|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 7, 2009 18:48:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 7, 2009 18:57:05 GMT
And all based on tree rings which everyone knows are fabricated evidence - including the people who wrote the papers. Well done team  |
|
chb
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by chb on Dec 7, 2009 19:16:27 GMT
The lunatics are running the asylum. methane emissions from cars? Enjoy your steaks and hamburgers while you can Actually I think methane was included just to scupper coal mining. www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.htmlOn December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. |
|
chb
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by chb on Dec 7, 2009 19:38:08 GMT
CFCs & halons fall victim to the ozone hole & skin cancer scares. and they lower temperatures in Antarctic.
hydrofluorocarbons & perfluorocarbons fall victim to the Climate change scare
anyone want to predict what the next scare will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2009 20:30:33 GMT
Well, all I can say is I knew this was coming. IT will be tied up in court for years, but the cost of litigation for something so stupid is beyond me.
It would be different if the science was, in fact, honest and above board.
IT is NOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Dec 7, 2009 20:44:42 GMT
Well, all I can say is I knew this was coming. IT will be tied up in court for years, but the cost of litigation for something so stupid is beyond me. It would be different if the science was, in fact, honest and above board. IT is NOT. Who is going to tie it up though? Who can afford to take on the US Government in court? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2009 20:58:15 GMT
US chamber of commerce will I believe. They have already stated that they will if it came to this.
The sharks are going to do well once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 7, 2009 23:16:46 GMT
US chamber of commerce will I believe. They have already stated that they will if it came to this. The sharks are going to do well once again. Which is why the Chamber of Commerce was not invited to the recent Whitehouse jobs 'summit' |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 8, 2009 0:02:52 GMT
Bearing in mind that water is probably 90% of the alleged greenhouse effect, I am looking forward to their announcement that they are going to regulate water vapour emission.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 8, 2009 0:09:31 GMT
US chamber of commerce will I believe. They have already stated that they will if it came to this. The sharks are going to do well once again. Which is why the Chamber of Commerce was not invited to the recent Whitehouse jobs 'summit' Or any other legitimate representation not licking the boots of the Obama administration. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Dec 8, 2009 2:51:20 GMT
This could actually be good news. In order to meet U.S. CO2 objectives we just have to declare 12 seconds each hour where American citizens are not alowed to exhale. Wala, emissions reduced!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Dec 8, 2009 5:07:28 GMT
FYI: Sheppard, Marc. “ American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline.” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, December 6, 2009. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/. "... it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. ... the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. ... most historical temperature charts, ... go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in. ... opportunists who depended on the aberration of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA but most certainly the MWP simply had to go." Basically, the argument is this: if there was a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age, then current temperatures and the rate of increase or decrease are not unprecedented, and the precedents occurred without being driven by Anthropogenic CO2. Don't take my interpretation. Read the article. |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Dec 8, 2009 5:37:05 GMT
Consider three cheap and straightforward solutions to the problem of CO2 as a pollutant, assuming a change in legislative majorities. - Rescind laws establishing the EPA (majorities in House & Senate).
- Rescind laws allowing the EPA to declare substances as pollutants (majorities in House & Senate).
- De-fund the EPA (majority in the House).
In the course of restoring sanity, hold hearings, with testimony under oath, from the players in this power grab. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 8, 2009 16:00:30 GMT
Maybe they finally see the real threat, Obama and the EPA, to the US. "When asked about the recent Environment Protection Agency's endangerment finding of CO2, Senator Webb told the Washington Times and others today on Capitol Hill, "I think we need to go back and look at the Supreme Court decision in which the EPA asserts that it has that authority, because it is a derived power based on legislation, and it is a limited power. I don't think the administration can agree to anything, for instance, in Copenhagen on an endagerment finding that was based on one piece legislation in a Supreme Court decision." " www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/dec/02/webb-warns-obama-taking-action-copenhagen/ |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 8, 2009 18:04:29 GMT
FYI: Sheppard, Marc. “ American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline.” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, December 6, 2009. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/. "... it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. ... the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. ... most historical temperature charts, ... go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in. ... opportunists who depended on the aberration of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA but most certainly the MWP simply had to go." Basically, the argument is this: if there was a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age, then current temperatures and the rate of increase or decrease are not unprecedented, and the precedents occurred without being driven by Anthropogenic CO2. Don't take my interpretation. Read the article. It is the use of clever sounding but useless proxies that has driven the entire debate - both historic temperatures based on tree-rings that don's show temperature and historic CO 2 levels based on ice cores for 'global' CO 2 levels when polar regions have lowest CO 2 and it diffuses into the ice anyway. Both these proxies had to be 'tricked' to get them to merge into the current day metrics. Temps by adding in real temps and CO 2 by shifting the date ~80 years. |
|
