All I need is the air that I breathe …

posted at 11:33 am on February 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Sources within the Obama administration tell its favorite leak recipient that they will have the EPA start to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in the next few months.  The decision will hit the energy and transportation sectors at a time when both will be needed for an economic recovery.  Get ready for even more nationalization:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.

Well, you have to love how the New York Times has decided to become the spin masters of the Obama administration.  Take a look at the second paragraph of the article, in which John Broder breathlessly informs us that regulating carbon dioxide could “accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks”.  It could do all that, but what Broder doesn’t mention is that it will also rapidly increase energy costs, making it costlier to produce goods and services inside the US while foreign competitors gain an advantage.

How long does it take for Broder to mention the fact that increased regulation and imposition of controls will “significantly increase costs”?  Paragraph 15, of 26.  He only mentions it in reference to expected opposition from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), whom Broder helpfully casts as a “champion” of the auto industry.  Funny, though, that the New York Times didn’t bother much with describing people as “champions” of this industry when covering the auto-industry bailouts, which will now apparently go to waste, thanks to this new regulatory push that will make both the manufacturing and products of the industry obsolete.

In fact, in the entire 26-paragraph article, only two paragraphs speak at all about the opposition to such an approach.  The rest almost fawningly describe the effort in glowing, even heroic tones.  It’s quite the piece of propaganda, and I’m certain the Obama administration will bless the NYT with even more scoops like this in the future.  It’s far below Broder’s usual standard.

Interestingly, the Most Transparent and Accountable Administration in World History will not ask Congress to pass these new regulations.  Getting the People’s Branch involved apparently is too time-consuming and tiresome.  Instead, the EPA will just start issuing regulations, and will ask us to trust them to be reasonable.  No, I’m not kidding:

She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency’s decision-making process.

If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.

Remember all those on the Left that complained about George Bush’s “imperial” approach to the Presidency?  Do you suppose they’ll complain about this?  Neither do I.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Maybe Hussein will ration our air, and “bailout” the smokers who can’t breath anymore.

DaveKlassix on February 20, 2009 at 12:54 AM

The dear leader says this new series of taxes, transfer payments, green corporate welfare and additional layers of bureaucracy is for your own good and will grow the economy.

Unfortunately, not everyone is so blessed as to see the genius of this approach so expect your retirement portfolio to be deminished until this too is nationalized.

moxie_neanderthal on February 20, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Wait until you find out that those evil business people have put the very dangerous component Dihydrogen Monoxide in your beverage!!!

Dihydrogen Monoxide is a leading killer year after year and yet we still haven’t gotten the EPA to regulate it!!!

18-1 on February 20, 2009 at 12:31 AM

I’m such an evil SOB that I bathe in the stuff daily. Trying to be manly and stuff. New Obama environmental slogan, “Hell no to H2O!”

jimmy2shoes on February 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM

I’m just waiting for ITT to offer a degree in Wind Turbines. Then I’ll be rolling in the dough.

SPIFF1669 on February 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM

Here’s an article on Greenland’s ice sheet growing thicker

http://www.universetoday.com/2005/11/04/greenlands-ice-sheet-is-growing/?4112005

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 7:40 AM

Combine that with the fact, and I do mean fact, that Antarctica is continuing to grow colder.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Let em go after air. Just another policy to repeal and boost the conservative platform. LOL CO2 a pollutant? Hahahahahaha I’m still shocked they get away with this crap.

hiphopconservative on February 20, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Greenland’s ice cap is continuing to shrink, actually:

GREENLAND’S GLACIERS LOSING ICE FASTER THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR, WHICH WAS RECORD-SETTING ITSELF

The money quote:

“We know that snowfall rates have increased recently in this region,” he said, “but that hasn’t been enough to compensate for the increased melt rate of the ice that we’re seeing now.”

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Can someone please, please, please explain to me how the stuff that makes my Cherry Coke fizzy is a deadly substance that is destroying the environment? Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

jimmy2shoes on February 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Sorry, no one can explain that because its simply not true. Carbon Dioxide is an essential gas in the Earth life cycle. You exhale CO2, you literally cannot live without creating CO2, and I think that fact is what makes it the perfect target of a tax. Essentially they want to tax the air you breath.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 9:52 AM

right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Thanks for the back-up.
Like I said b4- it’s a cinch for me to look at the whole climate change picture through the rocks of the Earth. All us geo-folks know & understand the basics of this.
Earth’s climate is constantly changing-has always changed throughout its 4.6+ BY existence-& will CONTINUE to change long after we are gone.
We are too arrogant-we really believe we can irreversibly screw up mother Earth that bad?!
I agree we can screw it up-but we in the US now are better managers of the land than we have ever been in our history.
We are doing a good job.
And CO2 has NEVER been proven to directly affect temperature.
The obvious conclusion is just the OPPOSITE.
You want to ban a gas that causes ‘global warming’?
Ban water vapor.
And while you’re at it-quit breathing. Kill all the plants-they release a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere.
God I could just go on forever on the stupidity of this stuff.

Badger40 on February 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM

We are too arrogant-we really believe we can irreversibly screw up mother Earth that bad?!

Having flown over hundreds of miles of “dead zone” along Florida’s Gulf coast, I’ve seen how human activity can cause tremendous environmental damage. All due to the fact that we’ve turned the Mississippi River into a continental-sized open sewer with regard to runoff from agriculture.

Also, the physics of CO2 as a gas that traps infrared radiation is incontrovertible. The fact that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas doesn’t negate the fact that CO2, along with methane, is increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere and is acting to trap more heat.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Also, the physics of CO2 as a gas that traps infrared radiation is incontrovertible. The fact that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas doesn’t negate the fact that CO2, along with methane, is increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere and is acting to trap more heat.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Really, then how do you explain the fact that the temperature has been dropping for more than ten years while CO2 has continued to increase?

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Really, then how do you explain the fact that the temperature has been dropping for more than ten years while CO2 has continued to increase?

Because temperatures really haven’t dropped. The fact that 1998 was a warmer single year than any that followed doesn’t negate the fact that all the following years since then have also been warmer than average.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Also, the physics of CO2 as a gas that traps infrared radiation is incontrovertible. The fact that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas doesn’t negate the fact that CO2, along with methane, is increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere and is acting to trap more heat.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Just keep repeating this idiocy … and click your heels three times.

progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Because temperatures really haven’t dropped. The fact that 1998 was a warmer single year than any that followed doesn’t negate the fact that all the following years since then have also been warmer than average.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Wrong.

And actually the warmest year on record happened back in the 1930′s. But that’s only the warmest year ON RECORD, the reconstruct records show vast periods of time where the Earth was much warmer than at any time in the recent past. Do you think they were driving too many SUV’s during the Medieval Warm period?

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Just keep repeating this idiocy … and click your heels three times.

Reality is what it is:

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM

And actually the warmest year on record happened back in the 1930’s. But that’s only the warmest year ON RECORD, the reconstruct records show vast periods of time where the Earth was much warmer than at any time in the recent past. Do you think they were driving too many SUV’s during the Medieval Warm period?

When you look at the overall trend, average temperatures have been on the rise. Picking a single year, be it 1998 or 1934 as being the warmest on record doesn’t mean that most other years haven’t also been warmer than average.

Here’s a graph that depicts how global temperatures have trended upwards along with the amount of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

“Because temperatures haven’t really dropped”

Really?

Arctic Ice increases at record rate.

“..the following years have been warmer”

Really?

The NCDC data shows a cooling trend over the last decade.

DWB on February 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM

DWB, 1998 was one of the warmest years on record in terms of global temperatures. Since then it’s still been warmer than expected. That’s not a “cooling trend” it’s only that the Earth is warming at a slower rate.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

man, dudlet, do you like to cling to discredited studies.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Here’s a graph that depicts how global temperatures have trended upwards along with the amount of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

No wonder you’re all in a tizzy. You need some up to date data. Your chart only goes to the year 2000. But worse than that, IT BEGINS NEAR THE END OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE. So no wonder it appears that temperature is climbing out of control. Your graph STARTS at a point where the Earth was too cold. Do you seriously want to go back to the Little Ice Age?

Increased CO2 is known to be the RESULT of warmer temperatures NOT THE CAUSE. There are periods in Earth’s history where we have had 20 times more CO2 in the air than now, and guess what, those were good times in Earth’s history. Rapid crop growth can only be see as a bad thing by a liberal.

Beside that, the Earth does not depend on losing heat to space to cool. Probably less than one percent of the Earth’s heat is lost to space. That’s a good thing by the way because if Earth’s heat could rapidly be transfered to space, which is only a few tenth of a degree about absolute zero, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A REAL PROBLEM. A frozen earth were nothing could survive. The Earth’s primary means of cool is evaporation and transpiration.

If the earth depended on losing heat to space in order to cool, the Earth would have burned up on day 5, or something like that. Stop listening to Al Gore for heaven sake, he’s a world class liar.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Because temperatures really haven’t dropped. The fact that 1998 was a warmer single year than any that followed doesn’t negate the fact that all the following years since then have also been warmer than average.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Nor does it negate the FACT that the temperatures have been dropping steadily since 1998.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Having flown over hundreds of miles of “dead zone” along Florida’s Gulf coast, I’ve seen how human activity can cause tremendous environmental damage. All due to the fact that we’ve turned the Mississippi River into a continental-sized open sewer with regard to runoff from agriculture.

Also, the physics of CO2 as a gas that traps infrared radiation is incontrovertible. The fact that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas doesn’t negate the fact that CO2, along with methane, is increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere and is acting to trap more heat.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

1) The dead zones have always existed. They have grown marginally in recent centuries.

2) While CO2 does trap heat, the amount that it traps is so small that it is barely measureable. I posted a chart that showed this yesterday.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM

When you look at the overall trend, average temperatures have been on the rise. Picking a single year, be it 1998 or 1934 as being the warmest on record doesn’t mean that most other years haven’t also been warmer than average.

Here’s a graph that depicts how global temperatures have trended upwards along with the amount of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Yes, the earth has gotten warmer since the end of the little ice age. Thank GOD.

About 98% of the temperature changes over the last 200 years can be explained by use of the sun and the regular cycles of oceanic currents.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Nor does it negate the FACT that the temperatures have been dropping steadily since 1998.

Let’s see, if in 1998 global temperatures were observed to have risen at a near-record rate and in 2008 they rose at a slightly lower rate, that means what? That global temperatures are still rising, of course. You’re mistaking a drop in the RATE of temperature rise for a drop in temperature itself. This of course is a denialist talking point that’s deliberately deceptive.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM

dudlet actually believes that history started in 1800.

From that chart, I could also conclude that temperature is directly related to solar activity. More sunspots, warmer. Fewer sunspots, cooler.

Also from the chart, CO2 and warming are poorly correlated, since there are several instances of dramatic cooling even when CO2 was increasing.

I also notice that the chart stops before the recent cooling begins.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The data disagrees.

Besides, no one knows what the proper temp is for the planet. And it is folly to think we can change it.

If Germany is closing Nuke plants and replacing them with coal for energy, followed by Britain continuing the same coal use, plus China adding more and more coal fired plants, I have a hard time taking C02 concerns seriously.

When the behavior matches the rhetoric maybe we will have something to worry about.

Also, C02 has been 10x higher in the past and the temps lower.

The science is far from settled.

But, it’s not that science that bothers me, its the politics.

DWB on February 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Here’s a graph that depicts how global temperatures have trended upwards along with the amount of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

How about showing us the link to the “scientist” who put that graph together. Anyone, like Gore, can put a phony graph together.
Try these real stats…real ones with links and actual stats to back them up, not some foolish random graph put together by a junior high school student.
Here
Here
Here
But you won’t read them, let alone understand them.
The great majority of climatologists (not general scientist who know nothing about climate) acknowledge no correlation between co2 and temp. Particularly when you consider an absolute time lag of perhaps 800 to 1,000 years to see the effect.
Kind of embarrassing for you, when you show your 8th grade graph.
Now, where is the link to your graph?

right2bright on February 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

1) The dead zones have always existed. They have grown marginally in recent centuries.

Dead zones have gotten much larger thanks to modern agriculture, sad to say. It’s a real problem in the Gulf of Mexico, when areas the size of New Jersey have huge die-offs of aquatic life.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Here’s another chart that dudlet will ignore.

It shows CO2 and temperature over the last 600million nears, not just the last 100.

It also shows that there is absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.

In particular, check out 450Mya. CO2 was almost 5000ppm (we are terrified because CO2 might reach 400ppm) yet temperatures plummeted to levels below what we see today.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Dead zones have gotten much larger thanks to modern agriculture, sad to say. It’s a real problem in the Gulf of Mexico, when areas the size of New Jersey have huge die-offs of aquatic life.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

So you admit that there is nothing unusual about dead spots.
You are just po’d that growing food has caused a marginal increase in the size of them.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Let’s see, if in 1998 global temperatures were observed to have risen at a near-record rate and in 2008 they rose at a slightly lower rate, that means what? That global temperatures are still rising, of course. You’re mistaking a drop in the RATE of temperature rise for a drop in temperature itself. This of course is a denialist talking point that’s deliberately deceptive.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Are you stupid, or do you like playing stupid?

Absolute temperatures have dropped. In fact most of the warming of the last century has dissapated in the last decade.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Here’s an article that shows that the increase in temperatures in Florida are 100% the result of urbanization.
Areas that did not urbanize actually cooled.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/floridatrend-its-hot-but-dont-blame-global-warming/#more-5542

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Not that dudlet gives a flying flip for real data, but here’s a chart that shows worldwide temperatures and shows that indeed it has gotten cooler since 1998, not just “the rate of increase has lessened” as he so foolishly tried to claim a few posts ago.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/rss_jan_09.png

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Here’s a graph that depicts how global temperatures have trended upwards along with the amount of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

You know what starfleet_dude, I like your graph. If you took the time to look at it closely you would notice the clear association between temperature and sunspots. Look at the period around 1975. What do you see there?

We see CO2 increasing… with temperature DECREASING, and look at sunspot activity for that same period, YES it is also DECREASING. There you have it, what is painfully obvious to any thinking person. Its the sun that drives climate, wow, what a revelation!!!

You say you still don’t believe me? Then look at the sunspot activity at the beginning of your graph during the Little Ice Age. Note the lack of sunspot activity. If that doesn’t do it for you, then you are lost to reason and I don’t think anyone can help you.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM

If that doesn’t do it for you, then you are lost to reason and I don’t think anyone can help you.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM

You have uncovered the heart of the matter.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The temperature goes up, the temperature goes down.

The claim of the Warmies is that there is a “consensus” of scientists that say the temp is going up, and therefore all these economy ruining measures have to be taken, but thats a lame argument imo, you may find that scientists who claim that the climate is “changing” or that the global warming exists, but how many of those scientists have put their credibility on the line and have claimed that the rise in temps are going to result in the catastrophic events claimed by the fear mongers..or even that a slight rise in global temps is a bad thing? Where’s that list?

Maybe a rise of .06C is not even worth getting your shorts in a wad in the first place.

I for one think its one of the biggest money stealing scams to arrive on the scene P.O. (Pre-Obama)

Itchee Dryback on February 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Absolute temperatures have dropped. In fact most of the warming of the last century has dissapated in the last decade.

Nope. Here’s the chart of average global temperature for the last century as well as last ten years:

Global Temperature 1880-2008

Do note that while the years after 1998 haven’t shown as much warming as 1998, they are still warmer than average and have only added the the warming seen over the past century.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Whats wrong with a little warming? Its just a cycle.

Itchee Dryback on February 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Global Temperature 1880-2008

Do note that while the years after 1998 haven’t shown as much warming as 1998, they are still warmer than average and have only added the the warming seen over the past century.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

You give us a chart from Wiki, that is from an unknown source and doesn’t reference if these are ground or satellite readings. Dude, there is something seriously wrong with that chart, but you can believe that one if you want to.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Wikipedia? You have got to be kidding.
I’ve given you an official chart generated by a govt agency, and you counter with a wikipedia chart of unknown origin?

That’s pathetic, even by your remarkably low standards.

You are aware that the wikipedia editor for global warming issues is a very strong AGW advocate.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM

We don’t know if it is raw data or has been carefully massaged to show what the authors want it to show.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Wikipedia is usefull for background information.

It is utterly useless for anything controversial. And that goes for lots of things beyond the AGW myth.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Here ya go. You have your chart from Wiki, and I have my chart from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the chart was produced using data from NASA.

Here is the article that goes with it, I suggest you read it, but I know you won’t.

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Unlike denialist sources, Wiki is at least open to editing by outside parties, and while not perfect is a better resource for basic information as a result.

When even National Geographic says the Earth is warming, it’s pretty silly to claim it’s all some sort of conspiracy.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Maxx, that denialist claim you cite had already been debunked:

Satellite temperature measurements

Unfortunately denialist talking points are a lot like zombies in how they keep coming up… ;-)

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM

When even National Geographic says the Earth is warming, it’s pretty silly to claim it’s all some sort of conspiracy.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Next he will be quoting “Time”. They have about the same level of credibility.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM

more wikipedia dudlet, can’t you find any reliable sources?

Maxx and I have been posting data directly from govt labs.
And you claim a wikipedia source trumps that?

You really are desperate aren’t you.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

National Geographic

No one is denying that there was warming. I believe every chart shown so far has agreed in that regard. The point of contention is WHAT caused it, CO2 or the sun. Even your own chart shows it was the sun. Nevertheless, its moot now because CO2 is still increasing (that’s a good thing because its plant food) but the world is growing cold.

Maxx on February 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Hey starfleet_dude, next time you grab yer towel and hitchhike a ride thru the galaxy, take a quick stop on Mars. To what do you attribute the ice caps melting & climate change there? Martian cow farts? “My Favorite Martian” riding around in his Hummer? Marvin the Martian flying around in his private Jetson-mobile? Capitalist pig martians? Martian overpopulation? Al Gore and the Obamartian heating their sprawling mansions to tropical climates so their martian orchids can flourish?

We earthlings are so selfish. If we really wanted to do some good, we would put a carbon tax on ALL carbon-based life forms on the blue planet, and then have the President of the World send those carbon credits to Mars where they could do some good buying 3rd world martians a new atmosphere.

Sound ridiculous?

ornery_independent on February 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM

The mythical “consensus” continues to evaporate.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319849127145558

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM

There is no science that backs the claim that rising CO2 will cause problems.

There are only models.

Models with as many as 40 tunable variables each.

These models routinely fail when they try to “predict” past climates using historical data.

Yet we are told to believe them when these same models are used to predict future climates using guestimates of future data.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Dead zones have gotten much larger thanks to modern agriculture, sad to say. It’s a real problem in the Gulf of Mexico, when areas the size of New Jersey have huge die-offs of aquatic life.

starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Now you step into territory I know first hand…I have spent over 20 years along the gulf.
First, the real die off came from overfishing by the Japenese fishing fleet which “bought” their way into the gulf.
That caused an extreme upset of bio life in the gulf…they literally “netted” everything, and tore up the bottom of the relatively shallow gulf.
On top of that, El Nino came through in the 1980′s, a natural occurrence, documented for hundreds of years by the “vagabundos”.
Then, the coup do grace, was the over fertilization of the areas around the agriculture centers…in Sinaloa, around Guymas, Los Mochis, Culiacan…nothing to do with the co2 climate…but typical mis-management of rescources, and coupled with cyclical climate change.
Starfleet, you must learn to do some more research before buying into this crazy “global warming”, much of it is to cover up poor agriculture management by these countries…and yes, we have the same, look at the areas around the central valley of Ca. over fertilization has caused problems.

right2bright on February 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM

http://www.surfacestations.org/

This site has spent the last year or two doing a survey of US meteorological sites.

This is the NOAA rating system for such stations.
The third column is the percentage of stations that earn this rating.
rating error percentage
CRN1 <= 1C 3%
CRN2 = 1C 20%
CRN4 >= 2C 58%
CRN5 >= 5C 11%

The CRN rating system only deals with the area within 100 meters of the recording station.

By NOAA standards, only stations with a CRN1 or CRN2 rating are supposed to be used for weather predictions.

(I must add that almost all of the potential sources of error result in heating. Errors that cause cooling are few and far between.)

As you can see only 11% of the stations rated so far meet the minimal standards for such stations. The number of stations ranked CRN5 errors greater than 5C equals the number of acceptable stations.

The NOAA standards have nothing to say about the larger issue of urbanization that is further than 100meters from the recording station.

Just a casual review of the GPS coordinates for these stations show that most of them are in areas suffering from substantial UHI increases over the last 100 years.

Studies have shown that even small towns, as small as 10,000 in population can create a noticeable UHI affect.

Finally, this network was created to aid weathermen in making short term weather forecasts. It was never designed to record climatic data. The result is that the data from the network is useless for climatic purposes.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Many recent studies have demonstrated what agriculturists have always known. Plants love enhanced CO2.

If you looked at the chart I provided earlier, you will see that for most of the history of the earth CO2 was much, much higher than it is today. As much as 20 times greater than what we have today.

That is the atmosphere in which these plants evolved.

Enhanced CO2 causes plant growth to accelerate tremendously. It also causes plants to use water more efficiently.

There is no downside to enhanced CO2.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann’s 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive “hockey stick” temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help…Most significantly for climate change skeptics, however, the year 1934 now edges out 1998 as the hottest year in the United States.

Jim Hansen gets all of his funding from global warming govt. agencies…he has been on the dole of global warming for decades…prior to that, we was advocating global cooling, because govt. funding was given for that.
A better person to rely on is Timothy Ball (Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg) or even better is Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences) the world’s foremost authority on climate, and someone who does not accept govt. funding regarding climate change policies.
But then if you read Dr. Lindzen, you would either have to give up your global warming for now, or just ignore the world’s foremost authority…and someone not on the govt. dole.

right2bright on February 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Hansen recently testified in England that a group of people who trespassed and vandalized a power plant were justified because of the damage that CO2 was doing to the planet.

He has also recently compared trains that transport coal to power plants to the trains that carried Jews to the Nazi extermination plants.

He has been quoted as saying that we only have few more years to save civilization itself.

Hansen has no credibility on this subject or any other.

MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4