Or does posting as an AnonCow count as a pinch of salt?

In case anyone doubted the use of the term, I present google translate of a financial piece; hover on the article's title for untranslated usage:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/comment-la-finance-fait-exploser-les-inegalites_fr_art_1094_54437.html&ei=49stT6qBNtCztwey0oTzDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ7gEwAQ

You could extend the point by noting that Theories of Science are the best models of knowledge, and yet, they are always unable to cover all possible aspects. Those Theories are drawn from matching the data extrapolations which are themselves sorted by the Laws of Sciences which have limited practicality relative to their own application. And as Laws are inherently incomplete, the Math which proves them serves limited use beyond the paper or program which creates or uses it. Or, as one person has put it, "Did you know the '[Philosophiæ Naturalis] Principia [Mathematica]' has an error rate?" If you can't know every value of every dimension in the whole Universe, or otherwise, are not Maxwell's Demon, it's impossible to prove bupkis. Even the Doctor of Gallifrey can be suprised, and he knows this history of most civilizations in the Universe from the near beginning to the near end.

As a relative output

The result of a process

Outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes)

That result which stands separate of the naturally continuing and constituting processes, both of biological and non-biological nature, given the scope of the planet

[This is a breaking up of the definition of a pollutant or pollution (as stated), to recall the reason it as been put forward. This break is justified as to define the conditions and boundary before the introduction of a variation.]

It does count

Carbon dioxide (implied from the pronoun's precedent), given when placed within this context, would and is objectively considered

[Now, we return to the definition to see the effects of a variation]

As a deposit

In the form of a definable addition

Which changes the chemistry

An alteration (outside of the conditions/boundary), to the cumulative molecular cycles in thermodynamic equilibrium [the difference between mere laws and actual theories]

Of the surrounding environment

An immediate and identifiable area.

-----

I defined a pollutant that took an aside to include CO2. No context is changed. You can say it over and over again, but in the end. no one who understands debates and the very words and phrases you have been using, would define the context as changed. If you don't understand why the context isn't changed because they merely defined CO2 would show your lack of comprehension of why they chose to do it in the first place. That is logic targeted at people who would say I did change the context to my favor, regardless of whether or not you agree with them in the first place. My total definition neither requires human activity or ignores that something that exists as part of the boundaries before the variation of that definition may also be counted as pollution -- This is why I demonstrated that effect in my first response to you with actual research. Not only can COv2 be increased from natural sources to change the chemistry of an area, but it would be an entirely natural cause, i.e. volcanic fumes, large fires and the thawing of methane hydrate near a continental shelf.

"They very clearly described NATURAL processes. You, on the other hand, approached it from the context of UNnatural (industrial or at least man-caused) processes," directly contradicts your claim of, "I neither missed your point, or inferred as you claim." In that first pair sentences, you did both. Remember how I kept asking for examples of your claim? Well, I was able to give an example that supports my definition and counters your assumptions. That's what people do in debates. But, let us be honest, this hasn't really been a debate. You should have just quoted their logic of defining CO2 as not a pollutant, made your observation, and, quite frankly, probably have done so under your own thread, unless you wanted to know why I didn't waste time on their technique of avoiding an actual definition.

Every time you insist that the context was changed, you're falling for the very reason they did what they did that. They didn't define a pollutant. They can't do so unless they can explicitly include terminology that would insure that nothing that happens naturally can constitute as pollution. I just demonstrated here (and SxOx mentioned in another post) that naturally occurring chemistry, under naturally occurring circumstances, would count within Ecological studies as pollution. And again, that's also a reminder that Ecology, which is the general science under which Climatology, Oceanography, Soil sciences and Global Warming would be studied, is the definition to use. not Materials sciences, not Organic Chemistry, not Medicine, not Social and Cultural Studies, not Electronic and Electrical Engineering, but the definition that could be applied in the Ecological context.

Just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it isn't part of the context. Science is dependent upon that. There have been 3 definitions of a metre throughout the standardization process, but when something is stated in a modern work to be measured in n metres, it is assumed to be referring to the length which light travels, free of gravitational influences, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458th of one second. In that entire definition, there is not merely one definition required to be assumed for the context, but at least five.

In each and every science, you have to use exacting and consistent definitions, and you must apply them as such every single time. Pollution has one. It's not up for debate. Changing that definition would have nearly unimaginable effects on multiple sciences. I don't have any Ecology references at hand to see what definition has been used by the NAS, the EPA or the WHO. but I feel fairly confident I can sufficiently describe one without treading on too many toes, hence an attempt in my original post. Despite many requests for examples, you haven't shown any specific limitation in it, but I'd bet there is one, regardless of whether or not one might come to either of us.

You showed that you had placed your assumptions into your interpretation of the definition when you said my definition required processes to be, "UNnatural." The fact that you think context was changed, when the same topic, under the same science, used a recognizable definition for that science shows your assumptions are getting in the way of your comprehension. I've watched this being used in debates, and it works well. It shouldn't.

A group of particle physicists would not describe a photon exchange between two leptons as being, "Bright red." Single photons would only seem bright if they were high-energy (such as from colliding leptons), and even then, the brightness would result in high excitation state of the struck surface, an example would include an individual being hit by a cosmic ray in the eye results in an apparent bright flash that can take up as much 80% of the field of vision. The lepton exchange would be outside of the visible spectrum, making red meaningless, outside of quantum chromodynamics, which still goes outside of the mathematics (as qcd is used among quarks and gluons, not leptons).

Now, with the example given, the actual usage for QED requires something is definitively proven (usually by mathematical proof, occasionally indirectly with regard to physics, which would still involved contextually accepted mathematics), and two particle physicists might actually use it. However, here in a debate, where points are relative due to cross-contextual references, and not the warping of space-time, QEF would be used to demonstrate a construction. I've made it previously, but will cover it again:

The letter claims CO2 is not pollutant.
The letter discusses Global Warming as its premise.
It mentions a pollutant/pollution.
It doesn't define pollution.
Pollution is used with regard to Global Warming.
Global Warming is an Ecological study, when not describing other sciences that are used peripherally (i.e. Material Sciences in Sensors).
The letter does not discuss other sciences directly while discussing both pollution and CO2.
The letter does involve Social and Cultural sciences, Economic Sciences and Energy sciences/General physics.
Global Warming incorporates other sciences, by way of detectors, economic factors, et c.
The use of pollution refers to CO2.
CO2 is implied to refer to carbon dioxide.
CO2 is described as part of both natural processes and anthropogenic processes.
How do you test the claim of CO2 is a pollutant?
You need a definition.
Where does the definition come from?
CO2 is discussed within the letter as something present in the atmosphere.
There are no indicators that the discussion in the letter of CO2 immediately around the statement, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant," involves any of the other peripherally related sciences.
Pollutant/pollution appears to refer to the Environment at large, an Ecological topic, the primary study which covers Global Warming.
If pollutant/pollution is to be defined, it must fit the Ecological context.
I defined pollutant/pollution within an Ecological context.
My definition fits within the context of potential causes of Global Warming.
Applying my definition to CO2 results in CO2 being a pollutant/pollution.
My definition conflicts with the claim of the letter.
If assuming both views are equally valid, external validation is required.
The EPA, NAS and WHO define CO2 as a pollutant, both explicitly and within their respective definitions
Nota Suma:
Barring CO2 not referring to carbon dioxide
Barring the authors presenting a solid definition to pollution
Barring evidence that the letter's use of the term, "pollution," is outside of an Ecological definition
Barring a flaw in the construction of my definition of pollution within an Ecological context
Barring a change in the definition used by the stated scientific authority
Barring an explicit exception made by the stated scientific authority for carbon dioxide
My definition was within the context of the letter,
CO2 is a pollutant within that context,
The letter was erroneous.
QEF

Now, if you wanted to construct the necessary axioms around precise, mathematical and scientific definitions, I could return with a QED; however, using the definitions from the sciences would likely result in at least one additional conflict within the letter; thus, as far as we can go, I would only venture QEF until all points have been fairly tested.

I've offered you the opportunity to find an error in my definition. You have multiple points in the above axiomatical construction you can attack, and we can debate such an issue properly, but just to say, "But they didn't say that," is simply not valid, unless the letter is discussing something WAY outside of what any one could reasonably assume from the terms and context within the article, that the whole of letter has nothing to do with what the majority of native English speakers would likely recognize as references to the environment, ecological sciences and Global Warming.

If you believe that there is no context outside the work itself, they may as well have written "Lord of the Rings". It is, ironically, the exact opposite of what you have done so far -- You have demonstrated your willingness to include your own associations in what you have read when it is my work, but you refuse to see that both, my original article and the letter must exist within the context of something that is otherwise pre-existent. I doubt the WSJ has taken to publishing the preface of a role playing game. If it is a new form of entertainment, it uses a lot of the structural logic of a small number of lobbying groups possess within the context of an ecological debate. Now, if that is the case, I apologize for not getting joke.

Otherwise, I'd recommend you avoid engineering, the sciences and law as potential career options. Normally, I edit statements like these out after a re-read. I'm leaving this one in. The problem solving for contextual comprehension in these careers would require already understanding all of these things. I don't mean the Ecological sciences, but that any point in a paper (as in article or other monograph) must first pre-exist within a system of pre-defined constructs, which, when called, should be consistently applied. Otherwise, every publication would have to define every word within that publication where a simple definition used by a dictionary can not be accurately inferred.

I also leave it in as your recurring theme of negativity directed towards me seemed both one sided and illogically veiled attempts at deflection. I have avoided doing many detracting things to date. You have misused multiple terms (mostly unrelated to the main topic), failed to identify references and failed to respond to requests to identify examples to support your claims against my statements. Unlike many people on slashdot, I do avoid getting pedantic over these, usually, minor things. But if you wish to continue an actual debate, I've given you a validly formed construction from which you can work. If you continue to insist the letter exists independent of any pre-existing systems of structure, entirely axiomatically independent from what its terminology would otherwise suggest, however, I would like to know if I may include any of the characters from my White Wolf campaigns.

Funny, maybe, but that's not interesting. If I had a YT link or something, maybe both, but really, that was just a dump.

Perhaps, as if by magic, you missed THE WHOLE POINT of my original post. Context wasn't changed. I didn't even "[approach] it from the context of UNnatural...processes." Pollution, within the ecological definition, either of mine here, doesn't require anthropogenic processes to be involved. You inferred that out of your association with COv2. They merely defined COv2, not a pollutant. My providing a definition doesn't change context, as the whole letter is about ecological balances at its very core.

As you are willing to use some basic and common fallacy references, you might want to check on "Masked man fallacy," or "Affirming a disjunct," as well as anything syllogical. In an actual debate between the letter and my original post, I removed the dependence on the fallacy by defining the term within the same context. In scored or competitive debates, that would have been defining the context, or thoroughing; this would not be changing the context. Global warming is an ecological debate. The definition is an ecological definition. The debater used the term in such a way that it could not be removed from the ecological context without defining it; ergo, my defining it within that context does nothing to shift it.

Claiming that defining CO2 creates a "not-a-pollutant" definition involves making an inference that would be readily shot down in an actual debate simply by defining or expanding on any number of things outside of the intended range, which avoids confronting the actual point. If you went in a debate and raised your reductio ad absurdum point, you would have allowed the other side to waste time on expounding on your examples and even claiming you're proving their point for them. THEN, if they really wanted to put you in your place for wasting 2+ minutes of time, they would use non-ecological definitions of pollution and contamination making any number of unsound parallels, i.e. "We have a statute limiting times and volumes for noise, to avoid, 'noise pollution,' but if I hold the loudest rock concert of all time in my backyard (presuming North America, and not above fatal decibel levels), no one in Australia is going to be calling my local police. Noise, like CO2, is something already in the air," yada-yada-yada.

My article was about adding the context the facts are taken from. It's only by stripping away context, just like not actually defining a pollutant, does the logic appear legitimate. The definition I provided, which fits the actual ecological context, fits within the whole concept of providing context. If you were in a competitive debate and wasted time like you had suggested, you wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective. They could, as you attempted, to call it a shift, but a judge would insist that they define a pollutant, or provide evidence the definition was inaccurate. If X != Y, defining X does not define Y.

When you made your initial post, I asked you for example to show the flaw of my definition, because A) it was the only explicit definition, B) you had just quoted it, and C) that is what you actually do in a debate. No one who was in a competitive debate would have chosen to waste time on the "not-a-pollutant' definition, since it wasn't intended to be one. It was merely meant to look like one. You can waste the time getting them to define one in hopes of making them look like they disproved their own point, but they will always be capable of claiming that it's technical, or the fact that you're discussing it shows it's up for debate, which provides the opportunity, should you later define it, to say that your point is the one that's up for debate.

If you think I changed the context, try bringing the letter and my original post to someone who's more familiar with traditional debates; That is, someone whose experience doesn't involve political debates, as, apparently, all of reality is up for debate between politicians. Solipsistically speaking, I don't know why I let them do that, but neither do they.

I remember, back during the tv series (non-animated), Robocop couldn't tell if a politician was lying because he was so used to never really telling the truth with the words he uses everyday. Hilarious excuse for why Murphy couldn't figure out what was going on.

We own the Interweb Tubes! That's why we can make laws about it!

A car's a half-assed idea; if you can build a wheel, you may as well make it a turbine; then build the whole damn jet, gorram it!

It was immediately followed by the link, or was there somewhere that phrase appears?

As I noticed following the link, it became pretty clear how that line relates to the paragraph regarding not being able to locate where (or more to it, what) the heat not leaving the Earth was doing. Ironically, it ties in with the production of formic acid, which relates to the methane release from warmer oceans that other denialist blogs are trying to claim is a completely unrelated to Global Warming. Formic acid, as you know, must be released through volcanic actions that the geological surveys around the world aren't detecting, and not the breakdown of the methane plumes diffusing through the warmer oceans that released them from their trapped and indirectly frozen states, like the rhythmic patterns of the dancing at a luau.

Spot the ironic statement; hint, it starts with F and ends with U.

You have to be more specific, and I will extricate the research you have difficulty locating.

Ignoring the definitions of smell and odor, there are a multitude of theoretical causes that allow for smell; so, making such an assumption is presenting a view of ignorance.

Pollutant is a scientifically defined term. They haven't DEFINED, "pollution," or, "pollutant." They defined COv2. That's it. Very simple. No context can be changed if they haven't defined it otherwise.

Otherwise, your logic is anything that isn't exhaled by each of us, isn't a colorless and odorless gas or isn't used by plants, or any combination of your choice, is a pollutant; ergo, diamonds are pollutants. See, I came up with an example. I can do that. You're still welcome to, for the fifth time.

Since they didn't define pollutant (you may re-read it if you hadn't noticed that), I'm left to assume either a recognized definition, or what you're using to define as an apparent contextual definition.

Is this why you said Oxygen and Water!? You thought that was a definition of something that wasn't a pollutant, wasn't it? You came into this with that as your definition of, "not a pollutant!?"

Didn't you know you exhale most of what's in the air and plants can use large number of things? Sulfurous oxides, for example, which are a principle component in acid rain at higher concentrations (anything about three to four times the pre-industrial output, coincidentally, induces an effective level of acidification), are exhaled by you (mostly from oral biofilms), but are a necessary part of providing sulfur to plants when the resultant soil reactions deposit the sulfur in the soil?

I'm interpreting this bizarre definition as what you're using, as it's the only thing that provides any logical point to your own first comment. Again, I provided another pollutant example, because I can do that.

Let's see if I've got this logic worked out over this exchange, because I think I've finally seen it. In chronological order:

2009:
The EPA declares CO2 a pollutant (fitting in with 100 years of climatological research)
You might note, by the way, a strawman argument would be superficially and artificially structured. This, however, is an actual point, that predates the letter, and that the EPA would be the US authority for defining a pollutant. As the US actually lagged behind other nations, you'll find many other agencies around the world had already included it as a pollutant.

2012:

The letter, instead of defining a pollutant, attempts, instead, to define what CO2 is:
"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."

I, before actually getting there, already knowing where the logic is going next, hammered out a quick definition for pollution/pollutant for comparative purposes before I even reached that specific paragraph (you'll note the paragraph order). I defined it as:
"A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."

That definition takes into account the collective exhalations, forest fires and even volcanic activities within its parenthetical.

Then you, for some reason, take their definition of CO2 as a definition of what can't be a pollutant, resulting in your first exchange:
"You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."

You had also mention reductio ad absurdum, which, ironically, I demonstrated with my SxOx example.

I, believing you were talking about my example, as, again, it is the only definition for a pollutant thus far, went into detail as to why COv2 is a pollutant. I then went on to say that, had water or oxygen had the same effective harm as COv2, you would notice the scientific community worried about them as well. I invited you to enter some of your research (the first request for any such type of example) to identify why you would make the claim you had. I, feeling it would only be fair to identify the logic that my post was using, included a number of example regarding the effects of COv2 on soil, air and water.

You stated the chemical effects of water and oxygen in any system, not unlike the letter's skipping around explicitly defining a pollutant. At this point, I noticed that you hadn't explained why they're pollutants based on the only definition within the exchange thus far. You explicitly state that my defining COv2 as pollutant was, "disingenuous," and went on to say, "Many other otherwise innocuous substances could be considered to be pollutants in precisely the same context," which I interpreted to refer to my definition (as you hadn't explained the not-a-pollutant definition from the letter that you were using).

However, with that interpretation, I would begin asking you to identify an example as to what, in my definition, would be deemed a pollutant, as you had just said, "My comment was about your characterization of carbon dioxide as a pollutant." You didn't say anything suggesting that my including a definition of pollutant was somehow contradictory to their defining not-a-pollutant. If you were reading paragraphs back and forth between the two, I had defined a pollutant before they defined CO2. Thus, from my point of view, the only definition on the table is the one I had provided, but, again, it seems you were using their definition of CO2.

That would follow just fine, until after the analogy, where you had said, "I just don't think it's justified to single out CO2 in this context and define it as a particular pollutant, as distinct from other chemicals, because so many other things can be viewed in exactly the same light." Based on the interpretation of, "single out," and the world pollutant, keeping in mind, that, again, I'm the only person to have defined it thus far, it appeared to me that you were still saying that COv2 could not be defined as a pollutant relative to the only stated definition thus far for a pollutant.

When we get to my response, I'm still asking you to justify why you mentioned water and oxygen. I wasn't even referring to the most immediate thread where you expand your analogy, which makes sense in the not-a-pollutant definition, but it sounded, from my point of view, you were only talking about my definition, as it was the only one thus far. I had not realize you were using the CO2 definition that others under this article's many threads had mentioned, as a result, your analogy seemed like a bizarre change in context.

Had you, in fact, explained in the first message, that you were saying, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle," was the argument you found weak, we likely wouldn't have gone this far, but you're very first message in this thread was to quote my including a definition, with no note about their defining CO2. You see, I don't see defining a word as being out of context when the definition hasn't been covered. If you had wanted to attack their logic, you should have quoted them, not me. Adding a contextually correct definition (pollutant, having a few examples, so, I used a rough definition one might use in ecological studies, thus, totally contextually correct) would not merit a change in context in most discussions.

In your second post, when you state, "My comment was about your characterization of carbon dioxide as a pollutant," it sounded very clearly like you're saying that there is something inherently wrong about using an ecological definition of pollutant at all, as opposed to not having to define it at all. I don't just pick apart what's present, the whole of my post is about adding the full context of things. I wouldn't be doing a response just if I didn't include a definition that fits within the context of the debate. You quoted me through this point, not the article.

That's where we hit the twist in the rabbit hole: You would again quote my definition without saying anything about defining CO2 in the letter. Immediately after quoting the definition, you then say, "[A]nd other statements of that nature, can apply to MANY things, other than just carbon dioxide, that we also do not normally consider to be pollutants. And that therefore singling out carbon dioxide in that context is hardly justified." What context did you think I was going to see? You've done nothing, from my vantage point, to define any other context beyond my original post. Why would you expect me to realize you had anything else to compare it to? If you quote me, literally from the beginning, without referencing my including a contextually accurate definition relative to their simply defining CO2, how would I think you were discussing anything else?

This is why I rejected your poisons analogy outright. You quote only me. You had yet to explicitly quote the article. Had you quoted the article and identified that their definition of CO2 was the reductio ad absurdum that you intended, the logic would have been a lot easier to follow. But...you quoted me, all the way through to the third response, you don't quote the article, you quote me. That was made worse by when you expanded, "I was specifically addressing the context that you, yourself, laid out. I was making the point that in that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants." My obvious interpretation is that you're referring to my context, that is my post. If you meant my post as a near paragraph to paragraph point, I define a pollutant/pollution before CO2 is defined in the article; therefore, it seems, from my perspective, you're still talking about my original entry.

So, as you haven't once yet explained your view of defining CO2 as not-a-pollutant definition, and that you continue to quote me, should it surprise you at all that I expanded, as fully and completely as possible, the ecological definition of a pollutant? The letter never defines a pollutant/pollution. I, writing a response to the letter that, from the beginning, states it is about supplying the context the article chooses to skim around, constantly read that there's something wrong about definition. Not something about, "You should have attacked their decision to simply define CO2 rather than explain the reason why it's not a pollutant."

So, I define a pollutant in an ecological context as much as possible. As everything you've said seems to be about interpreting my definition, I, again, keep asking you to show me what it is you find unsatisfactory about the definition.

Your response was to say I was, "shifting the context away from the one that was obviously being used in the original letter." I had not shifted the context by providing a definition that is part of the contextual nature that could be extrapolated from the simple topic of Global Warming. Their defining CO2 is not the same as defining a pollutant; therefore, from my perspective, I hadn't shifted any context at all. The point of the original article is providing the contextual information on each point that the letter avoids -- this definition falls well within the idea of providing context, not shifting it. There is absolutely nothing fallacious about including a functional definition when the opponent, the letter, opted out of providing one, especially when the definition IS within the topical context.

Anyone could just opt out of looking for full context of a message and pick at the explicit phrasing, but that doesn't usually add to the conversation. I had no reason to think anyone would feel defining the term being used as shifting context. If I defined a pollutant within the context of semi-conductor manufacturing or general chemistry, that would be out of context. I defined a pollutant within an ecological context...the same as almost any article on the topic of Global Warming.

When I breakdown the logic as to why CO2 is a pollutant, you continue to insist that there's some inherent flaw to each point because you want to limit the conversation to exclusively what's in the letter. That's the exact opposite point of my original post. Why would you think I'd care about their decision to simply define CO2? That's not defining a pollutant. It's not even technically a means of explaining why it's not a pollutant; it's merely meant to look like that. Within the context of my adding the context they choose to skim over ON EVERY POINT, my including a definition of a pollutant fits in fine as ADDING, rather than shifting, context.

IT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE!

If YOU wanted to pick apart their limitations in the logic of THEIR article, don't quote ME and expect me to follow something I didn't write as your point. You didn't have to quote me in the beginning at all! Here's how your first post should of looked:

-----

You'll note, not only is it not in response to me, but now what you said actually makes sense in its context.

Your closing sentence beat me to my response!

Sounds like a fair enough ideas.