So now you are using the language of science. CO2 by itself of course isn't pollution.
We agree, science agrees, unambiguous observation agrees, but the EPA, IPCC, Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio do not, so you're on the right side already!
The EPA formally declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant! The very thing that makes Earth green.
If being a greenhouse gas is what qualifies this, then H2O is a far greater and more threatening pollutant- since it is by far the greatest driver of the GH effect and primary driver of global warming computer sims.
How often have you heard this abbreviated to simple 'carbon pollution' by which Earth is populated by pollution based life forms and pollution breathing plants.
It's difficult to think of anything further from being a pollutant, than 2 extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air. Plants and life in general thrived under far higher levels of this 'pollution'
The Ordovician
ice age had 10 times todays CO2 levels
I haven't researched climate change or the climate change denialists views in depth so I'm keeping options open on that topic. You on the other hand seem convinced that it's wrong. What is the source of your information?
I think the whole point of science is
not having to take anybody's word for it, would you not agree?
Especially in such a politically charged topic. Look at the science itself, or lack thereof.
There are all kinds of conceptually mind boggling scientific truths which can be verified scientifically, no such thing for global warming, ghosts or astrology.
We only have the word of climastrologers, paranormal investigators and astrologers- all 'experts' in their fields after all!
The main difference being that the latter two do not accept political funding