The idea that carbon dioxide is pollution is absolutely preposterous, says Alex Newman

“A lot of this environmental question depends on... a very flawed fundamental presupposition. “It depends on the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution. “I would argue, after interviewing hundreds of scientists including many who have worked for the UN IPCC [U.N. International Plant Protection Convention], many of the leading scientists in the world, that the notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely preposterous. “We expect about two pounds of it [CO2] every single day. “The proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. “The idea that this is going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the earth is frankly... totally ludicrous. “But from a totalitarian perspective, if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there's no human activity that doesn't result in CO2 emissions including living, including dying, turning on a light switch, every single aspect of your life then, if we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution. “So when they do these environmental studies and they say, 'Your CO2 footprint will be smaller if you eat bugs or you do this, that or the other, [or] you drive an electric car.' “That doesn't show anything about whether that's gonna benefit the environment or not. “In fact, Co2 is actually been very beneficial for the environment. “In interviewing Trump's climate advisor, William Happer, PhD, a physics professor at Princeton University, he said the earth is starving for more CO2. “Since we've had a little bit of an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years or so, plants have gotten much greener, agricultural yields have improved. “So I think we need to also talk about the fundamental presupposition — is CO2 really pollution? “If it's not, then all these alleged environmental benefits are completely fictional.”

Mirrored - Fat News