Create a Public Fear so Government Can Regulate and Tax More

Why has the absolutely essential carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is required by all plants and therefore by all animal life, been declared a pollutant by our own EPA on the basis of some very poorly thought-out computer models?  Why have absurdly low concentrations of other chemicals, despite being hundreds to hundreds of thousands of times below concentrations shown to cause harm, been declared hazards requiring ever more regulations?  Why are x-ray sources enclosed in absolutely safe systems unnecessarily regulated by governments? These short video clips of a British TV show posted by Joanne Nova explain it all:

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/if-only-yes-prime-minister-re-elected-had-done-the-global-warming/

Water and many ingredients in common vitamin pills are deadly hazards at anywhere from a few tens to a few hundred times what people normally ingest of these chemicals.  One aspirin may be good, but 10 are never good.  The Alar scare of a few years ago was based on doses of Alar in mice, whose equivalent would have required a person to drink about 180,000 gallons of apple juice in a short period of time.  The linear projection of harmful consequences is nonsense, yet it is widely used in government and the EPA specifically to create fear and to justify more controls.

These fears and controls reduce our options, increase expenses greatly, and cut off many advances in technology.  They lower our standard of living now and by denying the compounding of yearly advances and productivity over decades, they hugely lower the standard of living in the latter years of most people's lives and through the lives of our children and grandchildren.  This over-regulation is a very serious matter.

The Skeptic's Handbook by Joanne Nova

There is a very nice summary of the issues of catastrophic man-made global warming claimed to be due to man adding CO2 to the atmosphere by Joanne Nova.  It is very suitable for reasonably intelligent high school and college students.  Apparently, she had believed in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming until 2007, when she understood why the theory or hypothesis was wrong.  Her presentation is well-reasoned and cuts to the essentials.