EPA: Regs Would Only Reduce Temps by 0.0015 Degrees While Slowing Business ‘For Years’
- Posted on October 6, 2010 at 1:46pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
The EPA has admitted that tough new greenhouse gas regulations will “slow construction nationwide for years,” while only reducing global temperatures by 0.0015 of a degree Celsius, CNSNews.com reports.
CNS cites a GOP minority report, issued last Wednesday, which says a series of proposed and partially implemented new regulations on industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters, and ozone levels will put over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit.
“The authors cite the EPA’s own staff to show that greenhouse gas regulations, which would require major sources of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to obtain permits and limit their output, could seriously harm the economy if implemented,” CNS news reports.
Obtaining those permits, the EPA said in a June 3 report referenced by CNS and obtained through the Federal Register, would cause “delays, at the outset, that would be at least a decade or longer, and that would only grow worse over time as each year, the number of new permit applications would exceed permitting authority resources for that year.”
The report adds that during that time “tens of thousands of [permit applicants] each year would be prevented from constructing or modifying,” and that companies trying to obtain permits would “be forced to abandon altogether plans to construct or modify.“ The backlog could ”slow construction nationwide for years, with all of the adverse effects that this would have on economic development.”
CNS explains the reasoning behind the regulation:
All of these complications stem from EPA’s desire to regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases — primarily automobiles. By issuing a finding last spring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, the EPA is able to regulate mobile output of the gas; but the ancillary effect is that stationary CO2 emitters — factories, schools, office buildings — are now subject to those Clean Air Act regulations as well.
However, analysis by the EPA puts in question whether the 80,000 jobs that Republicans estimate these regulations could cost are worth it.
According to CNS the EPA writes in rule-making documents from April 2010 that “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100.”
Or, as James Inhofe (R-OK) said on the Senate floor last week, “they would reduce global temperatures by … an amount so small it can’t be measured on a ground-based thermometer.”
The EPA has created “tailoring” rules that would protect many businesses from having to file for permits. But, CNS reports, Republicans on the Senate EPW committee fear a federal court could strike the tailoring rule, deciding it does not follow explicit guidelines set out for the process of issuing permits for pollutants in the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Should that rule be struck down, the Republicans point to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which says that the EPA “could be forced to regulate” about 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 92,000 health care facilities, 92,000 health-care facilities, 37,000 churches, and 17,000 farms, among other things.
That could have a crippling affect on businesses and the economy.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 455 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 311 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 206 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (296)
wingedwolf
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:14pmThe most reputable scientists in the world have been warning us for years that this global warming stuff is junk, just a plot to make the ultra-rich of the world even ultra-richer. We could take every car in the world off the road for a year and it wouldn’t affect the ozone more than 2%. I am all for renewable energy and other forms of energy. It also needs to be made affordable for the average person, otherwise why is anyone going to buy the idea we need different fuels? I also like my large SUV. When it’d done, I’ll buy another. I wish they’d make me an electric one or a hybrid, but the only hybrid large SUV is a caddy, and I don’t want a GM, thank you very much, I’m stuck on my Fords; besides, there’s too many escalades in gansta videos for me to be comfortable with one.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:17pmNot true. 98% of of the scientific research written over the last several years says the OPPOSITE of what you just asserted wtihout proof. Visit http://www.skepticalscience.com for more info on the subject.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:26pmChanging CO2 levels will have no effect on temperatures. Here’s the basic math (To date nobody has found significant fault with it or its basis, give or take an unproven narrow band hypothesis that attempts to claim that CO2 magically absorbs in this special narrow band that nothing else does and that the sun is only sending IR to us in that band or some such nonsense – or if they have they I missed their post. – Have been posting this math for several years now, on multiple boards): Pure CO2 absorbs 20% more IR than well mixed air (search on experiments to prove CO2 a green house gas – their results tend to be fairly consistent). CO2 is < 400ppm or .004% of air. So all the CO2 in the air is < .0008% as IR absorbent as the rest of the air. Now to accomplish what they want to (changing CO2 output by <1%) and we get a change in temps of < .00008% * .7 degrees per century and we get < .000056 degrees difference by 2110 attributable to their efforts and our suffering. Nobody knows for sure what the average global temperature will in 2020 let alone in 2100. It's up to the Sun. The best anyone can do is plot statistical models based on how the Sun has performed in the past. It would take something on the scale of a super volcano to alter that dynamic. Man caused AGW is bunk, pure and simple.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:27pmMrobvious, there is plenty of empirical support that the absorption properties of CO2 are sufficient to explain the greehouse effect and observed warming. Check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm for loads of research in this area. If you say that no one has found fault with your argument, then you are not reading or listening very carefully.
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:13pmArticle states: “The EPA has admitted that tough new greenhouse gas regulations will “slow construction nationwide for years,” while only reducing global temperatures by 0.0015 of a degree Celsius.”
Hmmm…perhaps that is because the regulations are NOT about DIRECTLY lowering global temperatures. The regulations are created to INDIRECTLY affect global temps (so their theory goes).
The goal here and in much of the CAP&TAX initiative is simple, and it has been stated from the horse’s (mule’s) mouth: “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”. You see its a cause and effect scheme they are working on, and it works like this: 1) Regulate (or strangle) Supply and costs will skyrocket. 2) Once costs go through the roof, Demand is curbed and the standard of living drops. 3) When the standard of living drops, so does investment risk, and construction capital. 4) When construction grinds to a halt, CO2 emmissions lower, across the globe.
What these ******* politicians and climate wackos dont realize, is that the cost of every single thing on every shelf in America, will also “necessarily skyrocket”.
So let’s take it to extremes and see what that buys us. If we assume that nearly every product and service is priced out of range of nearly every consumer, then we can effectively state that it would be similar to: these same products not even existing, because they would not be available to the consumer. So in the end, what we have is similar to: We eventually own almost nothing, and would be paying nearly all of our paychecks to keep the condition of over-regulation and poverty in place. Does that sound even remotely sane? Hmmm.
Why do ******** ALWAYS leave themselves out of, or elevate themselves above others, in their own vision of Global Eutopia?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:16pmOr perhaps it’s because the base line rate of temperature change is up, so you have to work hard just to hold it flat. That is the logically simpler conclusion, so I’ll go with that. But you can read all sorts of theories about liberal minds into it if you want.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:57pmABC-
A true wack Job,
Because I believe anything,
Cause I just want to believe the Consensus.
and all of you are not worthy of my brainiac sort of thinking? I just like the officials who know best and will tell you how and how much you owe for your life and unlifesyle.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:23pmBeck, can’t lay a glove on the factual argument, so you name-call. Classic ignorant conservative behavior. I guess you’d let plumbers do heart surgery, since you clearly don’t believe in experts.
Report Post »stop
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:11pmThree little letters – CCX
Report Post »Follow the money?
How about follow the President?
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:18pmTwo words: Koch Brothers. So, please follow the money–money that dwarfs the CCX. It leads to the GOP and head-in-sand politics over global warming in the assistance of a couple of billionaires.
Report Post »Noonien_Soong
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 9:24pmCCX is a money making scam whch should be investigated by the SEC. If the CCX is found to be not breaking any laws, I would like to sell and trade Oxygen credits, there is a bigger market for itt especially when Oxygen is used as a component for rocket fuel.
Report Post »fishlore
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:57pmImagine being a liberal and trying to defend the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs all for a completely fabricated 0.0015 degree C change in temperature. These losers are trying to create crippling solutions to problems that don’t even exist. Liberals… talk about a disgusting group of people content with nothing less than the destruction of free markets and capitalism. I‘d at least listen if the alternative wasn’t something that has failed in every single country it has ever been tried.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:32pmWhat if the alternative is a 3 degree increase in temperature? Then that tiny decline would be welcomed by everyone. You forget the alternatives when you make this faulty argument. Politically tough sell? of course. BUt that doesn‘t mean it isn’t the right policy call.
Report Post »badswing
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:57pmI did the calculations and the real # is .00175 decrease. (point:my post is absurd as the epa #!) do they really believe that someone can figure this out? what a joke!
Report Post »tonkaslim
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:56pmWhat should the average temperature be and how do we know? How and why do we choose baseline temperatures against which more recent average temperatures are measured? Do we know that in those years the average temperatures were “correct?“ What metric will we employ to measure the success of the efforts to mitigate ”climate change,” since the climate has always changed and will presumably continue to? In other words, how will we know when we’ve won?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:29pmMy understanding is that we try to baseline back to the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800′s when carbon dioxide emissions first started. We want to measure the human impacts above and beyond natural impacts, and we hope to avoid or minimize those human impacts. The temperature in 1860 was about 0.8 degrees cooler than it was in 2000.
Report Post »GPS Scientist
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:56pmAnthropomorphic Climate Change is a myth. There is NO reason to regulate CO2. I was a developer of the atmospheric model used in GPS, which is validated by over a billion users everyday, unlike the climate ‘scientists’ models. We calculated average atmospheric drag over an orbit for all the GPS satellites and used the Kalman Filter Estimator to update these numbers based on the most accurate measuring system in existence. If the atmosphere is warming, the drag would be increasing by a predictable amount, because the atmosphere would expand following gas laws taught in high school chemistry and physics. 15 years of measurements (far more accurate than any thermometer in use) do NOT indicate an increase in average drag. Only very small random changes. The whole CO2 bit is a scam to get political power and make money. I have read the papers on which everything is based and they computational methods are amateurish compared to what is used in the GPS system .
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:13pmWheres Perfesser ABC when you need him/her most. Carbon credits should be printed on Charmin so that they will actually be of use.
Report Post »Sailor
Mayimbe27
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:26pmGreat bit of insight. ABC?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:17pmFunny that you conclude this, since other climate scientists are using the same technology and reaching the opposite conclusion. See, for example, the following:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d3/jules/THC.pdf
Also, it is my understanding that the US military essentially controls the GPS, so they would be privy to your research. However, they are still very worried about global warming, have publicly expressed these concerns and continue to incorporate it into their threat assessments, one of which concluded that the outbreak of even nuclear war is a reasonable possibility given the threats of global warming. So, by your logic, even the military is in on the hoax. Without more information from you, I’ll go with the military and credentialled climate scientists who also use the technology that you have used.
Thanks for your contributions to GPS, by the way. It is a wonderful and marvellous technological feat that you helped bring into the world. Kudos.
Report Post »AMERICA4EVER
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:49pmABC, who are you?
Report Post »spendthrift
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:48pmBypass Congress and give all the power to the Executive Branch.That’s what the Constitution means now……
Report Post »Flagwaver
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:39pmIf CO2 is dangerous, that must mean trees and plants are also dangerous. They take in CO2 and produce that thing that we need to live. If the EPA wants to say that there is too much CO2 they need to kill a bunch of trees to raise public awareness.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:17pmYou must have failed First Grade logic. Car accidents are dangers, so that means cars are dangerous. Cars are colored, so that means colors are dangerous. But my clothes are colored. Wait. I’d better strip down to my tighty whiteys…
See how stupid you look applying the transitive property so ridiculously? How about you first ask how CO2 is dangerous and how much CO2 is dangerous? That would be the start of a more intelligent inquiry.
Report Post »CaptElaine
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 8:26pmI think we could lower Co2 if ABC held his breath… and shut his computer down…ran upstairs for mommy to fix him a pB&j sandwich… GLO_BULL warming a BS and everyone except ABC knows it.
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:37pmLiberals are a DISEASE and our founding fathers have set fourth a plan to cure this disease and the prescription is the CONSTITUTION! get ready for your shots. Sadly it will be hard to administer the shots seeing that 99% of liberals Heads are so far up their own a$$e$ they will suffocate before it takes effect. So please pull your heads out take a breath of good ol’American Air of freedom and understand The American people are tired of the lies, Give me Liberty or give me death!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:15pmYes, when facts and logic don’t support your side, revert to name calling. Good one. Your God must approve…
Report Post »Greg the Electrician
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:35pmTrees and vegetation need Carbon Di-Oxide.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:40pmAnd you need water. So if I ask you to drink 20 liters in an hour, you’ll be dead. What the heck is your point??
Report Post »grnhrn
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:20pmBigger question is how much this will cost everyone compared to the real benifits acheived. Working joes,and janes wil pay while the select will receive such payments while mother earth will see no real benifit. Why doesn’t epa sue islam for all that blood they spill on the ground blood is a hazardous substance at least your supposed to place it in seperate red bins. Or how about illegal aliens and all the trash they leave in desert. Help! I woke up to a world gone insane and can’t go back to sleep……
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:39pmThis already worked with acid rain. No elites got rich. No poor Joes got robbed. And the acid rain problem disappeared under a tradable permit system much like the proposed CO2 cap and trade. It has already worked, so why is it crazy??
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:19pmPlants make oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. This process is a plant’s way of making food. Oxygen is a byproduct of that process.
Plants need carbon dioxide, water and sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. Carbon dioxide is found in the air, and absorbed through a plant’s leaves. Sunlight is needed because the energy found in sunlight is what powers the whole process. This energy from light is trapped by something in the leaves called chloroplasts.
If plants use CO2 to make oxygen how is producing CO2 bad for the environment?
My second question is this….people say we are running out of water? First let me point out, there is the same amount of water on this planet today as there was millions of years ago. except the little bit that we sent to space with astronauts. Water basically migrates around the planet…And we have technology that can turn salt (sea) water into drinking water, we use it every day on our war ships. why can we not build a bigger version of this same machine to provide clean water across the planet?
The planet is not dieing and man has nothing to do with environmental changes. Our planet works the way God designed it, it runs in cycles which can be proven by looking at the prehistoric layers of earth. Did the dinosaurs produce to many green house gasses and that’s what destroyed them?
If God decided to end the earth that is His choice. and sorry to burst your bubble, no amount of solar panels or anything else man does is going stop it from happening or make it happen any quicker. (aside from not believing and trusting in His power. )
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:34pm“Plants make oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. This process is a plant’s way of making food. Oxygen is a byproduct of that process. Plants need carbon dioxide, water and sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. Carbon dioxide is found in the air, and absorbed through a plant’s leaves. Sunlight is needed because the energy found in sunlight is what powers the whole process. This energy from light is trapped by something in the leaves called chloroplasts. If plants use CO2 to make oxygen how is producing CO2 bad for the environment?”
To answer your question, something good in certain amounts becomes bad in other amounts. For example, you can die if you drink 20 liters of water in an hour, even if the water is clean and safe. Putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere is bad for the environment. Period. The physics and biology on this topic is beyond question, and 98% of scientists publishing on the issue agree that global warming is a major threat. I think that answers your first question.
“My second question is this….people say we are running out of water? First let me point out, there is the same amount of water on this planet today as there was millions of years ago. except the little bit that we sent to space with astronauts. Water basically migrates around the planet…And we have technology that can turn salt (sea) water into drinking water, we use it every day on our war ships. why can we not build a bigger version of this same machine to provide clean water across the planet?”
This has nothing to do with global warming, but I’ll answer it anyway. Water has a very high specific heat, which means it takes a lot of energy to turn it into a different state (e.g., from liquid to gas). Hence, it is very energy intensive and expensive to desalinate water via heat. We can do it with micropore technology, but that is energy intensive as well for other reasons. In any case, it is this high cost that makes it tough to deliver clean drinking water to parts of the world with little money.
“The planet is not dieing and man has nothing to do with environmental changes. Our planet works the way God designed it, it runs in cycles which can be proven by looking at the prehistoric layers of earth. Did the dinosaurs produce to many green house gasses and that’s what destroyed them? If God decided to end the earth that is His choice. and sorry to burst your bubble, no amount of solar panels or anything else man does is going stop it from happening or make it happen any quicker. (aside from not believing and trusting in His power. )”
You have no proof of any of this and while you are entitled to your opinion it doesn’t solve any problem or credibly predict any outcome. I can choose to fly across the Atlantic ocean using only half of the fuel necessary, arguing that God will take care of the poor souls on the flight, and I will be barred from taking that flight by really reasonable people. You are essentially saying the same thing, which is your right. But it is my and others’ right to show how ridiculous that assertion is in light of modern science. In many states, it‘s illegal for Jehovah’s Witnesses to deny modern medical care to their own children even though they have the right to believe that only God, not modern medicines can and should be allowed to cure them. In short, you are allowed to live like they did in the 10th century, but you have no right to force more modern people to follow you down that path.
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:44pm@ABC you said “In short, you are allowed to live like they did in the 10th century, but you have no right to force more modern people to follow you down that path.” and nor do you or any other idiot who falls for this SCAM!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:00pmActually, we do. You have no right to put NOx or SOx in the air from a plant on a site that you own. You cannot pollute the commons and you are taxed for the cost of the damage you do to the commons if you try. To ignore it would be theft of commonly-held property. I guess you expect to get away with theft. And I thought you were a good conservative in favor of tough crime laws and protection of property…
Report Post »RKade
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:17pmBut if saved only one 0.000001 Celsius wouldn’t it be worth it.
These people are totally mad. But as some one here said Follow the money! Corruption of the highest order. It could be totally immoral as well.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:24pmYes. Follow the money. The Koch Brothers have set up multiple PACs to fight global warming regulations because they are on the hook for multiple billions when cap and trade goes into place. So, yes. Let’s follow the money.
Report Post »jgrant
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:15pmPlus, you know that the EPA’s estimate of .0015 degrees is already inflated, or completely fictitious altogether.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:22pmWhy do you know this? The scientific models have underestimated the problem much more often (about 75%) than they have overestimated the problem, so the bias is that they have been too conservative in estimating the negative impacts. Applying the logic, it is more likely that the EPA has understated that estimate.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:13pmWhen Al Gore downsizes, then he can speak to me. Until then shut the pie hole you stupid enviromental nut jobs. Global warming is a MYTH!
Report Post »seayalater73
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:11pmJust like all government regulation the ineffectiveness will not be related back to false premises, rather deeper into an expansion of regulation. No one is going to be able to say that CC was not due to anthropogenic effects when the anthropogenic effects of a destroyed economy prevent the majority from turning on a TV set, radio, or computer.
STUPID HUMANS AHEAD, drive safe…
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:20pmBut the ineffectiveness of regulation is due to the GOP. So what say you now? And the fix is a one-sentence amendment to the Clean Air Act. Wow. That is some burden on Congress to address… That expansion of regulation really scares me. It’s about one millionth the size of the TSA that Bush implemented. Talk about hypocrisy.
Report Post »senyl
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:37pmAnd how, exactly, is the GOP stopping the legislation?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:13pmThey are threatening to sue if the EPA only chooses to regulate those that emit tens of thousands of tons of CO2 rather than anything greater than 250 tons, since that is outside the letter of the law. It matters not that the concentration of CO2 that is harmful comes in much larger amounts, so the spirit of the law is observed. The GOP just wants to stop all CO2 regulation and this is the legal trick to do it. Now, they could avoid the legal controversy entirely by simply adding a few sentences via an amendment, but the Republicans would never do this. They are taking too much special interest money from dirty polluters’ lobbyists. Now do you understand??
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:49pmABC blathers moronically: “But the ineffectiveness of regulation is due to the GOP.”
Abject idiocy bordering on lunacy. For nearly two years now, the Democrats have held absolute majorities in both houses, and the presidency. Not a single Republican vote is required to pass anything.
The GOP can’t stop anything, and haven’t been able to, for two years.
If anything is stopped, it is not Republicans stopping it. It’s the people stopping it, you compleat moron.
Of course decent folk aren’t going to “amend” a criminal bill. They are going to undo it. *We* are going to expunge it. The Republicans know very well what’s going to happen to them if they compromise with Obama and the Democrats.
The history of Obama is going to be the first administration that was completely and utterly expunged by the subsequent majority. Every act overturned. Every policy rescinded. It will be as if he never served. We are erasing you guys, ABC.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:20pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “But the ineffectiveness of regulation is due to the GOP.” Abject idiocy bordering on lunacy. For nearly two years now, the Democrats have held absolute majorities in both houses, and the presidency. Not a single Republican vote is required to pass anything. The GOP can’t stop anything, and haven’t been able to, for two years. If anything is stopped, it is not Republicans stopping it. It’s the people stopping it, you compleat moron.”
First, the GOP is threatening to sue, which is not a Congressional action but a judiciary one. Second, to amend in the Congress, you need 60 votes to avoid a fillibuster, and that requires at least one Republican that can’t be found. So your comments are off-base.
“Of course decent folk aren’t going to “amend” a criminal bill. They are going to undo it. *We* are going to expunge it. The Republicans know very well what’s going to happen to them if they compromise with Obama and the Democrats.”
There is nothing criminal about a bill that has been in place since 1963 and recently upheld (’07) as having the right to regulate greenhouse gases by the Supreme Court. You can assert that in your opinion it is criminal, but that and $1 will get you a coffee. It is irrelevant what you say. Only the SCOTUS majority’s opinion matters.
“The history of Obama is going to be the first administration that was completely and utterly expunged by the subsequent majority. Every act overturned. Every policy rescinded. It will be as if he never served. We are erasing you guys, ABC.”
If that’s the strategy, then why did the GOP just release a Pledge that calls for the preservation of most of the Health Care Reform Act? You’re taking liberties with the definition of “completely.”
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:10pmIf they do this head to Texas, the only state that can Legally become its own nation.
Report Post »Even if we were to put 100% of our GNP into fighting this so called “global warming: threat, we would have NO impact upon it. China has outpaced us as the leading polluter and is steadily increasing its impact, India is close behind China. There is no way to impact this, it is all about “redistribution” of our wealth, perhaps that why Gyorgy Schwartz (George Soros) is on the UN commitee charged with collecting funds for the “golbal warming” fight. Soros is anti-Christ, He says he like playing GOD.
If our federal government follows through on this or any other of its regressive socialist edicts, then they are the domestic enemy.
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:17pmChina has 4x the people and only passed the US in CO2 emissions two years ago. But the way to look at it is on a per capita basis–the Chinese shouldn’t have to eat only 1/4 of a normal diet because there are four times as many of them, afterall–and on that basis, the Americans remain the worst offenders. This isn’t about redistribution of wealth, but about saving the planet. Just like redistributing tax dollars from the wealthy to pay for lower income soldiers in uniform is not about redistribution of wealth (although that occurs in the process) but about protecting the US. That you don’t understand that means you understand little about the problem.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:39pmABC blathers moronically: “but about saving the planet”
Saving the planet from humans, or just Americans?
You sound just like a religious fundamentalist, you know?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:14pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “but about saving the planet” Saving the planet from humans, or just Americans? You sound just like a religious fundamentalist, you know?”
Saving the planet from humans, although Americans are among the biggest emitters on a per cap basis. Why that makes me like a religious fundamentalist I dont’ understand. That seems like a total logical non-sequitur to me.
Report Post »computerdweller
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:09pmphotosynthesis = co2 + (plants that contain chlorophyll + sunlight) = oxygen.
As I keep saying we ran 4 times the amount of co2 found in normal air in our greenhouses(on sunny days during winter when vents could be closed). All that happened is that our plants grew faster and we had higher levels of oxygen in the greenhouse atmosphere
If the above doesn’t show how phony what the EPA is doing, I don’t know what will. This is a deliberate excuse to tax and destroy our economy.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:15pmWhat temperature was your greenhouse? What if the entire earth were that temperature? Do you realize that what‘s good for a greenhouse isn’t good for the planet?
computerdweller
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:31pmto ABC
Report Post »Plants growth slows down above 90 degrees so it would cut of and open vents at that temp. unlike smoke, CO2 is a transparent gas making it impossible to trap heat. As we have also been informed co2 levels follow an increase in earth temperature. It doesn’t cause it.
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:37pmSo you don’t understand the greenhouse effect even though you use a greenhouse. Increased heat doesn’t attract CO2. Wow. No wonder you’re not worried about the problem. Ignorance is truly bliss.
Report Post »computerdweller
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:55pmto ABC
Report Post »The sun raises temperatures. Volcanic clouds trap heat from the sun. Increased temperatures can cause and increase in forest fires that make co2. Same for volcanoes. As for what I know about the greenhouse effect, your last reply made no sense and I’ll match my patents on the subject against yours any day..
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:04pmVery good. The sun is the major source of heat on earth. CO2 traps heat to make it warmer than it otherwise would be. Adding more CO2 adds more heat. Thanks for proving the point. Back to the original question, what would adding 4x the CO2 do to the whole earth, not just a greenhouse with vents on it???
Report Post »computerdweller
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:10pm70% of our oxygen is produced by plankton in the seas, 30% with trees. The carbon component of co2 does hold some heat, but it is not a problem because of the natural process of the planet. In a cycle of increased heat, the heat promotes increased plant growth. increased plant growth consumes the CO2, The carbon is used as part of the actual plant growth(becomes the plant) and oxygen is released. The result is the co2 content in the atmosphere is brought back in balance. Therefore it is impossible for co2 to rise 4 times, probably couldn’t get to 2 times, except with a large volcanic eruption. All atmospheric impuity can be said to hold heat, but co2 on this planet is self limiting, It may be different on your planet.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:25pmABC blathers moronically: “What if the entire earth were that temperature?”
We’d have a lot more plants.
So tell us, ABC, what precisely is the ideal temperature for Earth?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:11pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “What if the entire earth were that temperature?” We’d have a lot more plants. So tell us, ABC, what precisely is the ideal temperature for Earth?”
Ideally, whatever temperature the eath was at before our CO2 emissions started to elevate it. Perhaps 0.8 degrees cooler.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:05pmFunny how ABC gave up to Computerdweller. I think someone may have outsmarted the other? ABC shown to be a guy that reads Time and Newsweek too much. Keith Oberman is on and I bet he does not respond while this is on in addition to Rachel Machio.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:20pmComputerdweller writes:
“70% of our oxygen is produced by plankton in the seas, 30% with trees. The carbon component of co2 does hold some heat, but it is not a problem because of the natural process of the planet. In a cycle of increased heat, the heat promotes increased plant growth. increased plant growth consumes the CO2, The carbon is used as part of the actual plant growth(becomes the plant) and oxygen is released. The result is the co2 content in the atmosphere is brought back in balance. Therefore it is impossible for co2 to rise 4 times, probably couldn’t get to 2 times, except with a large volcanic eruption. All atmospheric impuity can be said to hold heat, but co2 on this planet is self limiting, It may be different on your planet.”
This is totally false. Plant life requires more than CO2 to survive. You argue that the more CO2, the more plants, so it’s self-regulating, but that isn’t even being observed now. The plankton in the oceans are declining as the oceans’ acidity rises due to–you guessed it–rising CO2 levels. So rapid die-offs of plankton are a negative feedback loop that you ignore. More importantly, you are actually foolish enough to think that you can summarize in a half-dozen sentences the complexity of the CO2 models when the only computers in the world that can run them are the 20-30 fastest computers in the world. What stupendous ignorance. Please cite the incremental CO2 released last year and the projected mean temperature in the world if that level is maintained for the next 20 years. Then we’ll compare the mathematical calculations of the model-in-your-head to those run at Lawrence Livermore, NASA, Los Alamos and other national labs. What silliness from know-nothings.
Report Post »gulf4
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:09pm“However, analysis by the EPA puts in question whether the 80,000 jobs that Republicans estimate these regulations could cost are worth it.”
Yes, but just think of all the unionized gov’t jobs that will be created to administer everything. Isn’t that our goal? Isn’t it?
Report Post »CoFX
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:07pmDamn you EPA! You didn’t consult Al Gore and the Obama Administration before releasing your findings! How are Progressives supposed to acheive total redistribution of wealth if you aren’t playing ball?!?!? Are you sure you don’t want to retract your statement? No pressure….
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:10pmAl Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore. Idiot, idiot, idiot. There. I feel better. And I never have to actually understand, much less analyze, what the article said. Good job, COFX. I bet you did well in your third grade English class.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:16pmABC, you need to broaden your scientific reading. Anyone can draw the conclusion they want by reading a narrow spectrum of literature that agrees with their premise: “Global warming is manmade.”
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:30pmIndeed. It might be easier to take the moronic babblings of ABC seriously if one got the notion it was his actual thinking, rather than just a series of cut-n-pastes from God knows which propaganda outlet.
Apparently, ABC is one who thinks independent thinking is foolish, and that one should slavishly take the word of anyone “professional” as God’s own truth. As if being a scientist makes one somehow other than human, above human, free of the weaknesses and failings of other humans….
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:46pmScience is a moving train. As soon as you stake your reputation on one of their pronouncements, they discover a new fact have to change directions. And those are the true, honest scientists. Nowadays the new fact gets suppressed or twisted to make it fit the popular theory.
Report Post »So be careful if you decide to hang your hat on Science.
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:00pmIndependent Tess, I do not base the 98% of scientists claim on a “narrow” reading. I base it on multiple literature surveys of ALL the research. You can find links to these studies at:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:03pmIndependent Tess, First, the scientific consensus is not based on a “narrow” reading but a survey of all the research: http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm. Second, no one is suppressing any of the scientific data, which is all created and critiqued in the public domain. That is how science gets made. There are vocal critics among the scientists, like Choi or Lindzen, but they are not claiming to be boxed out of research publications. They are in a very small minority, however.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:05pmProspero writes:
“Indeed. It might be easier to take the moronic babblings of ABC seriously if one got the notion it was his actual thinking, rather than just a series of cut-n-pastes from God knows which propaganda outlet.”
Even if it is all cut and pastes, the sources are clearly shown and it is not propaganda.
“Apparently, ABC is one who thinks independent thinking is foolish, and that one should slavishly take the word of anyone “professional” as God’s own truth. As if being a scientist makes one somehow other than human, above human, free of the weaknesses and failings of other humans….”
On technical subjects, expertise matters. If you do not have it, then your opinion counts for less. I don’t ask you for advice on my weak heart. I consult some MD at the Cleveland Clinic. So it is with planetary science. But perhaps you differ. Perhaps you go to the local witch doctor for your serious health issues.
Report Post »CoFX
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:19pmI apologize for my attempt at humor ABC. I didn’t realize you were a complete tool without the mental capability to recognize a suggested parallel between global warming theorists and Cap and Trade. If I wanted a debate, you would be the last person I would go up against. Seriously. I have no way of defending myself against the imaginary facts and statistics you pull out of your backside when it suits your arguement, such as your previous post of temperatures increasing 3%+. (Waiting on a link to that ligitimate source, by the way). Funny how you ask others for references, but never seem to give any of your own…hmmm….
I feel sorry for you. Obviously you come here just to dissect everyone’s posts, looking for weak spots so that you can make yourself feel better. Based on the way you treat people here, I‘m sure it’s the same in real life. Wonder why you have no friends and it seems like no one respects you? It’s because you are an @ss. Feel like a big man when you berate your family members? I bet so. You remind me of any bully I’ve ever known. Good riddance.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:27pmCOFX writes:
“I apologize for my attempt at humor ABC. I didn’t realize you were a complete tool without the mental capability to recognize a suggested parallel between global warming theorists and Cap and Trade. If I wanted a debate, you would be the last person I would go up against. Seriously. I have no way of defending myself against the imaginary facts and statistics you pull out of your backside when it suits your arguement, such as your previous post of temperatures increasing 3%+. (Waiting on a link to that ligitimate source, by the way). Funny how you ask others for references, but never seem to give any of your own…hmmm…. ”
You should apologize for such bad humor. But you should first apologize for your lies. I didn’t pull fantasy facts and figures out of my backside. I produced them from sources that I revealed and which are clearly linked. You make false claims because you cannot debate someone with information that is real while you have only falsehoods. The claim of a 3 degree increase in temperature over a 100 year period, by the way, can be found at http://www.skepticalscience.com, which I have only referenced here about a half-dozen times. I also cited the Lawrence Livermore Lab’s work, which is readily available on the web. But I guess the group that brings you our nuclear defense and the most advanced nuclear fusion technology in the world, not to mention the world’s fastest computers, lives in my backside…
“I feel sorry for you. Obviously you come here just to dissect everyone’s posts, looking for weak spots so that you can make yourself feel better. Based on the way you treat people here, I‘m sure it’s the same in real life. Wonder why you have no friends and it seems like no one respects you? It’s because you are an @ss. Feel like a big man when you berate your family members? I bet so. You remind me of any bully I’ve ever known. Good riddance.”
I didn’t dissect anything looking for weak spots. I came here to show how you are unable to confront real facts and logic, preferring to make up total nonsense to avoid having to confront real issues. Of course, this is what Beck helps you do by similarly ignoring reality. That you choose such a fantasy world over the reality that exists amongst publishing scientists whose work I make available to you means that you cannot handle the truth when it conflicts with your partisan and ideological narrative. Grow up. Join the real world. Stop the denial and the lies. And please stop the name calling. None of my behavior even remotely fits your bogus claims.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:41pmABC, you have such confidence in the integrity of men who must “publish or perish”.
Report Post »I do not.
To often have I heard of those who differ in their interpretations, or have conflicting data, being marginalized or even shut out from making their data and conclusions known.
This is why I am circumspect about information I gather and am somewhat hard to convince.
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:12pmIndependentTess writes:
“ABC, you have such confidence in the integrity of men who must “publish or perish”. I do not. To often have I heard of those who differ in their interpretations, or have conflicting data, being marginalized or even shut out from making their data and conclusions known. This is why I am circumspect about information I gather and am somewhat hard to convince.”"
Not integrity in the men, but in the process. It is open and rigorous and follows rules that everyone respects. They all speak a similar language of methodology that is robust, so it is more reliable. Not perfect, but far better than those that exist in business or government or political blogs. I trust information found in Science or the New England Journal of Medicine more than I do in the Congressional Quarterly or on Beck’s blog.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:04pmThis article is a joke. First, consider the source: Brent Bozell’s media outlet, which is so far to the right it is out of the mainstream. Second, consider what the article omits. The claim is that the proposed regulation of carbon dioxide will cause delays in permitting and thus lead to job losses on projects that cannot go forward. But the issue is that the Clean Air Act, which is the basis for regulating air pollutants, needs to be modified via a tayloring rule so that it applies intelligently to carbon dioxide. In plain English, the amounts of CO2 to be regulated come in much larger amounts than for traditional air pollutants like NOx or SOx. However, the GOP is threatening a lawsuit because they don’t want it regulated at all. Now, they put out articles saying the problem with permitting delays relates to the EPA rather than their unwillingness to adjust the rules to intelligently regulate CO2. The GOP is the problem, not the EPA. A simple Congressional action to adjust the rules for carbon dioxide regulation to larger amounts would reduce the EPS workload to 900 sites from the hundreds of thousands currently implied by the letter of the law in the Clean Air Act. This is total propaganda and typical of Brent Bozell. Unfortunately, those who listen to Beck will never hear this side of the story and will go on about how the cost to regulate exceeds the benefits of regulation, while ignoring that the cost of regulation is being held artificially high by politicians in the back pocket of dirty utility and oil companies. Shame on Beck and Bozell for creating such misinformation rather than highlighting the very simple solution to dramatically lower the costs to regulate that are easily within reach of the government with a mere stroke of the pen. But apparently the GOP is as bad as the Dems at making government function properly when their sugar daddy lobbyists’ interests lie in foot-dragging and truth-hiding.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:15pmNo you and your regressive partner Gyory Schwartz are the fakes. The world saw your true care and concer for our enviroment on display upon the national mall on 10/02/2010, the trash heeps you left in your wake speak volumes ABC, You are liers, truely you are the “classists”, and you are manipulators. We, and about 65% of America are on to your psudo-intellectual game, a degree doesn’t equate widom.
Report Post »What do you plan to major in in “re-education” camp after 2012?
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:21pmSo, call me names all you want. But notice that you have not addressed, much less rebutted, the factual accuracy of a single point in my post. Are you that ignorant or do you assume the other bloggers on this site are that ignorant that they won’t notice? Just wondering…
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:29pmNo your point is unfixable, therefor moot. In terms you might understand, there is no fix available that is implimantable worldwide that will have any “real” effect upon golbal tempratures. In conclusion, I didn’t call you names I mearly pointed to your “record”.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:35pmYou confuse opinion with fact. You have not proven that there is no global fix. You’ve only asserted it. Many people asserted similarly for years that man could not fly. We all know how that turned out. Just to be clear, you are choosing to not rebut my argument, so you cannot claim it is wrong. And you are making an unsupported argument, so you are most definitely wrong. Did you ever finish third grade?
Report Post »RaisingANewLeader
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:44pmas you have pointed out for others, you overlook some things here. Climate condition is in question, not a definate conclusion. Too many factors being pushed aside to make any accurate predictions. We know there are 30 year cycles of hot and cold, but we have problems projecting further from there.
You also pointed out that how can we as capitalists object to what is going on in the carbon credits. Not sure if you know this, but the paper you print it on will be killing trees. The paper itself will not heal the air. It has no effect now or in the future for purchase of these credits.
Ok, another on this is that the people that will make bundles on this are not lobbyists, THEY ARE CREATING THE LAWS!! Capitalists may use lobbyists, but they do not create the laws that will devistate anyone not in the click. Capitalists employ people to do the work, or to do things they do not wish to do. Communists do not compensate the people that are aquired to do this same function.
Capitalism sure doesnt work, just ask William Gates, anyone at Apple, how about IBM, maybe Hershy? Don’t like those? How about some of the birdcage reading you have around the kamode?
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:52pma .00015 degree difference over 100 years is a fix, go swim in denial if you choose to. If you desire to suppor this insanity of “global warming” by all means go and sell all you have and give to it. As for me and my house we shall serve the LORD.
Report Post »Your regressiver “gnostic: thinking has led to Novembver where your party shall lose , and shall lose big. But I am aware that yuour party, the “socialists” or “commies” as I like to call them have forseen this event and have planned for it. What your party is unaware of is that we “conservitives” have read your game plan, This is America, not the steps of Russia, take your ideology and leave.
As for what I do for my enviroment, alot, but what I do is between God and I, and is none of your business.
and my education level, its pre-progressive thanks to GOD!
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:55pm“as you have pointed out for others, you overlook some things here. Climate condition is in question, not a definate conclusion. Too many factors being pushed aside to make any accurate predictions. We know there are 30 year cycles of hot and cold, but we have problems projecting further from there.”
Check out http://www.skepticalscience.com for a summary of the scientific literature surveys that show that 98% of the experts publishing in peer-reviewed research journals on the subject agree that climate change is man-made and a threat. What kind of consensus do you need? Bush went to war with Iraq on far less than that.
“You also pointed out that how can we as capitalists object to what is going on in the carbon credits. Not sure if you know this, but the paper you print it on will be killing trees. The paper itself will not heal the air. It has no effect now or in the future for purchase of these credits.”
So you, like many capitalists, don’t actually understand economics. First, all negative externalities are properly treated with taxation. Even von Hayek and Friedmann recognized that. So the next question is how much of a tax, and this is where tradeable permits come in, since they use the market to price the tariffs, which is how conservative economists like von Hayek would want it. Finally, we already have a track record of using tradable permits to combat acid rain, so we have empirical proof that it works. You make unsupported statements (opinions rather than facts) that show your ignorance and don’t win the argument, although the crowd here, which already “knows” everything will be impressed. The real world beyond this bubble is more intelligent, luckily.
“Ok, another on this is that the people that will make bundles on this are not lobbyists, THEY ARE CREATING THE LAWS!! Capitalists may use lobbyists, but they do not create the laws that will devistate anyone not in the click. Capitalists employ people to do the work, or to do things they do not wish to do. Communists do not compensate the people that are aquired to do this same function.”
Correct, which is why the utility and energy industry lobbyists are fighting like hell and have Inhofe, among others, in their back pocket. You selectively invent some massive lobbying group for an industry that is tiny (green energy and environmental engineering) while ignoring the largest and richest lobbyists of all. You bring hypocrisy to new heights.
“Capitalism sure doesnt work, just ask William Gates, anyone at Apple, how about IBM, maybe Hershy? Don’t like those? How about some of the birdcage reading you have around the kamode?”
Capitalism works great, except for negative externalities like air pollution and other tragedies of the commons. That you don‘t know this means you don’t even have a first year economics course under your belt. You are as much an authority on ancient Chinese or modern Iranian dance as you are on the issues at play in the global warming debate. That this doesn’t embarrass you is the saddest thing of all.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:58pm“a .00015 degree difference over 100 years is a fix, go swim in denial if you choose to…”
It is if the alternative is a 3-5 degree rise in temps. The logical reasoning of people on this site is truly atrocious.
Report Post »rs-mtholly
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:01pmIt is interesting to note that you fail to mention that by the EPAs own report that with all the regulation and bureaucracy that these regulations will require the result will be an improvement in temperature of less than one hundredth of one degree. Makes a Progressive feel all warm and tingly inside I bet.
As far as it being capitalism there is no real problem, other than it is being created by the Government for the benefit of the Government and their specific friends with no real concrete return.
I remember reading somewhere, perhaps the New Scientist but I am not sure, that the major component of air pollution and greenhouse gases is simple water vapor. Maybe while we’re all paying taxes or higher prices due to “cap and tax” and are busy getting paid by the government to paint the roads white to reflect more heat, we can start covering up all the lakes, stream, rivers and oceans to stop the water vapor from getting into the air.. Hey I’ve got another great idea for all the “environmentalists” out to protect the Earth…..paint all the roofs on all the houses in the world white as well to reflect even more heat. After all global warming can’t be a naturally occurring cycle. If we want to stop global warming I’d suggest getting rid of all the hot air in DC for a start.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:11pm“It is interesting to note that you fail to mention that by the EPAs own report that with all the regulation and bureaucracy that these regulations will require the result will be an improvement in temperature of less than one hundredth of one degree. Makes a Progressive feel all warm and tingly inside I bet.”
I didn’t fail to note it. It was very clear from the article. And I’ve stated elsewhere that holding temperatures flat, which is essentially what the EPA report predicts would happen, is still better than watching it rise 3%+ degrees, so it is an improvement. You use poor logic and ignore the current trends that imply much higher temperatures. Typical conservative ignorance and muddled thinking.
“As far as it being capitalism there is no real problem, other than it is being created by the Government for the benefit of the Government and their specific friends with no real concrete return.”
Actually, there is not problem with capitalism. Economists have known for a long time that classic market failures like negative externalities need to be addressed by government to correct for the limits of capitalism. But if you haven’t ever taken Econ 101, then you don’t know this. So go learn it. Look up the treatment of negative externalities (hint, hint, it involves a three letter word starting with a “t”) so you have a clue. There are, even according to von Hayek and Friedman, proper roles for gov’t and this is one of them.
“I remember reading somewhere, perhaps the New Scientist but I am not sure, that the major component of air pollution and greenhouse gases is simple water vapor. Maybe while we’re all paying taxes or higher prices due to “cap and tax” and are busy getting paid by the government to paint the roads white to reflect more heat, we can start covering up all the lakes, stream, rivers and oceans to stop the water vapor from getting into the air.. Hey I’ve got another great idea for all the “environmentalists” out to protect the Earth…..paint all the roofs on all the houses in the world white as well to reflect even more heat. After all global warming can’t be a naturally occurring cycle. If we want to stop global warming I’d suggest getting rid of all the hot air in DC for a start.”
Hey. Cool. You once read an article in New Scientist, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal but a science news magazine, so we should listen to you and ignore people with PhD’s that have studied this stuff for decades. I‘ll also be sure to call you when I need heart surgery since you’re more qualified than a Yale-trained cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic…
Report Post »Vyger
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:14pmWe found out this week that 1/3rd of extinct species make a comeback and a planet was found that can support human life forms. Funny how exact science isn’t so exact.
When these yahoos can accurately predict ( or better than 50/50) whether or not it is going to rain tomorrow I’ll start listening to what they say. But not about Global Warming. They have to predict other things that happen now like Hurricanes and Blizzards before I’ll even consider their ASSumptions on what is going to happen 200 years from . They can tell it to the Wooly Mammoth.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:20pmI’m confused. (Okay, I’m not confused; that’s just sarcasm.) The source of this information is not Brent Bozell, it’s the EPA. Head of the EPA is Lisa Jackson; Lisa Jackson was appointed by Barack Obama, her background is as a chemical engineer, she previously worked for the Dept. of Enviornmental Protection in the red state–oops, excuse me; blue state–of New Jersey. This is hardly a right-wing pedigree here, and CNS News is merely a secondary source, so this bringing up of Brent Bozell is really a killing-the-messenger tactic intended for sheer ad hominem shock value–as is the faux moral hectoring of “shame on,“ ”sugar daddy,” et al. Really, this is the very kind of shameless we-know-better-than-the-rest-of-you-dummies attitude that‘s backfiring on progressives because it’s finally being exposed to the light of day.
I’m also confused by this sentence. (Okay, I’m not confused; that’s just sarcasm.) “Now, they put out articles saying the problem with permitting delays relates to the EPA rather than their unwillingness to adjust the rules to intelligently regulate CO2.” Sure, if you look only at one-half of the EPA’s statement, which was about the detriment to the economy. But the other half–that, even with the “intelligent regulations,” global temperatures would only be reduced by 0.0015 degrees over 100 years. (Gee, I thought we had to do something RIGHT AWAY! HURRY! HURRY! CRISIS! CRISIS! because THE EARTH IS GOING TO BURN UP IN TEN YEARS IF WE DON’T DO THIS YESTERDAY!) That part of it is conveniently glossed over. Apparently, there’s nothing we can do to stop this IMMINENT CATASTROPHE!!!!!!! anyway, because we’ll all be crispy critters before we can reduce the temperature by a nanodegree. So why don’t we just spend the money on fire insurance instead?
Report Post »LAD
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:21pmSo the article made the argument that costly new regulations won’t reduce temperatures by a material amount. In response you argue that: (1) Brent Bozell is wrong because he’s a conservative, and (2) the EPA’s regulations would cost less if the evil Republicans would just get out of the way. I’m left to wonder what level of costs is appropriate to achieve an immaterial benefit?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:24pmI love it when non-science people make such stupid comments that clearly highlight their ignorance.
“We found out this week that 1/3rd of extinct species make a comeback and a planet was found that can support human life forms. Funny how exact science isn’t so exact.”
The definition of extinct means gone, so they weren’t extinct but endangered or thought to be extinct. Yes. Science is not exact, but it is better than non-science which is mostly wrong. Don’t believe me, then go visit a shaman rather than an MD when you get really sick.
“When these yahoos can accurately predict ( or better than 50/50) whether or not it is going to rain tomorrow I’ll start listening to what they say. But not about Global Warming. They have to predict other things that happen now like Hurricanes and Blizzards before I’ll even consider their ASSumptions on what is going to happen 200 years from . They can tell it to the Wooly Mammoth.”
So this shows that you are a math idiot as well. If I ask you to bet your life that a coin will come up heads versus tails–just like in that movie No Country for Old Men–you will not want to take that bet. But I would even bet your life that if I tossed that coin 1,000 times it would come up 50% heads. That is the difference between predicting the weather tomorrow, which is really hard, and predicting average temperature increases over several years. The scientists will still be off, but not by as much as you say. Don’t believe me? Did you know that we cannot describe with math or engineering exactly how air moves over and under a plane wing? But it hasn’t stopped us from making them fly. Your trick of demanding irrelevant and unnecessary precision is an old one, but it doesn’t work on the scientifically literate. Just the ignorant.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:30pmLad, the article’s conclusion is that the cost of regulation far outstrips the benefit, but the article fails to highlight that the cost is being kept artificially high by the GOP who threaten to sue to avoid the EPA doing anything other than regulating some 500,000 sources of emissions when a simple rule change could reduce it to 900. That way, the delays on projects which hurt economic growth, raise regulatory uncertainty and kill jobs are far, far less. Now, do you understand? My nine-year old got it, so I’m hoping you will also.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:36pmHey buddy, to address your points:
“I’m confused. (Okay, I’m not confused; that’s just sarcasm.) The source of this information is not Brent Bozell, it’s the EPA. Head of the EPA is Lisa Jackson; Lisa Jackson was appointed by Barack Obama, her background is as a chemical engineer, she previously worked for the Dept. of Enviornmental Protection in the red state–oops, excuse me; blue state–of New Jersey. This is hardly a right-wing pedigree here, and CNS News is merely a secondary source, so this bringing up of Brent Bozell is really a killing-the-messenger tactic intended for sheer ad hominem shock value–as is the faux moral hectoring of “shame on,“ ”sugar daddy,” et al. Really, this is the very kind of shameless we-know-better-than-the-rest-of-you-dummies attitude that‘s backfiring on progressives because it’s finally being exposed to the light of day.”
The EPA’s estimate of essentially flat temps after these regs go into effect is not in dispute. And that result is better than the 3%+ of warming that occurs if we do nothing. The right wing propaganda is the hiding of the ball concerning the costs of the regulation, which the major part ofthe article deals with. THese costs are kept artificially high due to GOP tricks, not inherent regulatory difficulties. But the MRC (and Bozell) controlled news agency that reported this story unsurprisingly withheld those facts. Now do you get it?
“I’m also confused by this sentence. (Okay, I’m not confused; that’s just sarcasm.) “Now, they put out articles saying the problem with permitting delays relates to the EPA rather than their unwillingness to adjust the rules to intelligently regulate CO2.” Sure, if you look only at one-half of the EPA’s statement, which was about the detriment to the economy. But the other half–that, even with the “intelligent regulations,” global temperatures would only be reduced by 0.0015 degrees over 100 years. (Gee, I thought we had to do something RIGHT AWAY! HURRY! HURRY! CRISIS! CRISIS! because THE EARTH IS GOING TO BURN UP IN TEN YEARS IF WE DON’T DO THIS YESTERDAY!) That part of it is conveniently glossed over. Apparently, there’s nothing we can do to stop this IMMINENT CATASTROPHE!!!!!!! anyway, because we’ll all be crispy critters before we can reduce the temperature by a nanodegree. So why don’t we just spend the money on fire insurance instead?”
So again, like most conservatives, you make the logical fallacy/mistake of not considering the alternative. Look, the leading expert on climate change at the Lawrence Livermore Lab, which is an American national treasure, expects at least 3 degrees of warming over the next century and saw no possibility of holding it flat at current levels. If the EPA’s model shows that we can hold it flat, then that would be a huge improvement over that scary alternative. By the way, conservatives make the same mistake when complaining about how the stimulus “only” produced 9.5% unemployment, ignoring the reality that the alternative in the Great Depression averted was triple that. You guys need to think more clearly…but then you’d become liberals!!
Report Post »RaisingANewLeader
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:39pmSince all the scientists agree so empircally, show us the prehistoric cars that have caused the previous ice ages to end, or is our pollution so bad it went back in time from some future date to cause this issue today? Cause it is man made, and all, m
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:03pmRaising, you don’t need cars to produce shifts in CO2, but the rates of change today are greater than at any point in the earth’s history, which should make you worry. Imagine you go home and your 10-year-old son grows 18 inches overnight. I could tell you, don‘t worry he’s now 6′5″, which is well within the range of human heights seen in history, but you’d likely be rushing him to the hospital. Your argument is kind of like my comment. Really dumb and kind of mean.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:18pmABC blathers moronically: “This article is a joke. First, consider the source: Brent Bozell’s media outlet, which is so far to the right it is out of the mainstream.”
The most radically right person known to man arises, and declares, “The sky is blue!”
Is he wrong?
ad hominem is so typically liberal……
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:43pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “This article is a joke. First, consider the source: Brent Bozell’s media outlet, which is so far to the right it is out of the mainstream.” The most radically right person known to man arises, and declares, “The sky is blue!” Is he wrong? ad hominem is so typically liberal……”
You’re learning. That’s good. But here’s the problem. You pulled a Breitbart. You only took my first argument, which is kind of ad hominem, although he really is really right wing, but you ignored my second argument, which clearly answers your question, is he wrong? Heck yeah! He (or, more precisely, his news agency’s reporter) writes an article that clearly concludes that the regulatory costs are high, unwieldy and threaten jobs and economic growth. But he never reports the other half of the story that was in the source material, namely that the rule change needed to lower the regulatory costs is being held up by Republicans, not the EPA, by partisan politics, not government regulators. That is dishonest. And, yes, that clearly makes the articles conclusion wrong.
Report Post »rs-mtholly
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:56pmI wonder which peer reviewed cherry-picked results we should all look at and bow down to? If the “peers” are all interested in an agenda, for whatever reason, the results will come out in the desired manner. It is especially funny to watch all this when it started out as “global cooling” then switched to “global warming” and now is called “climate change”. Is it any wonder that there are skeptics out here? Given that 98% of the research is based on the flawed results of a manipulated study by a few “ethical” scientists with a specific agenda any results, conclusions or opinions are questionable. Oh yes, one more thing that needs regulation is cow flatulence….maybe the EPA should include methane produced by either end of the human digestive tract as well…..then we could all participate by trading in “gas” credits.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:44pmABC, NBC, And CBS
You are Stupid Windmills and Danglinbags cousin. Keep pretending you have facts even though we see just a bunch of rhetoric. You have made few facts and plenty of statements (opionions) but I am not buying the rhetoric or carbon credits. You will be sad a couple of years from now when you see no one can afford what you and your conscienctist advocate. Poor usefull idiot!
Report Post »OneFunR6
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:54amABC –
I would appologize for the name-callers, but that would be pointless…..
So you actually think that mankind‘s actions or inactions can change the earth’s climate?
_____________________________________________________________________
“I have a few questions that I feel must be answered by anybody that believes we should be taxing live [sic] giving CO2 in order to lower the planets temp..
1) What is the correct temp. for the planet?
2) How will you prove your answer?”
COTUIT – Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:26pm
“I’m not sure how those two questions justify taxation of carbon dioxide emissions, since the allowable level of emissions might be set at a temperature different than what any given person personally views as the ideal temperature.”
ABC – Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:24pm
_____________________________________________________________________
There is NOTHING to “justify taxation of carbon dioxide emissions”, I REPEAT, NOTHING!
And you and others, ASSUME that by ‘controlling’ CO2 output of burning fossil fuels will
ACUTALLY CONTROL/change THE EARTH’S TEMPATURE???!?!? REALLY?
_____________________________________________________________________
“since the allowable level of emissions might be set at a temperature different than …”
ABC – Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:24pm
_____________________________________________________________________
Different than WHAT?, exactly???
WHAT IF…………………
‘WE the People’ spend all of our hard-earned money, time and effort on this idea, and…
it turns out that WE have had NO EFFECT on the climate, EITHER before or after the fact.
‘WE’ will have sacrificed a very great deal FOR NOTHING.
Let‘s assume that you and your ’superiors‘ are right on very count about ’climate change‘ being a ’man-made’ phenomena, and it is a direct result of CO2 emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Let‘s also assume that unless ’something’ is done, right now, life will change for all humans in a catastrophically negative way [fires, floods, famine, plagues of locusts].
Let’s assume that the EPA DOES have the Constitutional authority to impose its will on the voters and that energy prices WILL NECESSARALY skyrocket as a direct result and that their standard of living will be greatly reduced. [It will be, anyway, but not by this, see conclusion.] Do you really think that the voters are just going to lie down and take it?
Does the EPA have the Constitutional authority to impose its will on the BILLIONS of those people living in China, India, Brazil, etc.? Do you really think for one minute that ANY of those other GOVERNMENTS will actually abide by any agreements they may sign? Do you really think for one minute that ANY of those other GOVERNMENTS will actually DO anything that would hurt THEIR economy? THEIR military? THEIR standard of living?
NOT A CHANCE!
_____________________________________________________________________
“The risk is great enough that the decidedly un-liberal Pentagon is worried.”
– ABC – Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:21pm
_____________________________________________________________________
I seriously doubt that the Pentagon is worried one wit about ‘climate change’….
What they ARE undoubtedly worried about is the control of the flow of OIL, for THAT is the ONLY thing EVERY modern military MUST have unfettered access to,
OR FACE CERTAIN DEFEAT.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm
‘Peace in our time!’ – Speech given by Neville Chamberlain, in Defense of the Munich
Agreement, 1938
“The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilization as we have known it.”
I agree that global warming is a major threat… IF it is happening…
However, I do not agree that the physics and biology on this topic is beyond question, nor will I concede that it is definitely man-caused, nor am I willing to concede that it may be ‘fixable’ by any action on mankind’s part.
I also believe that ‘We’ have MUCH bigger problems coming much sooner than any climate issues might impact us.
WHEN, not IF the world’s financial systems implode, there will be war[s] over resources.
Civil/race/class warfare in the US?, possibly. Religious wars between Israel and Islam, or
Sunni vs. Shia?, probably. International war[s] over the control of the flow of fossil fuels?
DEFINATELY.
Climate change? ROFLMAO!
One of the very LEAST of ‘our’ world’s oncoming problems…..
[git yer God, guns, gold, and ammunition ready today!] lol!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:15pmOneFunr6,
You should read more. The EPA is constitutional and has been upheld by multiple opinions of the Supreme Court. You write as though that is not true. You live in a FANTASY WORLD when you make comments like, assuming the EPA is really constitutional, or, assuming the sun really does rise in the East. My goodness!
You also seriously doubt that the Pentagon is worried, even after they posted reports saying that they are seriously worried. There were multiple articles on the subject published widely in 2004: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504editors.htm. Only an illiterate would now claim the EXACT OPPOSITE as being true. Again, it’s like raising doubts about whether the sun rises in the East.
The rest of your comments merely repeat critiques that others have made and I have already answered. You are showing a pattern of poor reading comprehension skills. This is very bad for you and for the country, assuming you vote.
Report Post »sabichan
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:00pmThe bigger question, is how much would these regulations line the pocket of Al Gore and his carbon credit company?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:09pmAl Gore is free to bid on carbon credits just like any other capitalist in America, including you. This is no different than an FCC auction for cellular spectrum. As long as the auction is transparent, then there is no malfeasance. You allege crimes that have never happened.
Report Post »GeorgeSoros
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:51pmmankind is heating up the globe, and we must redistribute the wealth and collapse our economy to save the planet, the effects of a .006 temperature decrease will make all the difference,
Report Post »and for those of you believe, have i got a carbon credit to sell to you….
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:57pmMilitary spending redistributes wealth. So let’s cut the Pentagon budget to zero by the same logic. As for the predicted temperature change, it’s better to go down a little than up a lot. But maybe the cuts in CO2 emissions should be deeper…
Report Post »GeorgeSoros
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:24pmMilitary spending redistributes wealth.
Report Post »yes but they do it in the name of “national” security! what we should really do is eliminate all borders, and make the rich country pay for any remaining military needs, until they are equal with the rest of the world…
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:27pmI think other rich nations should pay for our military and security umbrella, which leaves money for addressing climate security.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:14pmABC blathers moronically: “Military spending redistributes wealth.”
No, it doesn’t. Military spending pays a wage and provides for a service, a public service, that is authorized by our Constitution.
Redistributing wealth does not pay a wage, or a service. It takes one man’s property and gives it straight over to another man. There is no form of wealth redistribution, or even charity for that matter, authorized in our Constitution.
All such spending is a criminal violation of the US Constitution, and an act of theft. You cannot run around your neighborhood and steal from your neighbors in order to generate capital for acts of charity. The moral equation does not change, by virtue of using the State as the bagman….
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:25pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “Military spending redistributes wealth.” No, it doesn’t. Military spending pays a wage and provides for a service, a public service, that is authorized by our Constitution.
Redistributing wealth does not pay a wage, or a service. It takes one man’s property and gives it straight over to another man. There is no form of wealth redistribution, or even charity for that matter, authorized in our Constitution.”
Wealth redistribution can occur in ways other than welfare. For example, when all the Gen X’ers built phony dot coms that were worthless and Boomers lost millions in investment in those companies, there was a wealth transfer. When conservatives talk about wealth redistribution, they do not merely talk about welfare, but also claim that raising taxes on the rich to pay for health care or child care for the poor is to be considered wealth redistribution, since the benefit is going to another person. Heck, if I send my kids to private school or have no kids but have to pay property taxes for the local school, then this would count as wealth distribution, according to conservatives’ normal description of the problem. So I disagree. Which of these types of redistribution are Constitutional is a complex debate, depending on the facts of each instance, and beyond the scope of this blog. Suffice it to say that many have been held up by the SCOTUS, so you cannot make such a general statement.
“All such spending is a criminal violation of the US Constitution, and an act of theft. You cannot run around your neighborhood and steal from your neighbors in order to generate capital for acts of charity. The moral equation does not change, by virtue of using the State as the bagman….”
You do understand that this argument is not applicable to global warming, since an externality like air pollution necessitates a gov’t imposed tax to ensure that the full costs of an activity are reflected in teh price. Hence, the cost of a permit to emit NOx (theoretically, to cover the cost of acid rain) is not theft. To not charge that price would be theft, as the commons are degraded at no cost to the polluter. This is really simple stuff that any first year economics textbook can explain better than I can. I’d recommend that you go there.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:36pmABC blathers moronically: “an externality like air pollution necessitates a gov’t imposed tax to ensure that the full costs of an activity are reflected in teh price.”
Uh, no. The Federal Government has no authority to ensure costs are included in prices.
If you’d like a quick review, kindly see Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. That is the sum total of things for which the Congress can tax us.
ABC blathers moronically: “This is really simple stuff that any first year economics textbook can explain better than I can.”
You make the terrible mistake of assuming that I’m not a professional economist….
Although it’s quite certain that *any* economics text, even if hastily scribbled on a matchbook, explains better than you do.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:58pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “an externality like air pollution necessitates a gov’t imposed tax to ensure that the full costs of an activity are reflected in teh price.” Uh, no. The Federal Government has no authority to ensure costs are included in prices.”
Sorry, but the Supreme Court in 2007 ruled not only that the EPA can regulate traditional pollutants, as it has since the ‘63 signing of the Clean Air Act, but that it also can regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court, if you were correct, would never have ruled that way. So as long as the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional, rather than you, then you are wrong in your assertion.
“If you’d like a quick review, kindly see Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. That is the sum total of things for which the Congress can tax us.”
Sorry, but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. Your opinion on constitutionality is trumped by SCOTUS opinion.
“ABC blathers moronically: “This is really simple stuff that any first year economics textbook can explain better than I can.” You make the terrible mistake of assuming that I’m not a professional economist….”
If you were, then you would and should know about the treatment of negative externalities and how market failures do require gov’t involvement and taxes.
“Although it’s quite certain that *any* economics text, even if hastily scribbled on a matchbook, explains better than you do.”
I wouldn’t diagree with that, which is why I suggested that you consult one.
Report Post »sabichan
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 7:23pm@ABC
Report Post »First: You may not realize that Al Gore began one of the biggest Carbon Credit companies in the world, right around the time that he began pushing global warming. Convenient.
Second: I’ve read some of your posts, and the big issue is that you keep talking about CO2. Methane is a much more dangerous gas and contributes more to global warming that CO2.
Third: Humans are only responsible for 3% of total carbon emissions in the world. You’re talking about spending (sorry, redistributing wealth) Trillions of dollars, which have to be paid by someone to offset 3% of total emissions. And don‘t even begin talking about how humans add an amount that the earth can’t absorb, that’s wrong. The earth has been going through periods of higher emissions, and lower emissions for eons. It’ll keep living on through this too.
Fourth: Out of peer-reviewed articles (not the Al Gores of the world), the worst case scenarios of global warming are mainly in the realm of world-wide deaths due to the flu. This doesn’t even compare to the millions who die each year due to Malaria, Aids, and diseases that are easily curable with proper hygiene. Take the Trillions of dollars for global warming and help fix those instead, you’d save more lives for your dollar.
Fifth: The 98% of scientists that you speak of don’t agree one bit on what all is the cause. There are studies showing that an increase in Methane emissions has actually occurred because of the green movement (organic farming – non rbst treated cows). Not to mention studies indicating that cleaning up the air throughout the 80s and 90s might actually have allowed more radiation to reach the earth and therefore allowed it to warm up further.
Sixth: The most common estimate that I’ve ever seen is that there is only a 5% chance of any worst-case scenarios ever happening. In addition, there are (of those 98% of scientists) peer-reviewed articles indicating that a higher temperature would actually be good for humanity. It would increase plant-life, especially those at the bottom of the food chain and therefore allow of a surge in many other animals that depend on it. To think that unless we do something now the entire world is completely fubar is not only untrue, it is completely irrational.
abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:51pmSabichan writes:
“First: You may not realize that Al Gore began one of the biggest Carbon Credit companies in the world, right around the time that he began pushing global warming. Convenient.”
So I saw Al Gore speak on the global warming issue during college, back in ‘89; however, the carbon credits he has purchased through his company were made in ‘07. I love it when people draw connections without using dates so that they can misrepresent the facts. The reality is that there is at least a 30 year gap between the two things that you describe–20 years of which I personally can validate. Nice try.
“Second: I’ve read some of your posts, and the big issue is that you keep talking about CO2. Methane is a much more dangerous gas and contributes more to global warming that CO2.”
Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but its overall threat is smaller since the emissions of methane are much, much smaller. Its existence doesn’t negate the threat from CO2. Your making a non-sequitur argument.
“Third: Humans are only responsible for 3% of total carbon emissions in the world. You’re talking about spending (sorry, redistributing wealth) Trillions of dollars, which have to be paid by someone to offset 3% of total emissions. And don‘t even begin talking about how humans add an amount that the earth can’t absorb, that’s wrong. The earth has been going through periods of higher emissions, and lower emissions for eons. It’ll keep living on through this too.”
The absorption of excess CO2 is exactly the issue, and that 3% over a period of 150 years has caused warming. THe models prove this and the physics is quite clear. Visit http://www.skepticalscience.com to learn more. The difference in DNA between a monkey and a human is only 1.5%. Despite your underlying assumption that common sense can describe all scientific phenomena, the reality is quite different. You should really study the subject before making silly claims. The proof of the excess, man-made CO2 emissions’ impact can be found at the site I referenced. Please go read it.
“Fourth: Out of peer-reviewed articles (not the Al Gores of the world), the worst case scenarios of global warming are mainly in the realm of world-wide deaths due to the flu. This doesn’t even compare to the millions who die each year due to Malaria, Aids, and diseases that are easily curable with proper hygiene. Take the Trillions of dollars for global warming and help fix those instead, you’d save more lives for your dollar.”
So this was the claim made by the famous Danish scientist, Bjørn Lomborg, a few years back. He wrote a big whose thesis was exactly what you describe. He has recently REVERSED his position, arguing that the evidence is so compelling that he had to retract those ideas and claims. Check out: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-30-skeptical-environmentalist-bjrn-lomborg-reverses-his-climate-ske/
“Fifth: The 98% of scientists that you speak of don’t agree one bit on what all is the cause. There are studies showing that an increase in Methane emissions has actually occurred because of the green movement (organic farming – non rbst treated cows). Not to mention studies indicating that cleaning up the air throughout the 80s and 90s might actually have allowed more radiation to reach the earth and therefore allowed it to warm up further.”
That is totally false. I met with the leading climate change scientist at the Lawrence Livermore Lab and he showed clear documentation that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement on the process and the risks. They all have similar high, medium, low projections on climate impacts as well. These guys do independent work, but they do share results, and it’s surprising how similar the results are. You should do more research to learn about this. Also, the website I referenced has detailed info on the scientific literature studies that have been done to look at this very issue.
“Sixth: The most common estimate that I’ve ever seen is that there is only a 5% chance of any worst-case scenarios ever happening. In addition, there are (of those 98% of scientists) peer-reviewed articles indicating that a higher temperature would actually be good for humanity. It would increase plant-life, especially those at the bottom of the food chain and therefore allow of a surge in many other animals that depend on it. To think that unless we do something now the entire world is completely fubar is not only untrue, it is completely irrational.”
Totally false. The likely case scenarios all show an acceleration of warming with disastrous consequences across the board–except for Canada and Russia, which will likely be net beneficiaries in terms of their ag industries. Those likely scenarios are assigned more than a 5% likelihood.
By the way, you make all of these claims without sourcing anything or anybody. Are you Stephen Hawking and have the cred to do that? Or do you just make stuff up?
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 1:54pmFollow the money and not the themometer. Who will be trading carbon for dollars. This is what this scheme has evolved into. Their remedies do little for the supposed problem but do plenty to enrich the ruling elites.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:07pmInvestment banks will be trading carbon, just like they trade dollars, gold and IBM stock. So what? When did Beck’s groupies become so anti-capitalist?? And the Koch Brothers and other industrial tycoons seeking to avoid paying to sequester carbon dioxide have more money than any Wall Street trader will ever hope to earn. You follow only some of the money, so your narrative is very dishonest. If a guy makes a lot of money in dirty industry, he is an aggrieved small businessman; however, if he is delivering liquidity to a market that reduces dangerous carbon dioxide, thereby saving the planet, he is a Communist elitist on the take. Do you even test your fantasies against the real world or is your ignorance really that blissful??
VanGrungy
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:48pmABC,
CO^2 is not pollution… nor is it any sort of problem… Burn Clean, give plants their food and the world will never be hungry… At least until the next ice age…
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:56pmPlease stop with the semantic game around pollution. Go drink 20 liters of water in an hour and see whether you survive. THen we can talk about how to define pollution.
Report Post »pmjme
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:56pm@ABC writes “thereby saving the planet”
This is fear mongering at it’s best. How self important you come across in all of your posts. When did carving up bits of the atmosphere become a commodity people could trade, and as a landowner how come I wouldn’t automatically own a slice of that pie? Obviously it is who you know that gets you a piece of that action. A far cry from an honest business. Capitalism is not the problem, dishonest people are.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:01pmPMJME, actually, we’ve already done it with acid rain. You act like a guy who has never seen a cell phone or computer before. How is that possible in 2010? Go read a book or check out a web page on the subject. It’s been done since the 70s.
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:10pmABC
Your analogy is lame… not even stupid, just lame…
Report Post »ILFarmer
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:12pmGlobal Warming…sorry, it’s called Climate Change, is REAL people. it happens every year when the Earth is whipping around the sun at it’s closest. And it changes back when we move further away.
ok, now that i have that out of my system (notice how the debate always disappears in winter?), Humans have been on this Earth for only about 10,000 years. how long were the dinosaurs around? about 160 million. Even if the Earth was heat up, whats to say that it isn’t part of a natural fluctuation? We better start capping and sealing all those volcanoes cause they produce far, far more pollutants than humans do every year. Maybe, just maybe humans have played a role, but is it really that determinable? Actually, we are still technically coming out of an Ice Age. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26850 (second post from the bottom has a technical link about glaciation, which is over my head)
In the end, it’s all a big scam to get us to pay money to people that are paid to look like they know what they are talking about, so that everyone feels better about doing something while actually doing nothing.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:19pm“whats to say that it isn’t part of a natural fluctuation? ”
80 decades of scientific research and the conclusions of about 98% of the scientific community that say YOU ARE WRONG!
Stephen
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:20pmAs the report indicates, the global warming scam is all about money. The multi-billion dollar business obviously has to be protected by those investing in the future of it so those who post “you Beck people argue even though cap-and trade is capitalism” are disingenuous. The argument rings hollow as it is absurd. The whole cap-and-trade will cost consumers by treating an issue by throwing money into the hands of those selling snake oil. For those who want to fight global warming with money, please feel free to throw your money at it, that is your choice but shoving it down my throat and the American people’s throat through higher costs on everything, no thanks.
Report Post »GeorgeSoros
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:21pmMilitary spending redistributes wealth.
yes but they do it in the name of “national” security! what we should really do is eliminate all borders, and make the rich country pay for any remaining military needs, until they are equal with the rest of the world…
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:26pmStephen, even if cap and trade does distribute wealth, that mere fact doesn’t change the science or economics that say we need it. You are not addressing my point.
GeorgeSoros, the scientists are saying that global warming is a threat like the ones our military addresses, which is why the Pentagon about six years ago started incorporating climate change into their security assessments and war planning.
Report Post »commonsensewins
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:27pmABC,
Report Post »Trading carbon is not capitalism (and opposition to it is not anti-capitalist) because it produces nothing. It provides no services or resources to the economy, it only takes away. If corporations are being forced to pay billions of dollars over the next century so they dont have to cut production to avoid raising temperatures by .0015 degrees, that is money lost that could be used to invest, hire, and stimulate the economy. This is the purpose of the progressive agenda: cripple the U.S. economy.
Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:30pmABC blathers moronically: “Investment banks will be trading carbon, just like they trade dollars, gold and IBM stock. So what? When did Beck’s groupies become so anti-capitalist??”
Wall Street is not “capitalism”, per se. And Wall Street has been the financial wing of the Democrat party since at least 1935.
Artificially creating “value” through government regulation is not “capitalism”, regardless of whether Wall Street begins speculating on such devices. The Democrat’s “Community Reinvestment Act”, the toxic debt instruments it spawned in the form of bundled bad mortgages, led directly to the collapse of the mortgage industry with worldwide repercussions.
Only abjectly ignorant liberal morons such as youself would make such inane comments.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:33pmABC blathers moronically: “Please stop with the semantic game around pollution. Go drink 20 liters of water in an hour and see whether you survive. THen we can talk about how to define pollution.”
How amusing that you accuse others of semantic games, and then play one with water. Not everything that kills is a pollutant. You can also drown in water, however water is absolutely essential to all known forms of life. Anyone who claimed it was a “pollutant” is playing a semantic game.
Likewise, carbon is the building block of all known life. Organic life, right? Carbon dioxide is the gas breathed by all photosynthetic plant life.
Only those who enjoy semantic games call carbon, or carbon dioxide, pollutants. To do so is to call *life* a pollutant.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:36pmABC blathers moronically: “we’ve already done it with acid rain.”
Acid rain was a myth, obviously. Playing on the ignorance of the masses, the green freaks loosely employed the term “acid”…as in a pH measurement…with “acid”…as in fuming hydrochloric acid.
Anything with a pH lower than 7.0 is “acid”. You know, like apple juice. The strongest “acid rain” ever measured was less acid than apple juice. Vinegar is *really* acid. The Balsamic I drenched my salad with last night has a pH of 3.0….I guess I should be dead now….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:39pmABC blathers moronically: “even if cap and trade does distribute wealth, that mere fact doesn’t change the science or economics that say we need it.”
“Redistributing Wealth” is just a nice way of saying strongarm theft. There is no “need” to steal, and any theory that suggests theft as a necessity is not science.
We understand that shiftless liberals think stealing from others to subsidize their existence would be a fine thing, but it’s not moral, and it’s certainly not science.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:42pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “Investment banks will be trading carbon, just like they trade dollars, gold and IBM stock. So what? When did Beck’s groupies become so anti-capitalist??” Wall Street is not “capitalism”, per se. And Wall Street has been the financial wing of the Democrat party since at least 1935.”
Wall Street provides services in arms length agreements that are priced by the market, just like cars are sold out of Detroit or movies out of Hollywood. If it isn’t capitalism, then I don’t know what it is. That it votes and gives reliably Democratic, like Hollywood, has no impact on the supply, demand or pricing mechanisms that govern the industry or any other in this country. You should take an Econ 101 class when you have some time.
“Artificially creating “value” through government regulation is not “capitalism”, regardless of whether Wall Street begins speculating on such devices. The Democrat’s “Community Reinvestment Act”, the toxic debt instruments it spawned in the form of bundled bad mortgages, led directly to the collapse of the mortgage industry with worldwide repercussions.”
There is nothing artificial about government interventions to address pollution of the global commons. This is classic treatment of negative externalities, which even the most arch-conservative on the planet would say requires a government imposed tax. That you dont’ understand that means you really need to take that Econ 101 class. And if you think that the ‘75 CRA caused the ’08 financial crisis, then you really need more help than an econ class will provide. It’s hard to overlook all the other, much bigger factors involved, like artificially low interest rates, negligent rating agencies, overly greedy hedge funds, understaffed SEC regulators, dangerous and non-transparent derivative products, reckless and overleveraged investment banks, overly aggressive mortgage lenders and irresponsible borrowers, just to name a few things that were way more important than your ideology-driven view that the liberals behind the CRA did the whole thing in 33 years later. Yeah right.
Only abjectly ignorant liberal morons such as youself would make such inane comments.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:47pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “even if cap and trade does distribute wealth, that mere fact doesn’t change the science or economics that say we need it.””
As I wrote before–you’re a little slow on the uptake, apparently–military spending is also redistributive of wealth, but it doesn’t stop us from funding the national defense. The same logic applies, whether or not you’re intelligent enough to see it.
““Redistributing Wealth” is just a nice way of saying strongarm theft. There is no “need” to steal, and any theory that suggests theft as a necessity is not science.”
Actually, redistributing wealth means taking from one to give to another. So when I pay for a soldier’s salary, wealth is redistibuted. Period. Full stop. You extend the definition to a pejorative because you don’t carefully think about the words you use or the logic it implies. By the way, the stealing is being done by the emitters that poison the commons for free. They emit, so they should pay for those emissions. That is how it works to prevent acid rain, and that is what any economist will tell you should happen with other forms of air pollution like global warming.
“We understand that shiftless liberals think stealing from others to subsidize their existence would be a fine thing, but it’s not moral, and it’s certainly not science”
Nothing shiftless going on with this liberal. I’ve stated the arguments clearly and consistently. I’ve cited even conservative, world-famous economists whose text books you can consult to see the proper treatement of air pollution (which involves gov’t taxation), and I’ve left links for people to learn more about climate change science, which is produced in a highly public transparent way–check out http://www.skepticalscience.com for details. Either you bring some facts and compelling logic of your own or concede the argument. Name calling will not win you any points in my book.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:53pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “Please stop with the semantic game around pollution. Go drink 20 liters of water in an hour and see whether you survive. THen we can talk about how to define pollution.” How amusing that you accuse others of semantic games, and then play one with water. Not everything that kills is a pollutant. You can also drown in water, however water is absolutely essential to all known forms of life. Anyone who claimed it was a “pollutant” is playing a semantic game.”
Okay. You’re kind of slow today, so I’ll spell it out. Senators claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant are playing semantic games. They say, how can the EPA regulate carbon dioxide if I breathe it in all day and it helps plants and so forth. Well, let’s be precise about this, since my 20 liters of water didn’t do it for you. Every substance on the planet has an LD50, which refers to a lethal dose fifty, which means the amount of any substance that will kill 50% of the humans that ingest it. So, every substance is a pollutant at a certain level. You could use the same logic for the planet and estimate the LD50 for human’s ecosystem. Essentially, this is how you think about things that are benign in smaller amounts but become dangerous in large amounts. Water is my classic example, since it is safe to drink unless you drink a lot of it in a short period of time. Then, it causes reverse osmosis and destroys your cells and literally will kill you. Similarly, at the right amount, CO2 can kill you. Ask anyone who knows someone who committed suicide with a plastic bag. And similarly, in teh right amount CO2 can kill life on the planet. That is why insisting it isn’t a polutant, in normal concentrations, is a semantic game that hides the real issue. My 9-year old got that. I hope you did as well.
Likewise, carbon is the building block of all known life. Organic life, right? Carbon dioxide is the gas breathed by all photosynthetic plant life.
Only those who enjoy semantic games call carbon, or carbon dioxide, pollutants. To do so is to call *life* a pollutant.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:53pmas i see this is a rant for ABC, i would like to point out that the only reason you see scientific “evidence” in journals of science agreeing with this “global warming” is because everyone who doesn’t agree is threatened and not allowed to print substantial evidence to the contrary. So go ahead ABC and spew whatever you want but the majority of us know your an idiot and global warming scam is founded on incorrect data, skewed data, and in many cases completely dishonest data.
ABC IS A KOOLAIDE DRINKER, AND A SHEEPLE TO BOOT
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:57pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “we’ve already done it with acid rain.” Acid rain was a myth, obviously. Playing on the ignorance of the masses, the green freaks loosely employed the term “acid”…as in a pH measurement…with “acid”…as in fuming hydrochloric acid.”
Take a look at this: http://change-production.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/wordpress_copies/food/2010/06/acid-rain.jpg
And then tell me it’s a myth. Do you deny things like the Holocaust as well??
“Anything with a pH lower than 7.0 is “acid”. You know, like apple juice. The strongest “acid rain” ever measured was less acid than apple juice. Vinegar is *really* acid. The Balsamic I drenched my salad with last night has a pH of 3.0….I guess I should be dead now….”
From Wikipedia: ‘The corrosive effect of polluted, acidic city air on limestone and marble was noted in the 17th century by John Evelyn, who remarked upon the Arundel marbles “miserably neglected, & scattredup & downe about the Gardens & other places of Arundell-house, & how exceedingly the corrosive aire of London impaired them”.[2] Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere have increased.[3][4] In 1852, Robert Angus Smith was the first to show the relationship between acid rain and atmospheric pollution in Manchester, England.[5] Though acidic rain was discovered in 1852, it was not until the late 1960s that scientists began widely observing and studying the phenomenon. The term “acid rain” was generated in 1972.[6] Canadian Harold Harvey was among the first to research a “dead” lake. Public awareness of acid rain in the U.S increased in the 1970s after the New York Times promulgated reports from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire of the myriad deleterious environmental effects demonstrated to result from it.[7][8]
Occasional pH readings in rain and fog water of well below 2.4 have been reported in industrialized areas.[3] Industrial acid rain is a substantial problem in Europe, China,[9][10] Russia and areas down-wind from them. These areas all burn sulfur-containing coal to generate heat and electricity.[11] The problem of acid rain not only has increased with population and industrial growth, but has become more widespread. The use of tall smokestacks to reduce local pollution has contributed to the spread of acid rain by releasing gases into regional atmospheric circulation.[12][13] Often deposition occurs a considerable distance downwind of the emissions, with mountainous regions tending to receive the greatest deposition (simply because of their higher rainfall). An example of this effect is the low pH of rain (compared to the local emissions) which falls in Scandinavia.[14]‘
Note the pH of less than 2.4. When you drink that, I’ll call it apple juice…
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:59pmClimate of the planet has always fluctuated over millions of years. It warms, it cools, it warms, it cools. Before the ice ages (yes, there have been more than one) there were ages when the planet was a hothouse and CO2 was twice what it is now. This I get from reading science books and magazines, gang. Our puny contributions will not overpower this trend that naturally exists.
Report Post »Global Warming (Change?) buffs like Gore and his ilk hope to increase their fortunes with this, the modern day equivalent of Snake Oil.
I‘m not buyin’ it.
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:00pmPsychosis writes:
“…[I] would like to point out that the only reason you see scientific “evidence” in journals of science agreeing with this “global warming” is because everyone who doesn’t agree is threatened and not allowed to print substantial evidence to the contrary. So go ahead ABC and spew whatever you want but the majority of us know your an idiot and global warming scam is founded on incorrect data, skewed data, and in many cases completely dishonest data. ABC IS A KOOLAIDE DRINKER, AND A SHEEPLE TO BOOT”
Actually, you are allowed to print whatever you want in a scientific journal. You just need to show data that has integrity and your theory needs to conform to what we already know about the physics and chemistry of our planet. No one is holding back data from the other side and the 2% of scientists who remain skeptical of global warming, like the single physicist at MIT, have never claimed as much. You can make up such a theory if you want, but it doesn’t conform to reality. You are really aptly named if you cling to such a belief.
Report Post »smugsmiley
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:03pmILFarmer:
“Global Warming…sorry, it’s called Climate Change, is REAL people. it happens every year when the Earth is whipping around the sun at it’s closest. And it changes back when we move further away.”
I’m sorry, but why should I listen to you about climate change if you don’t even know how seasons work? Protip: It has nothing to do with the earth being closer to the sun. It‘s because of earth’s axial tilt. More details as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasons
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:04pmABC blathers moronically: “80 decades of scientific research and the conclusions of about 98%”
Climate has not been studied for 800 years.
Any craftsman familiar with water, such as those in water heating, cooling, and particularly steam propulsion, know that mankind can likely never harness the levels of energy necessary to make the most infinitesimal alteration in the thermal profile of Earth.
Water, with a specific heat of 1, against which all other things are compared, in the enormous quantities present on Earth, will prohibit that.
This explains why your “98% consensus scientists” meticulously exclude water vapor from their calculations and models…..
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:09pmABC blathers moronically: “Note the pH of less than 2.4.”
That’s about the pH of common distilled white vinegar. I ingest it all the time. I also use it to adjust the pH of the water I feed to my houseplants.
Everyone realizes that acid rain, global warming, the coming ice age of the 70′s, etc. are liberal “sky is falling” agitations designed to justify yet another expansion of government. Everyone knows what you guys are about these days. When you flakes lost your monopoly on information, your days were numbered.
Now you lay on the forest floor, like a tree long felled, still pushing up a feeble sprout here and there….unconscious of the fact that you have died….
Report Post »Eagle07
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:23pmThis is just a Gore led ponzi scheme.Madoff is probably upset he can’t get in on it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:32pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “80 decades of scientific research and the conclusions of about 98%” Climate has not been studied for 800 years.”
Correct. I didnt’ say 800 years, but 80. The first theory around global warming was posited formally in the early 20th century. I dont’ have time to look up names, but you likely can find it using Google.
“Any craftsman familiar with water, such as those in water heating, cooling, and particularly steam propulsion, know that mankind can likely never harness the levels of energy necessary to make the most infinitesimal alteration in the thermal profile of Earth. Water, with a specific heat of 1, against which all other things are compared, in the enormous quantities present on Earth, will prohibit that.”
So either the thousands of experts don’t know what my 9-year-old knows about water’s high specific heat and should all be fired from top universities, or they have identified and quantified how cumulative changes over 150 years of burning fossil fuels have indeed created enough additional CO2 to impact the planet. The models–and there are more than one–have independently arrived at strong conclusions that you choose not to learn about or understand. But you assert that the mere fact that you know what the specific heat of H2O is that those experts are fools. This is likely not the case. Just because you cannot imagine it doesn’t mean that we should throw away the science and go with your gut. That is a really dumb conclusion to draw.
“This explains why your “98% consensus scientists” meticulously exclude water vapor from their calculations and models…..”
They don’t exclude water vapor from their models. Water vapor provides a huge positive feedback loop that exacerbates the warming. It is explicitly modeled into the projections.
Report Post »flamedone1968
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:36pmI say stick the thermometer where the sun don’t shine, collectively that is. I think this one should do the trick nicely.
Report Post »http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2893
abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:38pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “Note the pH of less than 2.4.” That’s about the pH of common distilled white vinegar. I ingest it all the time. I also use it to adjust the pH of the water I feed to my houseplants.”
Actually, white vinegar has a pH of 2.4-3.4, so it is more, not less than 2.4. But it clearly is enough to destroy forests and to erode limestone work on antique buildings in the US and Europe, so the cumulative impact over time is not good, does property damage and justifies the cost of permits that have done a good job of efficiently addressing the problem. I don’t know how much you feed your plants, but if you replace all their water with vinegar, many of them will die eventually.
“Everyone realizes that acid rain, global warming, the coming ice age of the 70′s, etc. are liberal “sky is falling” agitations designed to justify yet another expansion of government. Everyone knows what you guys are about these days. When you flakes lost your monopoly on information, your days were numbered.”
Everyone knows that the Holocaust never happened, that man never visited the moon and that the CIA toppled the twin towers. There. I “proved” things just like you.
“Now you lay on the forest floor, like a tree long felled, still pushing up a feeble sprout here and there….unconscious of the fact that you have died….”
Wow. That is dark. But oddly poetic. Nice, in a gothic kind of way. Did you steal that from a Cure song?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:42pmABC blathers moronically: “Correct. I didnt’ say 800 years, but 80.”
You said 80 decades, moron. You even cited yourself saying “80 decades”, right there a couple lines before you claim to have said 80 years.
My understanding is that a decade is ten years, and thus 80 decades is 800 years.
Look, moron, you are an intellectual lightweight who subscribes not to science…but to a religion pretending to science. As amusing as your sermonizing is, you are seriously out of your intellectual league in this forum.
You should try to find a high-school blog in your locality.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:08pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers moronically: “Correct. I didnt’ say 800 years, but 80.” You said 80 decades, moron. You even cited yourself saying “80 decades”, right there a couple lines before you claim to have said 80 years. My understanding is that a decade is ten years, and thus 80 decades is 800 years.”
You got me. I meant to write years. But the rest of it is true.
“Look, moron, you are an intellectual lightweight who subscribes not to science…but to a religion pretending to science. As amusing as your sermonizing is, you are seriously out of your intellectual league in this forum. You should try to find a high-school blog in your locality.”
A typo does not make me an intellectual lightweight, especially compared to someone who has yet to rebut a single point I’ve made. It just makes me a tired person who has written too many words here. But your conflating science with religion seriously undermines your credibility in a bigger way than my writting “decades” rather than “years.” But if that’s the only “win” you can score, then savor it. i won’t hold it against you.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:15pmABC
What makes it into your favorite journals was only by “pier review”. You know the Piers that were trying to “hide the decline” and keep anyone out of the falsified journals that did not agree. You should go plug your electric car into the plug socket and pretend that coal fired plant does not pollute. You folks are idiots to think that some trading vehicle will solve the problem. If you really do (as a carbon based life form) believe this hoax then you are just another one of Lenin’s “usefull idiots”
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:09pmBeckofPile writes:
“What makes it into your favorite journals was only by “pier review”. You know the Piers that were trying to “hide the decline” and keep anyone out of the falsified journals that did not agree. You should go plug your electric car into the plug socket and pretend that coal fired plant does not pollute. You folks are idiots to think that some trading vehicle will solve the problem. If you really do (as a carbon based life form) believe this hoax then you are just another one of Lenin’s “usefull idiots””
First, the journals are not falsified, and the attacks on the scientists at East Anglia turned up nothing in the end after three independent investigations. Second, the idea of plugging in electric cars while ignoring coal-fired electric utility pollution is nonsense, since there is much capex being currently undertaken to limit utility pollution–thanks to the EPA–and a lot of R&D going into CO2 sequestration technologies for those utilities. Again, you make up a lot of stuff that simply ain’t true. Third, the trading mechanisms, which prices the cost of permits has already worked and can work with climate change; according to leading experts, it is the most efficient way to get emissions down to a certain level. There was an Economist magazine issue devoted to the topic last year, if you don’t believe me.
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:53pmABC,
You do realize that the ultimate goal of the Warmistas is to de-populate the world… don’t you?
Why don’t you try flapping your keys over at wattsupwiththat.com?
Report Post »Of course you wouldn’t bother.. These non-climate sites make you feel like you are Mr. Correct… I dare you to go where you will get laughed at…
Beckofile
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 8:24pmABC NBC &CBS
So independant investigations=Those same poor pier reviewers
Your turn towards the EPA for your answer= government climate profiteers and revenuers
R&D into stuffing the CO2 back underground for our great grand children=Who pays the cost?
Trading Mechanisms Worked= Where and with who’s money (Proof please)
You have a subscription to The American ConScientist=where science is proceeded by consensus.
Good luck you “usefull Idiot”….I have guns, bullets, gold, food and water.
Report Post »AirFiero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 9:56pmABC: The trading of carbon is no less a scam than Bernie Madoff selling fake securities. Carbon credits are USELESS, and the biggest problem is that it would raise the cost of *everything* – and YOU and I would, in the end, be paying. That’s not capitalism, that’s a pyramid scheme with all of us as the victims.
Report Post »ILFarmer
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:24pm@smugsmiley:
Report Post »I understand how the seasons work, i was more pointing out the slight elliptical orbit of the earth giving the northern hemisphere a stronger summer than the southern summer. But that’s besides the point as I was being a bit sarcastic and not really much of my point.
w4jle
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:14pmAll of these so called climatologists go with which ever way the wind is blowing. (No pun intended)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Decries global cooling and how ice has been building above normal since the 1930′s. The grants then were to prove “Nuclear Winter”
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=all
Tells us we are doomed to global warming etc etc.The grants wanted facts to reflect global warming.
While you may say there is a difference of opinion, note the author is the same on both articles, Columbia University Climatologist George J. Kukla.
Was he wrong then or now? Or was he full of BS both times to meet the criteria of the current grant?
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:27pmw4jle with the WIN
Report Post »pmjme
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:11am@ABC You and perhaps the environmental company you work for obviously fear this article. Your brand of “No Pressure” coercive environmentalists who assert that micromanaging human life “for the greater good” is necessary, are systematically being discredited by both science (see article & W4JLE as examples) and the deceitful trail of money surrounding your claims. Me thinks he doth protest too much (where do you find the time?), but I digress.
I am glad you brought up Acid Rain, another in a long line of corrupt government interventions. Acid rain comes from a variety of sources (volcanoes included) and as not all of these fall under the control of one jurisdiction, persistent existence is ultimately uncontrollable (unenforceable treaties and global government – not). Thus those who lay claim to controlling acid rain in the US through what amounts to taxation are at best dishonest. I contend (as to my original point) the same would be true for carbon emissions. Further claims that “no one has gotten rich” off of acid rain trading are entirely unsubstantiated and you should tread lightly where carbon is concerned.
What is striking is that scientists never seem to consider potential unintended consequences of their toiling. It really is all just a guessing game. This science club fares no better than all the brilliant economists out there who always seem to be “UNEXPECTEDLY” WRONG (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-06/companies-in-u-s-unexpectedly-cut-jobs-adp-says.html). Your claim about the “trading mechanism” study in the Economist Magazine is laughable.
What has been proven is that it is fairly easy to create the study you need to fit your forgone conclusion (again refer to W4JLE). All of these schemes simply come across as ways for a very few people who think they are smarter than everyone else, to systematically control mass human behavior and gobs of money. That their motives appear benevolent doesn’t take away from their ultimate duplicity. And the people working for the “cause” are all just part of the manipulation.
I agree W4JLE gets the win!
Report Post »Carolyn
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 5:49amABC – are you conceeding then that ‘everything old is “NEW” again’ as we look to the new green economy?
Report Post »Post-Progressive American
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 6:56amAre CO2 rates increasing? Yes.
Is the climate changing? Yes, it always does.
Does man’s production of CO2 affect the climate? Sure, but the question really is “to what extent?”
There are several natural affects that far outweigh man’s CO2 productions: Earth’s tilt, orbital changes, sun spots, etc., which are often ignored in the discussions. Also, keep in mind that particles in the air can have a more dramatic cooling effect than CO2 does for warming.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s set aside the debate and say that Global Warming exists. A simple cost-benefit analysis would show that the very minor reduction in the predicted temperature is not worth the trillions of dollars required to achieve that reduction.
So in the end, the various policies at the EPA, Cap and Trade, etc., will have virtually no impact on the predicted temperature change; all they really do is make massive profits for those who have set-up the infrastructure to capitalize on them (Algore anyone?). It is about money for the elite, not saving the planet.
One would think that we would be better off encouraging entrepreneurs to come up with real solutions rather than stifling business and ******* our money away with no expectation of improvement.
Report Post »Libertyhight
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 11:36am@ABC I‘m a libertarian so I’m all for capitalism…however! This is not a fair and free market form of capitalism that will be instituted. Utility companies are climbing on board the Cap and Trade Express because they will make bank on this. And who are the losers? Small business? Naw. Big Business? Certainly not. The Governments? Nope. It’s Mr. and Mrs. Consumer. Remember Obama’s quote, “under the cap and tax system energy prices will necessarily sky rocket.” Your prices will sky rocket, not any companies.
You think our unemployment numbers and economy are bad now? Just wait until this steaming pile hits the fan.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:56pmBeckofFile writes:
“So independant investigations=Those same poor pier reviewers.”
It’s peer-reviewed articles. Piers are for boats. And they are more reliable than anything you might be reading. And three independent investigations are not likely to get it wrong. THey didn’t collude. You are impervious to facts, evidence or empirical truth. How sad. Like debating an earthworm.
“Your turn towards the EPA for your answer= government climate profiteers and revenuers. R&D into stuffing the CO2 back underground for our great grand children=Who pays the cost? Trading Mechanisms Worked= Where and with who’s money (Proof please)”
I’ve already cited sources for why and how cap and trade has worked for acid rain. Go look it up. It was widely reported as the best solution in respectable publications like the Economist, as I previously wrote. Slow on the uptake, aren’t we?
“You have a subscription to The American ConScientist=where science is proceeded by consensus. Good luck you “usefull Idiot”….I have guns, bullets, gold, food and water.”
No such magazine. You are borderline illiterate. It’s a waste of time trying to educate those who wish to remain stupid.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:58pmFiero writes:
“ABC: The trading of carbon is no less a scam than Bernie Madoff selling fake securities. Carbon credits are USELESS, and the biggest problem is that it would raise the cost of *everything* – and YOU and I would, in the end, be paying. That’s not capitalism, that’s a pyramid scheme with all of us as the victims.”
Acid rain credits were not a scam. It’s the identical principle, yet you make up a bunch of unsupported allegations. There are rules to debate. Produce facts with support and separate them from opinion. Address the opposition’s facts with other facts. You do nothing but make unsupported claims. You would fail third grade logic with this nonsense.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:06pmProgressive writes:
“Are CO2 rates increasing? Yes. Is the climate changing? Yes, it always does. Does man’s production of CO2 affect the climate? Sure, but the question really is “to what extent?” There are several natural affects that far outweigh man’s CO2 productions: Earth’s tilt, orbital changes, sun spots, etc., which are often ignored in the discussions. Also, keep in mind that particles in the air can have a more dramatic cooling effect than CO2 does for warming.”
You are not a scientist, lecturing me on how my studying scientific work on the subject is wrong. So instead of looking like a moron by proclaiming the equivalent of “the earth is flat,” why don’t you cite the specific research in the scientific literature that is flawed and why that is the case. If you cannot do this, then you have no intelligent comment to make, and the words you write are TOTAL NONSENSE from an IGNORAMUS. I don’t mean to insult by that. That is just a fact. If you said the world is flat, you would not sound less foolish. Truly.
“But, for the sake of argument, let’s set aside the debate and say that Global Warming exists. A simple cost-benefit analysis would show that the very minor reduction in the predicted temperature is not worth the trillions of dollars required to achieve that reduction.”
Again, cite a shred of evidence to support this contention and then explain why even the military is worried and expects major wars to break out as a result. The current two are costing $2 trillion. So what would be the lower bound of costs and impacts that would prompt you to actually stop lying about what you don’t understand and motivate yourself to actually learn about the serious threat. If you don’t use numbers, then don’t even bother writing a single word. For he who refuses to do the math is doomed to talk nonsense.
“So in the end, the various policies at the EPA, Cap and Trade, etc., will have virtually no impact on the predicted temperature change; all they really do is make massive profits for those who have set-up the infrastructure to capitalize on them (Algore anyone?). It is about money for the elite, not saving the planet.”
This is a total non-sequitur. Here is the logic: 1) false assertion A without proof; 2) false assertion B without proof; 3) false conclusion C that is not even proved if A and B were true and proved. Why is the average blogger here so logic and fact challenged??
“One would think that we would be better off encouraging entrepreneurs to come up with real solutions rather than stifling business and ******* our money away with no expectation of improvement.”
There are many. Vinod Khosla’s VC firm in Silicon Valley is one of many. You know so little and talk way too much. You should only talk a lot if you actually know something.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:09pmLibertyHight, the imposition of a tax on emitters is very capitalist, as I’ve already argued–and no one has shown me an economist who says otherwise–but the distribution of credits at the outset must be fair. If they are simply given to utility companies rather than sold to them, then you are correct. But it wasn’t done that way with the acid rain permits, and it need not be done that way with CO2 permits. You cannot assert a possibility that hasn’t come to pass to criticize a system which, barring that possibility, has worked just fine. It’s like saying that we cannot have cars because we necessarily need to tolerate drunk driving accidents. What kind of logic is that?
Report Post »slickmeister
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 2:52pmLook up the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange. Everyone from Algore to Dear Leader Hussein Obama and all of their sky-is-falling EnviroNazi one-world Marxist associates stand to gain BIG when cap’n tax is imposed.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can expect $8/gal gas and a spike in the cost of EVERYTHING WE BUY.
What a deal!
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 4:06pmABC
Your the best! You keep bringing up Acid Rain (I have not heard that since the early 90′s). You know the first definition of Climate Problems that were at that time, said to ruin every lake, river and ocean. We were running the chance of ruining our whole food chain. We were going to melt our skin in the 80‘s or 90’s and since this one did not work well you moved to globull warming which has now morphed to climate change. This last definition should be good because you can gain revenue from the people using energy and redistribute it to those urban elitist that find themselves intitled to someone elses money because they are just smarter and all of this independant of an increase or decrease in temps. Explain to me…Is it CO2 that creates warmer climates or is it warmer climate that creates CO2. Please just the facts and no calling me names when you don’t have the answer. I am sure there will be someone smarter then I that will comment on your computations? Oh no its starting to rain so I better bring my kids in before they melt:)
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 4:17pmABC
Would you just show me the part of the Constitution that gives the EPA the right to do this?
Also would you give me the part of the Constitution that gives the Judiciary the right to legislate this?
Look for your answer later because you will have a difficult time with this one.
Say “Hi” to Van Jones since you are sharing a cubical with him at The Center for American Progress.
Report Post »Post-Progressive American
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 7:05pm@ABC,
Thank you for your insightful critique. Your good-natured demeanor and witty retorts have almost swayed me to your point of view…but then I set down the Kool-aid.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 1:19pmABC, I think they call that drowning.
Report Post »