Beware Global Warming

Global warming may cause kidney stones. Sure enough, that’s what it says here.

And it may cause climate change delusion. For kicks, read this.

And it even causes fish to grow bigger.

In each of these alleged cause and effect relationships, it is assumed that global warming is a fact and the cause. This is not science. It is impossible for non-existent global warming to cause anything. In deed, much of the media and so many politicians are under the delusion of climate change.

The Melting Artic

There are numerous reports about the accelerated melting of the northern, polar ice cap. This article has a graphic which shows the size of the ice cap since 1980. While this linked article tells of the fact of ice melt without trying to explain its cause, many such stories blame it on global warming. Just like President Bush, global warming is blamed for everything!

In reality, there is no global warming, so there must be another explanation for the extensive ice melt in the Arctic. The cause(s) may elude us, but perhaps it is due to massive, under-sea volcanoes in the Artic. For more reading, look at this.

Global Warming Swelter and Swill

On Monday, June 23, 2008, James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke to Congress. He warned,

"Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises."

The address marked the twentieth anniversary of his speech before Congress to launch the claptrap about global warming. That speech was not based upon actual science and the speech was framed with stagecraft.

Senator Al Gore (D-TN) and Rep. Tim Wirth (D-CO) orchestrated Hansen’s time before Congress in 1988. For this and following information, see here and here. Wirth ". . . admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day." It happened to be a hot day in a drought and hot spell on the east coast. Wirth ". . . admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect."

Ministers should take a cue from the Goracle every time they preach about hell! There might be more conversions as Gore, Wirth and Hansen were hoping for 20 years ago. In truth, we would rightly condemn religious manipulation of the temperature of the setting for a sermon on hell, yet these political charlatans did not have any qualms about fakery. Gore is still at it, shamelessly acting the religious quack, pounding the pulpit about the doomsday of climate change.

These quacks are crying wolf when there is no wolf. Look at this temperature chart to see the quackery of Gore and Hansen. The average temperature is a half a degree cooler today than in 1988. The highest temperature in 1998 was only 0.4^o warmer than in 1988.

People like the false prophet Hansen would sell their soul to Gore’s snake-oil cure, all the while decrying the hawking televangelists. "In 2001, the Heinz Foundation "awarded" James Hansen with a payment of $250,000 for his work on global warming."

"In 2007, Hansen split a $1 million prize from the Dan David prize category of "Future Quest for Energy" (layman’s translation: a world without oil). In addition he also reported to have acted as a consultant to Gore’s global whining slide show, which was the impetus to the Prince of Peace’s film, "An Inconvenient Truth." In fact, in 2006 Hansen had the gall to appear on a New York City stage with Mr. Gore to promote the then upcoming film-though he did reportedly inform the audience, "I’m not speaking as a government employee."

A scientist looks at the facts and does not fudge facts and evidence. A scientist does not frame inconclusive evidence to tell an inconvenient lie. A scientist’s head is not turned by money. A scientist does not sell his soul. Any scientist who does, betrays science, evidence, principle and people.

Reddy Kilowatt at Gore’s Service

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. . .

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Read the whole article.

___________________________________________

The Goracle has a right to spend his money how he sees fit. He is free to consume enough energy to power 232 homes. He has the liberty to consume more in his domain than many entire small towns in the US. That is not a problem.

The problem is he shoots off his mouth. The problem is he expects us to consume less, significantly less than he does and then conserve on top of that. We like leaders who conserve along with us. We don’t like those who tell us how to live while they exempt themselves. We don’t like an empty shell, a fraud, a phoney.

We despise an elitist telling us to reduce our carbon footprint when ours is extremely small compared to his. We disdain members of the self-proclaimed elite who won’t leave us alone and continually manipulate our lives to help us.

Leave us alone; we don’t want your help. Then we will leave you alone to spend whatever you want. That’s your right. It’s also our right to have whatever size carbon footprint we choose just like Al[mighty] Gore does.

The Model T

If elected, Tinklenberg proposes to make, "Sensible, progressive increases in CAFE fleet standards for fuel usage of automobiles and trucks. Henry Ford's Model-T got better gas mileage than most cars on the road today. America can do better!"

Is that really true that our vehicles are less efficient than the Model T, Mr. Tinklenberg?

The 99 inch wheelbase Model T had a fuel economy of 13 to 21 mpg. It weighed 1,200 pounds.

Let’s compare it to the Ford Focus with a 102.9 inch wheelbase and a weight of 2,617 pounds. With more than double the weight, it gets significantly better mileage than the Model T—24-35 mpg.

Even a Crown Victoria, at 4,057 pounds and 114.7 inch wheelbase, gets 17-25 mpg. With more than three times the weight of the Model T, the Crown Victoria gets better gas mileage than it did.

Tell me again, why would anyone who looks at the numbers ever want to vote for Tinklenberg?

Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend

So what are Tinklenberg’s solutions to the non-problem?

• Give tax breaks to conserve energy. (Somebody has to pay for those tax breaks.)
• Create a carbon tax on carbon-based fuels.
• Tax to encourage development of alternative and sustainable fuels.
• Increase fuel standards for vehicles (Congress has already done that).
• Increase taxes to fund more light rail.
• Pass a windfall profit tax on Big Oil.

That ought to do it. Just tax us to death so we can’t use any more oil. What other solution is there for a Democrat? Government must do it all and you must pay for it.

Political Pundit Tinklenberg Speaks!

Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is running against Rep. Michele Bachmann, declares:

The evidence is in and speaks overwhelmingly — global climate change is real.

I guess that settles it. While global warming may not be real, global climate change is. When the Pundit speaks, we should listen. Even though he says, "The evidence is in," he does not give us the evidence. We just need to trust him. Daddy knows best. We can rely on him.

Perhaps he thinks we are incapable of examining the evidence. No, more importantly, he writes as if we don’t need to evaluate the evidence. He writes as if he has examined the evidence and drawn the infallible conclusion that he wants us to accept. Trust the Pundit. Then you don’t have to trust the evidence. Just blindly follow the cult leader on this one because he will provide the answers that solve the problem of climate change.

Give your mind over to the cult leader. Drink his Kool-Aid. Don’t think. Do what he says. It will be good for you.

No reputable authority on any subject would ask you to check your mind at the door, ignore the evidence and just accept an assertion on his authority. Reputable authorities gain their authority from a judicious study of the evidence. Reputable authorities know that examined evidence is what allows them to draw conclusions and then speak with authority on a subject. Reputable authorities then share that evidence with us for us to examine to draw our own conclusions.

Such an approach respects the dignity of the individual to make a free and educated choice.

Tinklenberg treats his readers as mindless sheep and regards himself as a cultic guru. What an insult to the personhood of each of his readers!

Propping up the Goracle

The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act, aka the Climate Change Bill) is being considered in Congress. Mr. James Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma, asks and answers this question:

Why are many in Washington proposing a bill that will do so much economic harm? The answer is simple. The American people are being asked to pay significantly more for energy merely so some lawmakers in Washington can say they did something about global warming.

They are assuaging their guilt with your tax dollars.

Read the whole op-ed.

Brits like Global Warming

The British have kept records of the temperature since 1772, pre-Revolutionary War. A new record of 81.5º F was set recently. They flocked to the beach to enjoy the sun and warmth briefly because a cool spell was returning all too quickly.

Imagine being disappointed once again after waiting since the Revolutionary War for the weather to stay in the low 80s for a few days. Ah, the Brits like global warming, even if it lasted a few hours.

The Al[mighty] Goracle can let it break into the 70s here any day now. That would be an enjoyable improvement.

Food for Thought

You can’t eat ethanol is an editorial at Mankato Free Press.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 17

Kill the beetles. Plant a tree—no, many trees.

The forests of British Columbia are being attacked by the mountain pine beetle. This catastrophe creates a double whammy. The trees that die can no longer extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the decaying trees release CO₂. The release over a 21 year period is so large, the Canadian Forest Service estimates it is equivalent to 5 years of emissions from all forms of Canadian transportation.

The annual production of CO₂ by the beetles is almost as much as that caused by Canadian forest fires each year.

So now we have something more to worry about. The kids in school back in the ’50s and ’60s had only a nuclear attack to fret about. Now they have the BEETLES that affect CO₂. That puts things in perspective!

Expect some massive government program to help, all in the name of CO₂. Assuredly, this and similar problems have been attacking the forests since time began and we have somehow survived. Even Gaia survived! Amazing! Back then, no one cared about the impact of carbon dioxide, but now it is cast in terms of CO₂ and sounds so much worse.

Previously, such devastation would have been measured in terms of lost lumber and logs and its effect on construction costs. The new fad is carbon dioxide and nothing is said about the lost lumber and logs. Under this new rubric, government will intervene to stop this non-human cause of CO₂, the production of which is probably inconsequential.

One gets the impression these global warming adherents are like kindergartners making new discoveries and letting their minds run wild. True science demands much more sober observation and much less alarmist speculation.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 16, Olympic Torch Emissions

In a previous post, we observed a fact of burning propane. When a molecule of propane is burned, the hydrogen atoms are replaced with oxygen atoms which are 16 times heavier than a hydrogen atom. When the C₃H₈ propane molecule is burned, it becomes 3 molecules of CO₂. The new product weight jumps from 44 units to 132 units, an increase of 3 times because oxygen is 16 times heavier than hydrogen. The extra weight comes from the oxygen.

The ABC and Slate articles cited before are preoccupied with the large weight of carbon dioxide that is produced from burning jet fuel and propane in the torch. On the other hand, they totally ignore another byproduct of that combustion.

Burning propane produces water as well as CO₂. What is the weight of water produced? Besides the 3 atoms of carbon being combined with oxygen, the 8 atoms of hydrogen also are combined with oxygen. These 8 atoms of hydrogen are combined with 4 atoms of oxygen to produce 4 molecules of water (H₂O). Here is the math:

3x12 + 8x1 = 44 units of weight for C₃H₈ source

3x12 + 6x16 = 132 units of weight for CO₂ byproduct

8x1 + 4x16 = 72 units of weight for H₂O byproduct

132 + 72 = 204 units of total weight of the byproducts

So the 44 units of weight of propane become 204 units of weight when burned, forming carbon dioxide and water. All hydrocarbons, when burned, produce CO₂ and H₂O. Al Gore and Company are hollering about the carbon dioxide and its greenhouse effect that increases global warming. The two articles cited above are typical. They do not say anything about the water that is produced when hydrocarbons are burned.

It’s hard to condemn water. How can anyone classify it as a poison which they do for CO₂? It just wouldn’t fly, would it? So they ignore it, but water vapor has a greenhouse effect just as carbon dioxide does. Both molecules trap heat, restricting its flow into space. An equal amount of CO₂ is more effective in trapping heat than H₂O is.

When propane (C₃H₈) is burned, there are 4 molecules of H₂O that are produced and 3 molecules of CO₂. However, this situation immediately after burning propane does not stay that way for very long. The balance in the atmosphere comes to an average ratio of 60 times more water than carbon dioxide. So water has far more influence on trapping heat around the globe than carbon dioxide does. In fact, water vapor accounts for at least 90% of the earth’s greenhouse effect.

Yet we do not read much in global warming articles about the much larger greenhouse effect of water. But it’s coming. Here is a headline: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant. There will be a tax on water produced by combustion.

We are doomed. Every tree that we plant to aid carbon credits and lock up CO₂ for a few decades through photosynthesis will eventually rot naturally. As the wood decays, it slowly gives off CO₂ and H₂O. So we will need to plant more. And then there will be more to rot!

It’s rotten to be on the Goracle’s treadmill. I can’t wait for that to be verboten.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 15, Olympic Torch Emissions

Slate reports that a gallon of Olympic torch fuel, propane, produces 12.669 pounds of CO₂. National Geographic News confirms the fuel is propane.

If you are an intelligent and inquisitive reader, you probably realize propane is lighter than water which weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon. How then can a gallon of liquified propane, which weighs 4.2 pounds, produce 12.669 pounds of CO₂? You can find the explanation in chemistry term here, but I will explain it in more layman terms.

Look at the two dimensional and three dimensional structure of a propane molecule here. Each molecule of propane (C₃H₈) has 3 atoms of carbon and 8 atoms of hydrogen. A carbon atom is 12 times heavier than a hydrogen atom, which has a weight of 1. The carbon in a molecule of propane has the weight of 36 units and the hydrogen has the weight of 8 units for a total of 44 units for the entire molecule.

When this molecule of propane is burned, the hydrogen atoms are replaced with oxygen atoms which are 16 times heavier than a hydrogen atom. When the C₃H₈ propane molecule is burned, it becomes 3 molecules of CO₂. The new product weight jumps from 44 units to 132 units, an increase of 3 times because oxygen is 16 times heavier than hydrogen. The extra weight comes from the oxygen. Here is the math:

3x12 + 8x1 = 44 units of weight for C₃H₈

3x12 + 6x16 = 132 units of weight for CO₂

So a 4.2 pound gallon of propane becomes 12.6 pounds of CO₂ when it is burned. The 12.669 pounds mentioned above in the article is correct. So yes the reports are accurate. That is how much CO₂ is produced when a gallon of propane is burned.

The same thing happens when you burn gasoline on your drive to work. The carbon dioxide produced weighs more than the gasoline. Your jet ride on vacation does the same thing. Heating your home with propane, natural gas, fuel oil, coal, wood, or corn does it. Burning a candle does it. Any hydrocarbon used as a source of heat will produce more weight of carbon dioxide than the weight of the hydrocarbon that is burned. It is a law of the physical world that cannot be changed. Without this production of the heavier amount of CO₂, we will not have heat. The global warming nuts might not like it, but it’s a fact of life that cannot be changed.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 14, Olympic Torch Emissions

True to form, the global warming activists are aghast over the enormous amount of CO₂ that is produced by the Olympic torch and the plane that transports it around the world. ABC news reports:

"So when the torch isn't being marched through city streets and/or extinguished by protesters, how is it getting around? You guessed it, by plane -- an Air China A330 custom painted with the Olympic logo and color scheme. The A330 burns 5.4 gallons of fuel per mile. That translates into 462,400 gallons for the entire trip. With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2, the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. That's 5,500 tons."

Oh those are big numbers! The headline of the article "Olympic Torch Emits 5,500 Tons of CO2" leads one to believe this amount is emitted by the torch. But that is not the case. The article never quantifies the carbon dioxide emission of the torch, but just of the jet that transports it around the world.

The headline is misleading, but the author clarifies in the body of the article that ". . . the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere."

According to Slate, the amount of propane burned in the torch has not been revealed.

The 11 million pounds of CO₂ produced to transport the torch will be very small compared to that created by all the world's athletes, coaches, broadcasters, sports writers and observers who fly to Beijing. The amount of CO₂ produced by all those traveling people will be huge. In comparison, the jet flight to transport the Olympic torch is insignificant even though it is a large number.

Carbon dioxide: Part 13

Here is an interview and article worth reading. I will tantalize you with just a couple of paragraphs.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

And:

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

Read the whole article here. Contrary to Marohasy, it will take the politicians a long time to catch up with the scientists. By that time the world will be saddled with energy policies that the next generation will need to shake off.

From the Goracle to Rep. Kalin, as politicians, they need to do something, that is, create law to "help." It will take longer to change manufactured law than for a natural weather cycle to complete its course. Global warming/climate change politicians will make sure their legacies stay alive in law. For politicians, energy policies have little to do with climatology. Rather it is for control of the masses.

Carbon dioxide: Part 12

The Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in Manhattan has just been completed. You can poke around at that web site for information, but I want to call your attention to one presentation at the conference. Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, is an outspoken critic of those who promote climate change for political ends.

Shawn Macomber of the American Spectator quoted Václav Klaus saying, "It is not about climatology . . . It is about freedom." Please read the full text of his speech for your own benefit (and these comments) because he warns about the use of climate change to usurp our freedoms.

"I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery "road to serfdom." The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights and we have to say very loudly that we do respect it and will do so in the future as well."

He closed his speech, saying:

"We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message of our conference."

This man knows personally the loss of freedom imposed on the Czech people by the former Soviet Union. He is capable of looking beyond the alleged climate change to the dark politics that would be imposed worldwide to counter it. The climate change movement is not just some anti-smoking kick to get rid of some annoyance by robbing our freedom. It is a life and death struggle to take away freedom around the entire globe to use energy, the blood of life.

The western world, culminating in Ronald Reagan’s "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," brought freedom to the Czechs. But that same western world is now threatening the freedom of all peoples in the world. It is incumbent on all freedom loving people to heed Václav Klaus. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.

Carbon dioxide: Part 11

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

While carbon dioxide has been pilloried as the cause of global warming which has caused the melting of the ice mass in the Arctic, that can hardly be the case as we saw in Carbon dioxide: Part 10.

Now two climatologists have concluded the wind has driven the ocean currents northward which in turn have melted the ice pack. The wind currents have a forty year cycle. Thus when the wind changes, the ocean currents change and the Arctic ice increases or decreases.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

So the experts did not know it all. They discovered something they did not know. Carbon dioxide is not increasing the earth’s temperature to melt Arctic ice. Rather the wind, in its long forty year cycle, has warmed the Arctic.

It’s nice to know some scientists can follow the evidence to the truth, rather than steer the evidence to the desired conclusion. Let’s see what The-earth-has-a-fever-Gore will say about this.

Carbon dioxide: Part 10

How can this be?

Al Gore—the earth-has-a-fever-Al-Gore—has been panicking over the fact that the earth’s average temperature rose 0.6º Centigrade over the last century. And of course, the 22.3% increase of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere since 1958 has been blamed for that fever.

Of course, the soothsayers have been prophesying a continued rise in the earth’s average temperature due to the ever-increasing CO₂ concentration.

Well Al Gore is now the one who has a fever. The earth did not cooperate with the alarmists. The climate change changed direction. The earth’s average temperature dropped 0.6º Centigrade over the last year. All the heat gains over one entire long century were suddenly wiped out in one year, this last year. Read all about it and look at the temperature graph in this article.

How can this be? How can the temperature of the earth’s surface atmosphere lose in one year what it took a century to gain? How can this happen when the population of the earth has increased dramatically? How can this happen when we are using much more energy now than in the early 1900s? How can this happen when the CO₂ concentration has been increasing? And how can this be happening when all those beef cattle have been filling the air with methane?

Al "the Fever" Gore, I want to know. Enquiring minds want to know.

Carbon dioxide: Part 9

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
Elisabeth Rosenthal

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

Read the rest of the article.

___________________________________________

If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major cause of global warming, then biofuels are exacerbating the problem rather than being a solution as intended. In the rush to fix a perceived problem, do-gooders run to the government to get legislation mandating biodiesel use, for example. The cure-all ends up being worse than the supposed problem.

The law of unintended consequences is always at work, yet do-gooders think they are exempt from its inexorable effects. Last year, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) and the Minnesota legislature passed an energy bill that will ultimately fall under this debilitating law. Gov. Pawlenty is leading the green charge which this article shows is not so green.

Irrespective of the carbon dioxide issue, something was seriously wrong in the thinking of those who thought it wise to destroy a food source and turn it into fuel. That thought should have given the "experts" pause to consider the fork in the road that they were taking. My own eighth-grade-educated-farming-aunts could have told them that. But people who are driven to solve problems that may not even exist do not think about the consequences of their actions. All of us end up paying dearly for their insistence on "helping" us by mucking it up.

Carbon dioxide: Part 8

Carbon dioxide gets a bad rap. It is demonized and all too frequently identified as a pollutant and poison by global warming/climate change advocates.

But this chemical compound is essential to life. Flora and fauna depend on CO₂ for their very life. Vegetation thrives through the process of photosynthesis. Chorophyll in plants utilize CO₂, water and sunlight to make sugars which feed the plants. Carbon dioxide is dissolved in the waters of the world to support marine plant photosynthesis. Through photosynthesis, light energy is converted into chemical energy in the form of sugar which plants can consume.

In the process of photosynthesis, plants create sugars for their own use and give off oxygen for animate life. Animals, fish and people thrive on that oxygen which burns sugars for energy and in the process give off CO₂ for vegetative life. Burning of sugar by animate life is called metabolism.

Given this cycle, carbon dioxide cannot be a pollutant or a poison under normal atmospheric conditions. Plants must have it available to sustain life. And CO₂ is beneficial to humans. For example, carbon dioxide keeps the pH (slight akalinity) of the blood in proper balance.

Can CO₂ kill a person? Yes, but breathing CO₂ will not kill by itself. Lack of oxygen kills. Carbon dioxide in solid form is dry ice, which is used in the movies to create a foggy scene. The actors can breathe the evaporating dry ice without ill affects. The evaporating CO₂ is odorless and colorless. The foggy appearance is created by water vapor that is condensed from the air by the evaporating dry ice. To evaporate, the dry ice must absorb heat from the air which is cooled. As the air cools, the water vapor in the air condenses into tiny water droplets. So we see water vapor (fog) and not the CO₂.

If a person were in an enclosed room with enough evaporating dry ice, one could die. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it could displace oxygen to the point that there is not enough oxygen to sustain life. This web site shows the effects on a person as the concentration of oxygen drops from the normal 20.9% to zero and the carbon dioxide concentration increases from the current normal 0.038% upward.

The chart shows a slight, but unnoticeable increase in the breathing rate at 1% concentration of CO₂. To arrive at that concentration in the atmosphere, the amount of CO₂ would have to increase more than 26 times.

A significant increase of carbon dioxide concentration has this effect on humans, but some plants grow very well in an environment of concentrated CO₂.

Do not confuse CO₂ with CO (carbon monoxide), which is a poison.