Are you suggesting that you have read up on the subject and think you have evidence of the relative importance of greenhouse gasses in the overall heating of the Entire Solar System? Are you serious right now?
eh, arguable. Pollutants, like poison, is all in the dosage. I wouldn't want to be in a c02 filled garage for long. Just the same, we wouldn't want greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere in concentrations greater than necessary to sustain life on earth.
The SCOTUS ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants and can be regulated by the EPA. Ergo, Co2 is a pollutant. Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon
Don't be silly. Read Massachusetts v EPA. The Supreme Court did no such thing. Even ex-Circuit Court Judges know that the only CO2 you can regulate is what is voluntarily produced by man. and that one CO2 molecule is indistinguishable from another, and that CO2 is a natural and essential component of the atmosphere if life on the planet it to supported. The ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that the EPA could regulate human emissions of CO2. It was the NRDC that interpreted the Court ruling incorrectly as having ruled that CO2 is "a pollutant" . The Court always rules narrowly on only the question brought before it.
The blanket statement that "CO2 is a pollutant" is incorrect. That was my only point. So we ought not to think of it as such. Your characterization was correct. Now Arnie has caused me to make an additional point, viz., The Court has ruled that CO2 emissions can be regulated by the EPA. They did not rule that CO2 is a pollutant. That incorrect use of the term "pollutant" to characterize CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the NRDC (National Resources Defense Council).