globalists. Contrary to the delusional beliefs of many people, scientists are just as susceptible to greed and personal agendas as anyone else. They're really no better than politicians (and in the case of the climate change crowd, practically in bed with them.)

I'm amazed that someone actually made a thread about "climate change deniers" whenever very recently it was discovered from emails that the CRU has been manipulating data, the "climategate" scandal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

And now the East Anglia CRU has basically admitted to trashing massive amounts of data, probably all the information they found inconvenient:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

I'd say the global warming farce is about done for. What will be interesting is to see how the pissed-off masses react to theirs governments that stick their heads in the sand and pass inane legislation anyway. My guess is that it will get messy.
The absolute most damning stuff in the stolen CRU emails are references to avoiding FOI requests for raw data and cleanup of other routine data. What people have tried to spin as the worst, the "Nature's Trick" stuff, was a complete misunderstanding of the lingo being used by the scientists talking amongst themselves. It's a complete non-issue and anyone thinking that this disproves global warming as a whole is getting a woefully incomplete picture.
Also the released emails total only 62mb, and are supposedly supposed to cover 10 years worth of data from a college's entire email server? There's a whole bunch of shit censored out of there by the activists who supposedly want information to be free and public. If you buy what they're claiming you're pretty goddamned dense.

[Matt W]

The way I see it is this; since the late 1800's, we've been going through phases of "oh lordy, we're all going to melt/freeze" and nothing's happened yet. We have better science now, of course, but eh. I don't think we know enough to say for certain whether or not climate change is due to human involvement, or whether this is just the natural state of the world.

I think if you did some more research, you'd realize this isn't really true. There is overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus for anthropogenic climate change. There is still legitimate debate on how fast climate changes will occur, and what exactly those changes will be, but the basic facts are beyond debate at this point.

We can't afford to go green because it hurts the economy. If everyone decided to spend less and conserve, people would lose their jobs, especially in the manufacturing. So basically using more than what we have to and being wasteful is actually good for the monetary economic world we live in. The media's advice on going green is a joke because in this world we live in we still need to drive our cars, have electricity, etc and those activities play more a role in harming the environment then anything else.

The cost of not acting far outweighs the cost of acting.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf
The CBO says the House cap and trade bill would cost families around $160 more a year, which is a little less than 44 cents a day, not exactly a lot, especially when money created by the bill would give subsidies to low income families to pay for the increase.
The CBO says "these measures of potential costs imposed by the policy DO NOT INCLUDE any benefits of averting climate change." The CBO doc is littered with phrases like "modest effect" "small effect" on the economy, albeit negative, with the GDP growing 2 and a half times it's current size by 2050 with this legislation as the law of the land, pretty good I'd say. The bottom 20% of the economy will receive an average net gain in purchasing power of about $125 by 2020, $355 by 2050.

Furthermore, it says "The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments." This is a major goal of the legislation, and this is where there is potential for huge savings, which the CBO doesn't even look into. Other analysis, albeit possiblly not as objective and conservative as the CBO, by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy finds "ACEEE estimates that approximately 250,000 jobs will be created by the energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 2454 by 2020, with a total of 650,000 jobs generated by 2030." Also, this analysis concludes that the energy efficiency provisions of the bill could save $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030.

Compare this to the Bush era: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/bushs_broken_energy_system.html

"Former President George W. Bush’s energy policies, which today’s conservatives would continue, plowed billions of dollars of subsidies into dirty energy while neglecting clean energy reform. What effect did this have on American families? Spiraling gasoline and electricity prices, a nation more dependent on oil and coal, and more pollution than ever before.

Bush oversaw a lackluster economic expansion even before the Bush recession of December 2007. Over this period, the typical annual American household expenditure on electricity rose more than $170, and the typical annual American expenditure on gasoline rose more than $960 (in 2007 dollars). Note that the gasoline price increases listed here do not include the unprecedented $147 per barrel of oil and $4.11 gasoline prices that occurred in the summer of 2008."

You are right that in the short term there are some extra costs, and possibly slightly less economic growth, but in the long term there is a huge benefit.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-03-economist-climate_N.htm
A recent survey of economists who have published climate related studies in the past 15 years found:
91.6% wanted a tax or “cap and trade” system, where polluters buy and sell emission permits, instead of regulation, to cut greenhouse gases.

•84% agreed the effects of global warming “create significant risks” to the economy, particularly to agriculture, fishing, insurance and health.

•Of the 94.3% who favor the U.S. joining climate agreements to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, 57% say greenhouse-gas cuts should come “regardless of the actions of other countries.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5A91U420091110
According to the International Energy Agency "The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming"!!!

Here is a recent John Kerry Senate clip on the subject, I totally agree with him.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/10/kenneth-green-american-enterprise-institute-aei/#more-13965

[Plekto]

The problem is that nothing that we actually will do at this point will solve the warming, no matter if it is natural, man-made, or a combination of both. Not with China, Russia, and India polluting pretty much as they wish. Nothing we will do in the U.S. will make an impact on that overwhelming amount of pollution, either.

We would need to replace a coal powered plant at the rate of one a *day* for the next two decades to stop it. And that's just silly. (research paper I ran across this week stated this absurd figure)

There is only one way to stop it and it is technically feasible.

http://www.star-tech-inc.com/papers/earth_rings/earth_rings.pdf
Modern technology can lower the cost to 1/4 of the best case scenario, but it would still take about 20 years and 50 trillion dollars or so. This also would solve the issue to the sun getting warmer as it ages.

[Zero]

Again, I have to guess that you pro-legislation posters do not work in the manufacturing base. If the cap and trade bill passes our manufacturing sector of the economy will be gone. Everything will goto Asia. The CBO determining the numbers of jobs created in 10 years is border-line insane. Furthermore, jobs do not equal productivity, especially government jobs. I can't imagine the burden on the economy some how being less than what subsidies can create. Subsidies are not 100% pay off, more often not they are almost completely lost. Just look at corn ethanol.

I suppose if everyone is unemployed we won't need cars or electricity though...

[stsparky]

We need new economies. And new tech. I'm a big fan of an Hydrogen economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy). We're seeing ammonia crackers planned as batteries in China. Nuclear power also is a good idea.

If we wanted to we could stop the poles from melting too fast. Ditto for glaciers.

[Matt W]

Again, I have to guess that you pro-legislation posters do not work in the manufacturing base. If the cap and trade bill passes our manufacturing sector of the economy will be gone. Everything will goto Asia. The CBO determining the numbers of jobs created in 10 years is border-line insane. Furthermore, jobs do not equal productivity, especially government jobs. I can't imagine the burden on the economy some how being less than what subsidies can create. Subsidies are not 100% pay off, more often not they are almost completely lost. Just look at corn ethanol.

I suppose if everyone is unemployed we won't need cars or electricity though...


Manufacturing is already rapidly moving out of this country to Asia and elsewhere without cap and trade, keeping the status quo will only insure this trend continues. It is clear that energy technology is the next great global industry, out of sheer necessity. China, Japan, Korea, Europe, etc.. are all making major efforts to develop better energy technologies, the US can either pass cap and trade and be competitive, or be left in the dust. The in-depth, non-partisan analysis of the House bill comes to a very different conclusion than you are coming to.

[Zero]

Manufacturing is already rapidly moving out of this country to Asia and elsewhere without cap and trade, keeping the status quo will only insure this trend continues. It is clear that energy technology is the next great global industry, out of sheer necessity. China, Japan, Korea, Europe, etc.. are all making major efforts to develop better energy technologies, the US can either pass cap and trade and be competitive, or be left in the dust. The in-depth, non-partisan analysis of the House bill comes to a very different conclusion than you are coming to.

It's hard to be competitive in America as it is. Add more red tape to make us more competitive?

I work in different manufacturing plants all over the country, and sometimes out of the country. Steel mills, food plants, foundries, bio diesel plants, sand and cement plants. Cap and trade could never create enough replacement markets to outweigh the damage to existing markets.

Working over in India, Turkey, China, etc, It's easy for me to see how much easier it is to manufacture products in these countries compared to the US.

Anyways, this is mostly moot as the legislation will most likely be passed and we will get to dabble in this risky experiment.

edit: Here is an article I just read and enjoyed. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/dead-ringer

[Plekto]

I find the parallels between the U.S. in 2009 and the U.K. in 1949 to be interesting. The same collapse of their overseas influence and empire. The same stagnant economy. The same idiotic attempts to "fix" it when the real problem is that the jobs all moved overseas...

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I find the parallels between the U.S. in 2009 and the U.K. in 1949 to be interesting. The same collapse of their overseas influence and empire. The same stagnant economy. The same idiotic attempts to "fix" it when the real problem is that the jobs all moved overseas...

Does this mean we're going to get our own NHS? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-haw.gif

[stsparky]

Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8389706.stm)

One of the main reasons why governments decided two years ago to draw up a new global agreement on climate change was a major report published just before that year's UN climate summit in Bali. ...

[Matt W]

It's hard to be competitive in America as it is. Add more red tape to make us more competitive?

I work in different manufacturing plants all over the country, and sometimes out of the country. Steel mills, food plants, foundries, bio diesel plants, sand and cement plants. Cap and trade could never create enough replacement markets to outweigh the damage to existing markets.

Working over in India, Turkey, China, etc, It's easy for me to see how much easier it is to manufacture products in these countries compared to the US.

Anyways, this is mostly moot as the legislation will most likely be passed and we will get to dabble in this risky experiment.

edit: Here is an article I just read and enjoyed. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/dead-ringer

To reiterate, the serious analysis doesn't support your opinion. Will there be some negative effects to some manufacturers, especially in the short term? Probably. For the economy as a whole, cap and trade is essential. I have purposely been citing conservative estimates that don't include all the harm that will come to the economy from the ill effects of climate change. I live in California, where the fire season is basically all year long now (my house had to be evacuated twice last year, and we don't even live in the mountains or foothills), droughts are more and more frequent, and already existing water shortages are becoming more and more serious. This is just where I happen to live, climate change is starting to wreak havoc around the world already. We will be dealing with serious food and water shortages in some places, with large numbers of people displaced as a result, and as a result of rising sea levels, and all of the instability that comes with this. Again, this is mainstream scientific and governmental opinion.

So-called climate gate is only considered a big deal by those already deniers and those ideologically opposed to any government involvement in the economy, everyone else realizes it is mere obfuscation, there was nothing close to game changing in there. The American Spectator article you linked (I was greeted by a smiling Michelle Malkin when the page opened, urging me to subscribe, which should tell anyone right away how trustworthy it is) about the hockey stick graph and tree ring data, is easily debunked by this article, which also includes info on climate science.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/

[Zero]

To reiterate, the serious analysis doesn't support your opinion. Will there be some negative effects to some manufacturers, especially in the short term? Probably. For the economy as a whole, cap and trade is essential. I have purposely been citing conservative estimates that don't include all the harm that will come to the economy from the ill effects of climate change. I live in California, where the fire season is basically all year long now (my house had to be evacuated twice last year, and we don't even live in the mountains or foothills), droughts are more and more frequent, and already existing water shortages are becoming more and more serious. This is just where I happen to live, climate change is starting to wreak havoc around the world already. We will be dealing with serious food and water shortages in some places, with large numbers of people displaced as a result, and as a result of rising sea levels, and all of the instability that comes with this. Again, this is mainstream scientific and governmental opinion.

So-called climate gate is only considered a big deal by those already deniers and those ideologically opposed to any government involvement in the economy, everyone else realizes it is mere obfuscation, there was nothing close to game changing in there. The American Spectator article you linked (I was greeted by a smiling Michelle Malkin when the page opened, urging me to subscribe, which should tell anyone right away how trustworthy it is) about the hockey stick graph and tree ring data, is easily debunked by this article, which also includes info on climate science.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/

Well, I enjoy the debate. What I see through my career says cap and trade is bad. What you see in your home state of California says cap and trade is needed. Out of curiosity, what makes you sure man made warming is causing Cali's climate? I can tell you in Minnesota where I live, and have lived my whole life, there has not been a noticeable change to me.

[Matt W]

I can't be sure man made warming is causing any specific drought or fire in California, but what is happening in California is what is predicted to happen more often as a result of climate change. If it was only happening in Cali, that would be one thing, but all over the world similar things are happening, so taken all together I think it is reasonable to be concerned, and that the responsible course of action is to act on this overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence.

[Roxie]

There's a woman I know who has earned her doctorate in biology or chemistry (can't remember). It's snowing where she is and her facebook status is all "WHAT GLOBAL WARMING!?"

smh

[haterllnation]

I'm sure she said that with absolute seriousness.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Yeah she's probably being facetious but then again, you can view her profile and see all the stuff she posts on it, we can't. Also find out what her specialty was.

[Roxie]

I would've agreed, except that she keeps repeating it. She took pictures of the snow & titled it "What Global Warming?"

Also, this would fit in the vein of her other political beliefs.
Of course, I could just be so worn over that joke

[Zero]

I can't be sure man made warming is causing any specific drought or fire in California, but what is happening in California is what is predicted to happen more often as a result of climate change. If it was only happening in Cali, that would be one thing, but all over the world similar things are happening, so taken all together I think it is reasonable to be concerned, and that the responsible course of action is to act on this overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence.

Say cap and trade passes, and there is no affect to the so called climate change after 10 or 20 years. Would you then support it being repealed? I'm just curious because I know once this legislation passes it's never going to be repealed regardless of results.

[Matt W]

You mean if it can't be PROVEN that the US cap and trade system is slowing climate change in 10 or 20 years? No, I wouldn't support it being repealed. If the science radically changes and shows no relationship between CO2 and climate change, that would be one thing. Climate change is a very long term problem, and cap and trade would be in it's early stage under your time frame, the larger cuts come later. Regardless of whether we start cap and trade now, there will be warming for decades simply because of the CO2 already burned. This effort is to mitigate the effects of CC, and hopefully avoid a disastrous tipping point.

Plus, there are many other benefits from cap and trade beyond just climate change (health, environmental.) CO2 is a pollutant even beyond CC, it is acidifying the ocean, which is a very serious problem.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CO2_pollution_turning_oceans_more_acid_0130.html