Santorum doesn't think carbon dioxide is dangerous

Here is a direct quote from Rick Santorum: "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is." [source:]

If you truly believe this, may I ask: what do you think happens if you strap a plastic bag over your head and make an airtight seal over your neck?

Santorum's statement is weapons-grade stupidity, and that's ignoring everything else he's every said, ever.

And this guy is running for President of the United States. For those of you who live in other countries: yes. This is really happening.
John Arrington Woodward's profile photoTerry Hallett's profile photoJon Franklin's profile photoTerri D's profile photo
I think oxygen is dangerous. It's far past time to outlaw it.
Should have crossed party lines to vote for Ron Paul.
Not only is he running for president, he's doing quite well in his party.
His statement actually makes the quite salient point that carbon dioxide isn't inherently dangerous. And in concocting a certain scenario where it becomes dangerous, in no way even rebuts the notion that it isn't inherently dangerous i.e. any amount in any context
Dihydrogen oxide is also dangerous. What do you think will happen if you put you head in it for a few minutes.
I wonder what he thinks about dihydrogen monoxide...
+Mark Noble Are you volunteering to help with my Coalition to Eliminate Oxygen? All I need are a few grants for studies to prove our claim, some key journalists, and then we're off to great things!
Straight up ridiculous that +Rick Santorum has a chance for a presidential bid with the lack of scientific knowledge that comes out of his mouth.
We made a fun game out of this quote.

The dangers of eating your own shit? Tell that to a dog, how dangerous eating your own shit is.
Just fill in the blanks to show how incredibly illogical Santorum is.
+Dante Fernandez What a fun game. Reminds me of the Bill O'Reilly, "you can't explain that"

Dangerous to breath water... tell that to a fish, how dangerous it is to breath water.
+Juan Schwartz said "How is Ron Paul any better?"

Because it doesn't matter if he agrees with you.

He's shown that he understands that they proper role of government is to stay the fuck out of your business. :)

This sets him apart.
+Mark Noble Without the government regulations, the hidden costs of pollution would never be internalized into the market.
Y'know, +Philip Plait, your thought experiment doesn't quite work, because the harm from the sealed-plastic-bag scenario comes from lack of oxygen, not surplus of carbon dioxide.

Better to ask why it was necessary to jury-rig a connection between the Command Module air scrubbers to the LEM's systems during the Apollo 13 mission.
Its wonderfull stuff just ask Lovell and Haise about it they may have a story to tell about CO2 :-)
Yeah you wouldn't want to add any of his other statements into the Santorum stupidity equation. That stuff will destroy your mind.
+Walter Lounsbery What is your stance on Oxygen bars? I feel they are corrupting our youth and ruining lives. People are out there GETTING HIGH on Oxygen. This dangerous and additive gas much be outlawed.
+Mark Noble, Well, for gays he simply won't be any better than Obama, as both would leave the status quo. For women, his position is that states should be allowed to regulate abortion as they see fit, and would seek to overturn Roe v Wade to allow that. He's personally pro-life, and would enable states to be pro-life as well. He wouldn't take any specific action at the federal level to enact pro-life policies, except to remove restrictions that prevent states from doing so.
+Shane Brady Quoting Ron Paul on marriage:
Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament.

Ok, so he, like me wants to eliminate government from the institution of marriage.

But that's not being "against gay marriage". It's against letting the government stand in the way of gay marriage.
It's not a matter of whether or not it's inherently dangerous, it's a matter of whether or not the present circumstances involving it are dangerous. Carbon dioxide is deadly if that's all you breathe, and we all would die if it disappeared from our planet. Making those extreme claims doesn't further the discussion.
Perhaps they should put him in an airtight room and pump it full of CO2. That would be interesting to see how long it took before he started banging on the door!
+Shane Brady Ron Paul also understands, correctly, that abortion is Constitutionally a state issue.
Can you say "batshit crazy?" I knew you could...
Co2 is not dangerous just ask the people on Venus
Ron Paul's big flaw is in thinking that the only actor who can curtail your freedom is the federal government, and that any action the federal government takes is a curtailment of freedom. In truth, many acts that the federal government takes are there to protect the rights of individuals from other powerful actors.

So he's happy to repeal Rowe vs Wade (and Griswold vs Connecticut), because the Big Bad Federal Government is unfairly infringing on the states' rights to tell individuals what they're allowed to do. Ditto, when the government tells corporations that they can't force their employees to go without basic safety equipment, that's infringing on the corporations' rights.

Ron Paul thinks that states have rights, corporations have rights, individuals... not so much.
Those crazy Venusians with their sulfuric acid rain and 400 degree F days. Ah yess. THAT was a fun vacation!
Are politicians just ignorant or are they actually stupid? The GOP candidates scare me as they distort facts, lie, or just ignore what we know... and what we don't know we can always Google, only it seems they don't!
Santorum doesn't really scare me or concern me in and of himself. It's the people that believe anything that comes out of this man's mouth and supports him as an actual valid candidate for presidency that scares the ever living crap out of me. Personally I think there should be some sort of IQ test for any political office. Of course that begs the moral question of who sets the bar on these tests.
+Mark Noble, it's not necessarily a state issue. If you take an expansive view of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the right to privacy and to make medical decisions for yourself, could easily be one of those un-enumerated personal rights reserved to the people, rather than one of the powers devolved to the states.

It's worth recalling that states do not have 'rights' they have 'powers'. People have rights. Since the incorporation of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional rights to the states by the 14th Amendment, the federal government has both the power and the duty to defend individual rights against state powers.

If you want a Republican who will defend individuals against both state and federal overreach, you want +Gary Johnson.
All political canidates should be given a basic IQ test if you test lower then Forrest Gump then you should be not allow to run for office
+1 for the phrase, "weapons-grade stupidity".
+David Smith Actually +Gary Johnson is a Libertarian running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination.

Where in the law do statutes determining what does and does not constitute "murder" reside?
As the U.S. has such a global influence, perhaps the election of President should be voted by the global population.
We should make a clear distinction here: Santorum isn't stupid, he's making a point that appeals to stupid people. He knows his point (although basically true) is irrelevant to the question of how it affects the global climate to our (human) detriment. He probably even knows that global warming is real and that we're causing it bout doesn't care because he thinks Jesus is going to come back before things get really bad (which is stupid).

+Philip Plait responded to the challenge to the claim that CO2 is not toxic, which sadly plays into the hands of deniers because what they've done is gotten us to shift our focus from the actual issue to a non-issue. This is why they say outrageously non-salient things: they tear up a strawman argument and trick us into putting it back together instead of calling the strawman what it is.
Back in the 1980s, when then-candidate Ronald Reagan said that trees cause more pollution than cars, someone suggested a test: put him in a room with a car with a running engine, and the president of the Sierra Club in a room with a tree, and see who lasts longer.

May I suggest that we put Mr. Santorum's statement to a similar test?
Actually +Philip Plait this statement is a confession that carbon dioxide is increasing. Otherwise he wouldn't need to make a statement about carbon dioxide at all!
I get this all the time on "the other social network". It's a wall. They don't want to see the fallacy; if we destroy the vast majority of the rainforests that BREATHE the CO2, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. And we, and most other mammals, will get poisoned from it.
I've been watching from Canada, and frankly ALL of the Republican candidates scare the bejeezus out of me! I can't imagine what would happen to your country if one of these guys got in as President.
His statement is just an expression of the average level of IQ among the republican candidates. They believe that the world is flat too. And that the Sun cirkles around the U.S.
Definitely filing away "weapons-grade stupidity" for future use. I know ad-hominem is wrong, but... that's just too good. Plus, sometimes the shoe fits.
+Bonnie Robertson if any of those wacknuts have enough voters supporting them to get elected I don't fear for my country. I will just loose whatever remaining hope for humanity I have left. We'll reap what we sow.
While I like the phrase, I don't think this is stupidy. At least not in terms of IQ. This is passionate, rote belief. He has his ideas he will not bend upon and he "has God" to back him up. He also most likely has a martyr complex. He's willing to "take the pain" of detractors' comments in order to do his God's work. What he doesn't seem to care about is what his actions will do to those around him or those that will come after us. I also suspect that if "those people" I referred to aren't "the good ones", he won't care.
+Mark Noble The problem with small-government states-rights folks like you and Ron Paul is that there is no incentive for long-term planning. If "the great and holy free market" values destroying the planet of a hundred years hence to turn a buck this year, then the free market will just go right ahead and do it...and it honestly has no choice either: any company planning for the long term is at a disadvantage relative to a company going for short term profit. So the whole system collapses into some minimal foresight singularity that can barely see past the end of its own nose.

A fabulous role for government to take up is enacting regulations which force everyone to play by long term rules without the risk that any single company will short-sell the rest for a short term gain.

But you probably didn't read past the first sentence. That's the problem with republicans and libertarians. You simply and honestly do not give a shit about long term consequences.
Carbon dioxide its not just for breakfast anymore :-)
+Keith Wiley - I see your points and agree ... except that the evangelical sector sees Christianity as the cure for that callousness. After all, a "true Christian" would not destroy the planet God gave him/her. Which is also a fallacy. Greed will trump caring any day of the week and twice on Sunday. (Yes, that was on purpose.)
I was for a while wondering whether the news sites I read were being biased about the quality of the candidates in the US' elections. Now I'm more convinced that they really are that dismal! Recently, I read an article by +Lisa Hymas on (I've just discovered that they're both on G+ too). He also thinks that if we don't exploit 'care' for forests and nature, they'll just naturally 'boom and bust'. :|
+Scott Meesey I'm surprised you would say that. Isn't it all the fundies who don't care what happens to the planet in a hundred years because they literally believe the second-coming will occur in their own lifetimes?
+Keith Wiley - Ah, nice catch! That's a preconception. There are plenty of evangelicals that do not believe the "end of days" is upon us or see it not as a physical destruction but social/religioius/spritual one. As such, we should still care for the planet God gave us.
I also have to point out that the "fundies" that are so blinded by such beliefs are (apparently) not as numerous as I've feared in the past. However, fundies preaching the end of days sells press time, so we hear about it ... a LOT.
I think he got the idea for the quip from John Boehner, who had already gone off on silly environmentalists who believe carbon dioxide is a "carcinogen", a claim that is of course made by nobody.
Why are people voting for this guy? He says he will ban porn, he is not concerned with unemployment, he does not think the economy is a main issue for this election, nothing dangerous about carbon dioxide. WTF are people thinking?
I don't think it's about race. I sure hope it's not about race. If it is about race then why vote for this loon over Romney?
I think race is still a HUGE factor in our society. His middle name doesn't help either. It's unfortunate and sad, but it's there. As for Dick over Mitt; Mitt's TOO rich.
When you realize that Santorum has no interest in the dictionary/scientific definition of truth and only focusing on the biblical definition of truth, you'll realize that to ague with him and his ilk is a useless exercise. To respond with ad hominem against these folks only encourages them and alienates us from the people reading these posts et al who are sitting on the fence.
To tell the truth; us over this side of the pond gave up on you lot over there when you elected a "B" Movie actor and "Shrubie" to power.
Just because you've got the muscle don't mean you got the brains
+Owen Roberts, just as not all Brits have bad teeth, not all Americans have lost their minds. (but we do find ourselves trapped in one huge lunatic asylum)
+Owen Roberts I really want to argue that point with you...but I can't. All I can say is we aren't all that crazy...just apparently the ones in power.
A friend created a Twitter account for her yet-to-be-born child. When the child was finally born, his first tweet was "Finally! Now where's this boob I keep hearing about?" My reply was "I hear a couple are running for president."
The problem is it seems that the Majority of you are this dumb.
As for the teeth thing there speaks a a man who has not been here for a while; we have a national health service which includes dentistry. It does not however include cosmetic work, as we think money is better spent on need not looks
Dumb sells press time. That's why it seems to be so prevalent. I'm not saying we don't have a good chunk of stupid in this country, but it's not as big as you perceive.
+Nate Cook Cook asks
"WTF are people thinking?"
The problem would seem to be they are not; thinking that is
+Owen Roberts - BTW, if you don't mind the humor, I could say to you; "Please, this is a family matter. We'd rather not involve others outside the family." ;-)
I know dumb sells, after all we have "The Sun" & "The Daily Mail"; but truth be told it only does so because DUMB buys the press
+Joff Leader - I really don't think folks in the States have any idea about the messed up culture of Congress (or the federal government for that matter). They vote for what fires them up but after the votes are cast, it's all Congress and there have been times I've thought; "That's not what I voted for you to do."
The firestorm of comments posted by the CO2 is good folks here is telling in itself about the lack of understanding of the role it has in the apparent warming of our tiny lifeboat falling around a star. I suggest before you respond to this post, you should come back with an evidence-backed argument refuting the mountain of peer reviewed publications laying out the case for anthropogenic (look it up) warming and the role CO2 plays.
+Scott Meesey
You are absolutely correct; if only that were true though; but I guess if you were to ask any Palestinian if the US didn't get involved in others politics, they may say you do BIG TIME
Back to +Philip Plait 's opening - is it too late to ask for brains at the top in US politics?
I think it's too late for any western democracy to expect brains from their leaders. We've traded intellect for i-Pods years ago
As Winston Churchill said
"Democracy is the worst form of Government there is; except for all the others"
You are what you breathed.
What's particularly maddening is all the climate denier talking points have been debunked over and over and over again and the media covers nonsense such as Santorum's as if it's some kind of new revelation. This is the main failure of profit-based news media. They aren't interested in the truth - only the controversy generated by the Jerry Springer style chair throwing match to improve their ratings - ergo stockholder dividends.
+Andy Urban - Precisely! The "liberal/conservative bias" issue is a white-wash! Certain news channels may have such a bias, but it's the sensationalist nature that's the real driver. That's why we hear about "all the crazies" (as a conservative friend of mine puts it) all the time.
"Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to [us] is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us—to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is."
Didn't the Wall Street Journal recently publish an op ed by 16 "scientists" that said the same thing? With that single article, the WSJ is now on par with The Sun.
"I don't speak for the scientific community, of course. But I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that ... so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing. " Barack Obama, no its Mitt Romney the leading republican candidate...
What a complete tit. Really people are voting for him?

+Mark Thomas To be fair, I think most people are voting against someone else rather than for somebody.*

*DISCLAIMER: I won't be voting for Mr. Santorum. I figured that out long before this post.
He's just catering to his constituents. Plants for Santorum!
Yes Its not a secret any more they are all actors of the hipocraczy in the politrix of their own supressed ignorance to assume they are in control when strings above them, has the ultimate result already in the future they will be in past. Writen in a book marked on a calendar, and seen on crop circles in england. Dark ages 7(G) deadly
$ins(100+50+20+10+5+2+1=? in:ri).
In od we trust. O=(15(ae)).
A.dam and Eve=I(@pple)V.
Circle o.v.e vil.livE,
♪->× i_i c i_i ×<-♪

E=Mc2(A.E.), €]V[3(II3acktun)
13(M)ayan,A-Ztec Baktun

Jaw-dropping stupidity.
Send him to Venus. That will give him an impression of a greenhouse effect. He might even get a little hot and find the air a little stuffy.
Please Americans, don't vote this guy to be your President. Sincerely, a concerned Malaysian.
Republicans, please vote for Ron Paul. He's the only Republican Presidential candidate who makes sense.
Not being a vegetable, I am inclined to disagree with him. By analogous argument, I should change my diet to include fertilizer, since my garden seems to like that too...
Hrm, perhaps this was a Freudian-esque slip on his part and he's actually a pod-person.
Add a comment...