EPA Fast-tracks Greenhouse Gas Regulations

[scpg02]

EPA Fast-tracks Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Written by Rebecca Terrell
Thursday, 25 February 2010 15:00

Article link

[nautonnier]

I think that Congress and the Senate are just waking up to the usurping of their authority by the Administration.

[poitsplace]

Given that the IPCC is falling apart it is horribly irresponsible to fast-track this stuff. Of course, this is similar to my argument about AGW in the first place. It was a frenzy to show human impacts by any means possible...and most of the science was terrible dodgy at best.

[socold]

The IPCC isn't falling apart, in fact in the last few weeks we are seeing the media catch onto the fact that the IPCC report contains a lot of pages and that only one or two substantial errors have been found in the entire thing. Note that none of these errors, or climategate, or CRU emails have even touched upon the scientific basis of manmade global warming:

www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

[Purinoli]

Feb 28, 2010 14:26:39 GMT socold said:

The IPCC isn't falling apart, in fact in the last few weeks we are seeing the media catch onto the fact that the IPCC report contains a lot of pages and that only one or two substantial errors have been found in the entire thing. Note that none of these errors, or climategate, or CRU emails have even touched upon the scientific basis of manmade global warming:

www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Such explanation of yours is similar to this one : We all know, that Adolf Hitler made only few strategic mistakes : opening two major front lines at the same time and neglecting and underestimating warnings from professional soldiers, generals and field marschals about the situation on the fronts.

If he wouldn't made these "minor mistakes" WW II would end in some kind of agreement and piece deal on the West. With Stalin there was already one in power : Ribbentrop-Molotov ( also called Hitler-Stalin) from 1939... History of Europe and rest of the world as well would be different. No iron curtain ( or at least it would be far east..), NSDAP ( nazi party, in this comparison equal to IPCC) would still be in power in Germany.....

Please save us with such comments. You proved you can do better. IPCC is just a pack of liers and UN burocrates seeking money. There is a lot of good climate science in the world, but mostly out of IPCC, guided by the corrupted Railway Engeneer Pachauri.

[socold]

Rather than an appeal to an analogy why don't you explain where the underlying science behind manmade global warming has even been touched?

The railway engineer by the way, was the one that the former US government voted for after voting to remove the climate scientist who headed the IPCC at the time. Evidentially the gambit to get an IPCC head with industry ties rather than scientific background didn't quite work out as wanted?

[Purinoli]

About so called "manmade" GW was written a lot a lot on this and many other web pages, blogs etc. Waste of time to even discuss it. About IPCC frauds we still don't talk enough. Everyone who know just a little about UN mafia can simply imagine what scum has gathered there. Of course not 100% but majority for sure.

"Elections" or just imposing leaders in UN comeetes is always just political bargain and has very little to do with science. What USA did before I don't care because I am from EU. If I could have some power then I would inforce the group of scientist who are experts on climate change impacts on agriculture, construction, planing of land use and so on because natural climate changes happened permanent and are iminent from bilions of years and will be here to the end of planet if we want them or not.

Anyway, I am glad to hear that enviromental ministers of UN started an independent inquiry about IPCC and Pachauri : "The ministers - led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda - refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC...."

It is on one hand a good sign, on other ( from us who are sceptics ) there is a fear that we will get some benign outcome like : "Dr. Pachauri did a good job but we need to reinforce IPCC with skilled people....bla bla bla..."

Who want to work good and fruitful in science, must be sceptic from feet to the scalp. Otherwise it is better to engage her(him)self in religion or politics. In such relatively young science as climatology is in its infanty there can't be consensus. Periods of changings are long, models are so far more or less fancy ( and very expensive) toys. What matter is a simple linear approach : Ideas=>Experiments/Meaurments=>Hypotheses=>Theories or rejected Hypotheses

Even Darwin's Theory of Evolution needed 100 yrs to be widely accepted. Inspite of thousands solid proofs. I don't want to comment Creationist's ideas, they are simply too foolish. To my humbly opinion AGW exists, but on let's say "nano scale", mostly on populated areas,airports...where most of data for famouse "Hockey stick curve" came from, not to mention statistic "tricks"....

[scpg02]

Feb 28, 2010 9:32:52 GMT nautonnier said:

I think that Congress and the Senate are just waking up to the usurping of their authority by the Administration.

Now if we could just get the states to wake up to Congress usurping their authority we might get somewhere.

[scpg02]

Feb 28, 2010 10:19:42 GMT poitsplace said:

Given that the IPCC is falling apart it is horribly irresponsible to fast-track this stuff. Of course, this is similar to my argument about AGW in the first place. It was a frenzy to show human impacts by any means possible...and most of the science was terrible dodgy at best.

They're fast tracking it because it is falling apart.

[curiousgeorge]

GDIT!!! What do our politicians not understand about the word NO!

All they can see is dollar signs, and bigger government. Screw 'em.

From: www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/A-gas-tax-to-cure-global-warming_-Compromise-looks-to-revive-stalled-plan-85863197.html


A gas tax to cure global warming? Compromise looks to revive stalled plan
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
March 2, 2010

A group of senators are trying to resuscitate global warming legislation, but the potential inclusion of a new gas tax threatens to keep action on one of President Obama's signature initiatives stalled.

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., have pushed aside the politically unpopular idea of passing a "cap and trade" system for regulating most emissions and would instead go after power plants, motor vehicles and manufacturers with targeted taxes and caps.

[hunter]

IPCC errors:
Glaciers, sea levels, droughts, rain fall, storm strength, storm damage, for starters.
The only errors seem to be the ones that over state the risk.
That is why hte IPCC is being audited at arms length..not becuase it is uch a trustworthy org with valid products.
That our true beleivers continue, zombie like to pretend that everything is OK is amazing.
But not surprising.

[trbixler]

"Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say"

"To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010."

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

[curiousgeorge]

Mar 3, 2010 13:28:34 GMT trbixler said:

"Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say"

"To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010."

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

And obviously that means the price of everything else would also increase. Saving the planet is getting awfully expensive. Oh, wait. It won't save the planet, according to that very same EPA. Hmmm. Remind me again: Why are they doing this?

Maybe this is why: www.youtube.com/watch?v=goB4GbeltKc&feature=related

[trbixler]

"Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling"
The face of the issue, under Obama's direction. Dr. Phil's hard science at work.



"Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors, have filed petitions since December, when the EPA ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health, clearing the path for the agency to issue mandatory regulations to reduce them.

As the EPA grapples with the lawsuits, Congress is trying to block the agency from acting without congressional approval. Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced legislation Thursday calling for a two-year suspension of potential EPA regulations."

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/states-sue-epa-global-warming-ruling/

[trbixler]

"What Happens If Congress Blocks EPA?"
"That’s the topic of this week’s National Journal energy blog. In my contribution, I argue that EPA has been playing a mischievous game that endangers democracy, and that Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s legislation to veto the agency’s endangerment finding would remove this threat. "
icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

www.openmarket.org/2010/03/09/what-happens-if-congress-blocks-epa/