By published I merely meant made available on the Internet.
I was shown ongoing work.

That seems to be a great source, tjj. Thanks for sharing! :)
Here is one quoted passage from Chapter 29, pg. 222:

This is odd! Since when is CO2 a pollutant? this is like saying 2 + 2 = 6.
Are we now to kill plants by starving them from CO2 ? :eek:

Why massive amounts of CO2 are a pollutant
 

.
That’s right. Massive amounts of CO2 and other climate gases are harmful.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were roughly 280 ppm (parts per million). Today the level is 394 ppm, and rising at about 3 ppm per year.

There is strong consensus amongst climate experts that drastic feedback processes are extremely likely to occur should atmospheric CO2 concentrations approach 500 ppm. What is feared is that the ongoing climate change will become catastrophic and, from the perspective of our human timeline, irreversible.

For these good reasons CO2 is rightly viewed as a pollutant -- mind you, in massive amounts, and in concentrations that upset the natural balances of the ecosystems of the planet on which we live.
.

Global Warming is a Myth
 

John Coleman, founder of the weather channel is speaking out about how the media has overstated the so call consensus by the scientific community on the existence of Man Made Global warming.

This guy is a bit boring but everyone needs to see this.

Well, if a business man says it, it must be true. They never lie to us.
:rolleyes:

As I understand it, John Coleman doesn’t have any professional credentials whatsoever. He studied journalism -- neither meteorology nor related sciences.

"There is strong consensus amongst climate experts that drastic feedback processes are extremely likely to occur should atmospheric CO2 concentrations approach 500 ppm" is actually not known, it's a conjecture that is not universally accepted. Recall that Malthus predicted our doom from overpopulation -- hasn't happened -- and there were dire predictions that we would have by now exhausted the world's supply of petroleum -- hasn't happened. Both those predictions were entirely rational, but wrong nonetheless. Note that I am not advocating that we do nothing; I'm just suggesting that we (the human race) are not likely to expire soon.

How do you know that hasn't happened? Who's to say that we aren't simply walking dead, but unaware? Already, we're having trouble with our food supply. Fish stocks are dwindling, honey bees are in trouble, and with them almost all of our farmed goods. The quality of our food is not as good as it was just a couple of decades ago either, as we feed our farm animals cheaper and cheaper ingredients loaded with antibiotics. That sets us up for two big problems: drug resistant disease and famine.

When the final straw breaks, it will be too late to fix things. The question is, has the final straw already broken?

Look at the incredible technology that needs to be used to get it though! We're essentially using everything at our disposal to suck up the last few drops, and since we're able to get them we're convinced that it isn't going to end.

No matter what your opinion is of global warming, it is still a good thing to reduce waste, emissions, and pollution in any way possible. Why do people not give a crap about that?

Because it's all about the money, which is why we need to put a large price tag on carbon emissions.

Well said that man.

Reminds me of the joke about the man who fell off the skyscraper, and counted the floors on the way down: "50, so far so good -- 40, so far so good -- 30, so far so good".......

Absolutely, Jasen. Halifax is a model of recycling; less than half our solid waste goes into landfills. Compostables are collected from green carts, cardboard, paper, milk cartons and all containers are collected separately and recycled, etc. Halifax does not permit the use of chemical weed killers or insecticides on trees or lawns without a permit (for such things as cinch bug or mosquito infestations). At the same time, unfortunately, they burn coal in the local power plant because they sell their natural gas supply to Maine to keep power rates down -- can't win 'em all, or at least not all at once.

My position is simple. Be a good citizen of the environment when you can, minimize what you can't control, but don't fear for an early apocalypse.

I don't fear an apocalypse, early or late, although we could easily bring that about through war. I'm more concerned about something like the Great Depression compounded by disease and crop failures. Global warming might merely be the trigger for that. After all, our economies have demonstrated that they're not nearly as resilient as we had believed. What will happen when a real problem arises? Say a sudden world-wide 40% decline in wheat/rice production instead of a 40% drop in perceived wealth?

Several writers are warming up to the notion that the next big crisis is going to be fresh, drinkable water. That's the crisis that climate change might exacerbate.

I think what's scary is that there are so many ways things can go very wrong, and we don't seem to be honestly taking the steps to prevent or mitigate any of them.

Once again, it would appear that the issue of population control ought to be addressed. Once the problem with unlimited, sustainable and yet non-polluting access to energy is solved, Earth and other planets can accommodate the current growth rate.
Perhaps the seemingly uncontrolled growth rate of population is the drive that will push us in the right direction.

Yes, and there is a huge German company that I forget the name of, as well as some competitors buying up water companies wherever they can. They have been at it for some time.

Other groups of investors are seeing a golden opportunity during the financial crisis to by up large areas of farmland in third-world countries.

Certain things should be exempt from amoral speculation.

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere and .018% is attributed to humans. CO2 is not a pollutant never was. The 500PPM is a Computer model data it is not reality.CO2 is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm)concentration and ( only because the respiratory center of the brain become sensitive to CO2 instead of O2)
Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible without any ill effects. If someone could check out the CO2 content in a room full of people one would see that a reading of 1000ppm to 1200ppm is very common depending how big is the crowd. OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide.The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 to fellow as temperature rise .. hence a result not a cause.

I don't think anyone's been worried about it becoming toxic. The worry is that it will affect the environment well before there's enough to present a direct threat to animal life.
That's quite a conclusion, given that the temperature is inferred by estimating the amount of CO2.