I recommend clicking the "advanced" part of the link and read the contents. They are hilarious. It's literally "US legislators have a really broad definition of pollutant, therefore we state that CO2 meets some of that criteria and is *legally* a pollutant".

Example of other equally funny and absurd legal definitions made for reasons of specific punditry:
Corporation = person.

I'm sorry, but that is patently false. In addition to massive habitat change triggered by global warming that is wiping out countless species, we have a very well defined issue with acidification of large water habitats that are killing entire ecosystems, such as reefs.

Acidification that is a direct consequence of CO2 emissions.

And one last time. We are in fact emitting less CO2 than system absorbs. FAR less. The problem is that system itself also emits CO2 and is by design made in a way that adapts to exceptional events that emit large amounts of CO2 by absorbing even more. The problem however is that before CO2 is absorbed, it causes increased amount of thermal reflection back to the planet, which is what we call a greenhouse effect.

Normally CO2 emissions fluctuate with period, as ecosystems themselves work in different ways. Much of our current plant life for example would absolutely LOVE more CO2. Far more. That is why we have far more CO2 in greenhouses. It makes plants more efficient.

Wait what? No massive extinction event?

What do you think is ongoing right now as we speak?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And one last time: there is no "too much greenhouse gasses". I have presented the arguments why. Just because you say "I don't agree" isn't going to make it go away any more than its going to make the current ongoing extinction event go away.

Metal is not present in such highly refined form in the woods. Therefore it is in fact polluting it.

I recommend looking at the whole aluminium refining process to see just how much is needed to produce that can of beer of yours, and how many millenia of progress in metallurgy we had to go through to get there.

And one more time. There is no such thing as "too much greenhouse gasses". Our planet has gone through cycles where their amount was FAR higher than it currently is, and FAR higher than the "scariest scenarios" considered feasible in a few centuries. These cycles are completely natural.

The problem is that the speed at which we emit them is so great that natural cycle of adaptation in ecology appears to be unable to keep up with it, causing a massive extinction event which will eventually hit us as species.

Again, greenhouse effect is NOT pollution. It's a part of normal planetary cycle. Our only problem is that we accelerate it too much.

When you argue something this patently false, you do nothing but hamstring the entire movement that is trying to push for wide consensus among populace as to why global warming we have is dangerous and needs to be slowed down at the very least. It does nothing but give ammunition to opposition punditry who use such patently false claims to paint entire movement as alarmist, untrustworthy and downright malicious.

That is patently incorrect. Things like mercury and so on have no natural "recycling" mechanism. Instead they bioaccumulate.

You also forget that CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Methane for example is far more potent greenhouse gas, approximately 20 times more than CO2. And that is what cattle releases as part of the production cycle in large amounts and it's estimated that cattle production produces a large slice of human caused portion of greenhouse effect.

This is why it's very important to understand that CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is not like what pollution does - localized, generally repairable damage with time. It's the exact opposite, it's an accelerating effect on global level that is only going to get worse.

Except that it doesn't meet your criteria because it can be recycled. It's the greenhouse effect that it causes that is dangerous, and that occurs on planetary level and is caused by a sum of all greenhouse gasses rather than only CO2.

If you ask our plants for example, they would love to have even higher concentration of CO2. They can certainly recycle it even further. That is why we have high concentrations of CO2 in greenhouses and why we call this phenomenon "greenhouse effect". The problem here is the fact that it causes changes on global scale we as species may not be able to adapt to.

That would be for reasons of land price and land situation.

It doesn't change the safety issue. Strong gusting winds that commonly exist over large oceans are heavily dampened overland by vertical objects.

It's more hazardous because of the winds. Surrounding vertical objects like trees or building serve as wind dampers.

Approximately 5-10% of world's total oil consumption goes towards making fertilizers, specifically because we need to enrich soil at a rapid pace to keep up with population numbers.

You also appear to ignore that carbon cycle itself takes decades, and that CO2 pool in atmosphere is shared and not segregated, meaning it's utterly irrelevant where CO2 is produced. It's the totality of the pool that matters.

"Dumping human crap in highly concentrated amounts into spots we are naturally extremely reluctant to do for reasons of survival" = natural part of just living daily lives?

Are you aware of what "analogy" even means?

Sorry, but even in those amounts, mercury is still a bioaccumulating neurotoxin. Just because our bodies can handle a certain amounts of it through natural repairs before they get overloaded does not make it any less of a bioaccumulating neurotoxin.

Would you mind explaining the logic behind your absurd attempt at analogy?

A lot of people do that. They just get drowned under the punditry.

You know, just like people that want to talk about specific issue of global warming.