Is CO2 a pollutant or food?

You are correct. C02 is not a pollutant as much as some of the wacko non-scientific proponents would lead you to believe. It is a trace element in the atmosphere, and without it life as we know would not exist. It is a weak greenhouse gas and most scientists state that it does not contribute to any global warming whatsoever. The sun, the simplest of the answers to this complex problem is the cause of warming and cooling of the earth, not C02. The climate models used to predict these changes in climate are flawed, however the pro AGW scientists made a lot of money developing them.

And a half billion years ago, there was a totally different set of life forms on the planet. CO2 does provide nutrition for plant life, but the consumption is not high enough to handle the excess levels created today. Also, we harvest the trees faster than they can grow. What do you think is contributing to the devastating floods?

At the same time, CO2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere and behaves exactly the same way as glass in a greenhouse. The heat from the sun gets into the atmosphere on the daylight side, but can't escape on the night side, resulting in an overall temperature increase. Combine this with a sun that is radiating more energy, the explanation for a temperature increase throughout the solar system, and the situation is worse. Even if the complete melt of both polar ice caps is not enough to flood New York City to the first story, it will mess up the flow of the ocean currents, and the warm water that they bring north and south is what keeps the industrial areas of the world warm.

and in other places that are now deserts from long ago ,, the forest are being cut down at hundreds of acres a day and burning the carbon brush tops ,, faster than our forest can absorb it ,,, millions of trees have to be planted every week all around the world ,,now to start making a difference in 10 years

i imagine that the panic is targeted round what may yet take position if too a lot carbon gas enters the ambience, jointly with the appropriate phenomena of deforestation and of carbon gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for means. at the same time as the ozone contained in the air, which includes the ozone layer, is uncovered to carbon gas contained in the shape of carbon monoxide specifically, the oxygen molecules of the ozone (O3) have a tendency to combine with the carbon contained in the carbon monoxide (CO), for that reason lowering the quantity of ozone contained in the ambience and arising a hollow contained in the ozone layer. at the same time as deforestation takes position as a results of woodland fires, both deliberately set or unintentional, the burning timber supplies off too a lot carbon gas. at the same time as it is used for gas an same outcomes are experienced. The carbon that the timber and flowers save for nutrition is wasted and burned into the ambience in severe quantities. by the years, the wear and tear must be incremental. because deforestation is going on at an increasing price for motives of marketplace, housing, settlement and agriculture, the forests are not from now on being replaced as straight away as they must be replenished. Any substance that reaches larger than wide-spread ranges ought to develop right into a pollutant the way flowers growing to be uncontrolled can develop into weeds. wide-spread quantities of carbon dioxide is given off by animal and plant respiratory. notwithstanding, in certain circumstances the project of deforestation and the flair disadvantages of carbon gas emissions seem considered as an same project. so a lengthy way because the most concentration of a substance is in contact, it is solid to remember that we stay in a gentle stability on earth, and small fluctuations in a unmarried section can dissatisfied the completed stability, andd effect in large scale effects.

Yes, but simultaneously 150 species become extinct every day due to global warming, and the turn for humans will come.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6432217....

Unless you are willing to sacrifice mankind for a few plants that should not naturally grow in such a manner I suggest you consider excessive C02 a pollutant.

Obviously, CO2 is both. Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars. Carbon dioxide is also a greenhouse gas as it absorbs strongly in the infrared wavelengths.

It's like horse manure: Totally organic and beneficial to the environment...but you certainly wouldn't want to consume it in large quantities. It hardly belongs to the same classification as mercury.

it is a chemical that is a pollutant and food for plants as it is used in the process called photosynthesis - a process that keeps the plants green and healthy

It's plant food.

The argument that more of it is bad is like saying that if you have too much water that it's "pollution."

it's both..

it's a pollutant but plants and trees need to consume it to survive.

its a pollutant from people and chemical reactions, however without it... there would be no plants therefore.. no humans, and no living life on earth