EPA: CO2 Threatens the ‘Public Health and Welfare of the American People’
Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, today made final her determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009′s place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.
This Endangerment Finding will begin a cascade of crippling new regulations of the American economy and of the way people are allowed to live. Already EPA has proposed new auto regulations based on the Endangerment Finding requiring that requires that the average car sold in 2016 get the same fuel mileage as today’s Smart Car.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA earlier this month to delay the Endangerment Finding until the scientific case for global warming alarmism could be reviewed in light of the Climategate scandal. EPA ignored that petition, so now CEI will file suit in federal court to overturn the finding on the grounds that the science does not support it.
I hope that all will stop for a moment and take the measure of the absurdity of this: The US Government has just declared air a health hazard.
How low this culture has fallen that such buffoons are elected to office or hold positions as “scientists”.
We are lost.
CO2 is a pollutant? I thought CO2 was what plants breathe.
Oh Great.
I have to stop breathing or be taxed to breathe.
I will have to pay taxes to plant more plants in my yard.
Yes, we are lost.
Does anyone now doubt the need for a radical pruning of this thorn bush called the Federal Government? This is pure politics, a rubber stamp to give cover as BHO gleefully surrenders US sovereignty to join the international socialist movement.
If the conservatives can ever actually get control of the government (contrary to MSM propaganda, we never have before) then the first thing to be done is disavow and invalidate any treaties or agreements this regime puts into place. Then it’s time to take some big chunks like EPA and whittle them by 80-90% at least.
This is the back door to Cap & Trade to tax oxygen, the Left’s dream & our nightmare; this will turn our recession into a full blown depression. Watch Obama blame President Bush for his troubles again. This is another Harpy egg for Obama to haunt him for the next 3 years. Congress better put the breaks on this disaster.
Ah. The socialist power grab continues apace.
The most “threatening” thing to anyones health and welfare are the Obamscummies , his fellow moslems and gangsters like the EPA and OSHA.
One of the original presentations of CO2 from the EPA was that CO2 is a toxin in the eventuality of global warming. If there is global warming then it is a toxin. First it had to be made a toxin to justify penalizing it with cap-n-trade taxes. The end justifies the means if the means is justified by the end. It is not a toxic gas unless it kills, and until then it is ordinary and necessary for life. They are quite mad you know in their introduction of assymetrical warfare science.
What is the carbon footprint of a national forest fire? If a federal forest emits CO2, who pays thoses taxes? Does the EPA prosecute the Forest Service for letting it burn? Is a fire department liable for putting out a house fire if they knowlingly violate their carbon credit allowance? Trial lawyers rejoice, there is madness to profit from this enormous and erroreous legal decision!
What they really need to do is outlaw water. That stuff drowns people, man!
It is about time that excess levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases were regulated to sustainable levels to attempt to limit global warming and the environmental damage that it is causing. While those without the scientific understanding may make inaccurate comments about regulating green house gases, it is important to keep in mind that the atmosphere works optimally with certain concentrations of these gases and when the percentages are put out of whack due to excess combustion and other factors, the well being of the ecosystem that we depend on is affected and the dollar costs of this can be very high.
While there will be pain to begin with, as there is with any change, the regulation will force industry to become more efficient and this will have competitive benefits into the future as the US competes with other nations. It will also spur new innovation and products that the US can sell abroad as it develops its expertise.
Well, I guess this was just a lot of BS.
Lying tool.
The case, if it ever gets heard, should be a good platform to put the lie to these rascals. They don’t want to debate in public.
No, the Government has NOT declared air a health hazard. Of the air you breathe, CO2 makes up a tiny component – about 0.04%. If it were say 1% you would die. It’s like radiation – there is a background level that is acceptable and even beneficial. Once you exceed the background levels, all bets are off.
Human activity generates about 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. CO2 levels have never gone above 281 parts per million in 650,000 years of ice core data. We’re now at 380 parts per million.
Where do you think all the CO2 goes?
“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”—Barack Obama, president of the United States.
On the other hand, maybe generations from now they’ll be able to look back and tell the children this was the moment when the emperor had no clothes.
@10
“While those without the scientific understanding…”
Apparently you have not read or understand the psuedo science of the fraud called climate change. It is not and never has been, ‘overwhelming science’, see Climategate.
Obviously you are comfortable paying an extra 3k a year in your personal energy use, watching thousands lose jobs and are comfortable watching the price of everything in this country go up.
It is a very sad day indeed.
#10: It is about time that the excess levels of liberal Democrats and other elected and non-elected public officials are regulated to sustainable levels in an attempt to limit our loss of freedom and the consequent damage that is being caused to our society. While those who lack the understandings of our inalienable rights may make wild and unsubstantiated comments about the evils of a free and capitalistic society, it is important to keep in mind that our social system works best with a very small percentage of government regulation and that its (our society’s) many benefits can be thrown completely out of whack by Marxist leaders and their useful idiot followers. The well being of our very lives in our pursuit of happiness is gravely affected and the value of our dollar is plummeting.
Oh yes there is pain now, but that pain will be greatly magnified when our industries are taxed out of business, we lose our competitive edge due to a lack of profit motivation, and no one abroad wants anything to do with us, let alone buy are government subsidized products.
So how will we tax all the plants decomposing in the forest or volcanic vents? They both release more CO2 then man does by a lot.
Hey, Lisa, what you do long? Good grief, Dear Leader has been in power almost a year, for crying out loud!
Now, this makes it perfectly permissible for all you nut jobs out there who think CO2 is a “pollutant” to do the honorable thing and show the rest of us greedy pigs that you are sincere.
Yes, you know where I’m headed with this.
Six billion humans spewing out tons of CO2 every minute! Time for you true AGW worshipers to take a stand . . . be part of the solution! Stop emitting green house gases at a personal level.
Come on, you can do it! Head on over to nearest “Release Center” for a painless exit.
That, or get a CO2 scrubber and wear it 24/7 . . . egads, I just gave Lisa an idea!
During the last 2.5 million years earth was in an ice age 80 percent of the time. So 8 out of ten times the odds are for lower temperatures and declining ocean levels. One hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was at 1000 parts per million. In the Jurassic carbon dioxide was almost 3000 parts per million. The dinosaurs were doing fine, and without Darwin, Marx, Michael Mann, and Albert Gore.
“CO2 levels have never gone above 281 parts per million in 650,000 years of ice core data. We’re now at 380 parts per million.
Where do you think all the CO2 goes?”
CO2 has been historically low throughout the Cenozoic. Even with the increase in the last century I believe we are still below the CO2 lows of the Carboniferous and Permian. Of course those CO2 numbers are kind of a guess–sort of like tree ring temperature proxies. What we know with some certainty that CO2 levels have been at least an order of magnitude higher than the present without any ill effects on the planet. In fact, during the initial deposition of the Antarctic ice sheets about 30 odd million years ago, CO2 was double the current levels. Funny that the largest glaciers in the world were being laid down despite CO2 being 2x present levels. In fact we’re not even sure these are the highest levels in the last 650,000 years. There is some evidence that CO2 has been in the 300ppm range as recently as 7000 years ago. It is disputed by the climate religionists, but there is evidence.
The connection between CO2 and temperature is tenuous at best. We know that CO2 has been largely falling since the Cretaceous, but as soon as the declines began from about 2000 ppm about 150 mya, global mean temps increased (to about 21°C) and stayed there throughout the Cretaceous, despite plummeting CO2 levels. CO2 decreases by an order of magnitude, temp goes up. CO2 goes up in the Jurassic, temperatures plummet. End of the Permian, both CO2 and temp go up in concert. Maybe we just don’t actually understand how global climate works. But we have enough evidence over, gee, a billion years, that over large time spans there is little correlation between temperature and CO2. You can’t cherry pick the most recent observations and ignore the entire history of the Earth because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Well you can. I mean that is precisely what scientists have been doing in order to secure funding and fame and power. But in real sciences you can’t cherry pick like that, you’ll get skewered for it. The difference is that this “science” gives government total and complete control over your life. This ruling essentially states your life is a danger to, ummm, your own life, and that it is the government’s responsibility to control that life. They might as well just kill all of us, I’m not sure I understand the point of micromanaging individuals metabolisms, and macroscopic economies such that everyone lives a life of equal misery and poverty. Sounds swell. Really.
It is about time that excess levels of pseudo intellectual, liberal propaganda and other noxious gases were regulated to sustainable levels to attempt to limit the global warming scam and the economic and political freedom damage they are causing. While those without the scientific understanding to know that 150 years of inconsistently measured data can not possibly form a baseline to prove anything in a 4.5 billion year old, highly dynamic system may make inaccurate comments about the global warming scam, it is important to keep in mind that these same pusedo intellectuals back in 1975 predicted in no uncertain terms that we in the northern hemisphere would all be under a thick blanket of ice, having exhausted all petroleum 10 to 15 years ago. You see they are very uncomfortable with people being free and nations having the sovereignty to keep the people free, only worldwide governace and wealth re-distribution administered by the UN is acceptable to them. And if we let them have their ways the costs will be very high indeed, and not just in dollars.
While there will be pain to begin with, as there is with any change, regulating liberal dribble will eventually force them to grow up and accept the fact that they are not in charge of every aspect of our lives. . . and that theirs is not the power to alter time, space. . . or climate.
Myron – If the dictators at EPA are so worried about CO2, let me suggest they help us along by not exhaling for about one hour.
Hey you at # 10: You have not the faintest idea what science is. NOT. THE SLIGHTEST. CLUE.
“Understanding of science” indeed. YOu have no understanding of a thing. You do not have basic common sense.
There is no global warming. CO2 is not causing Global Warming. There is no man made global warming.
Spare us your condescending pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook. You are clearly and demonstrably wrong.
Stop behaving like an idiot.
and same to you Oakes. What imbeciles!
How can you even pay you rents?
OK so during the Paloezoic and Mesozoic eras, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. Continents were also in different configurations, climatic conditions were different, species were different. How many Carboniferous life forms do you see today? Oh yeah! – there has been a few extinction events since then. We are trying to deal with climate under (relatively) modern conditions. While historical data can be a significant boon to modelling what is going on, going back 300 million years probably has little to add to our understanding of what I will agree is a highly complex subject.
However, on economic terms, there will only be “misery and poverty” if that is what you choose to surrender to. Huge opportunities exist for clever entrepreneurs to design, build and market clever solutions, that will benefit everyone (except maybe oil companies/countries that remain soley dedicated to hydrocarbons). There might be some disruption as we decouple from carbon based fuels but think of the advantages in terms of energy independence. I agree with you though on the subject of cap and trade – why finance the polluters?
Besides – economies always recover, but extinctions are a one way street.
And the question still remains – Where does all the CO2 go?
Your figures are conjectures oulled out of warmist agitprop. Where does it go? Photosynthesis turns in into oxygen, you nitwit. What arrogance. What silliness. Stop pretending that you have some deep insight. you are about as much a scientist as, well, this mob of marxists calling themselves “climate scientist”. Neither they nor you are actually scientists at all.
Just self-important, leftist poseurs.
#23 Greg…
Look here;
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/where-does-all-that-carbon-dioxide-go-to-part-1/
and here;
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/where-does-all-that-carbon-dioxide-go-to-part-2/
He explains where all the CO2 goes..
“Understanding of science” indeed. YOu have no understanding of a thing. You do not have basic common sense.
Hot sale MBT shoes
Economies always recover, but extinctions are a one way street
Hot sale MBT shoes
Where does the carbon go? In the Jurassic it went to creating big animals and plants, and a lot of the oil we consume today. Where does the carbon go today? To those big animals called Lear Jet Liberals flying to Copenhagen to create big government to regulate more carbon that will have absolutely no affect on temperatures.
Mongoose, your answer is so simplistic answer as to be actually meaningless. I would suggest that you read the links that Ad Lib posted as a basic understanding of the carbon cycle can only help. Unless you learn to argue in a meaningful way you are not doing your point of view – and those who support it, any favours.
Ad Lib: thanks for those links, they are almost accurate. Two things stand out though. One is the claim that H20 makes up 98% of Greenhouse Gasses (which is not correct but is not the point I want to argue here – check out http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)
The real argument I have with the article though stems from this paragraph where the author states:
“Oceans also act as huge carbon sinks, and one third, that’s 33.3%, of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the Earth are soaked up by the World’s oceans. This does not really cause much harm, as oceans have been doing this since they formed, and I don’t mean to sound like I am trivialising that in any way. That carbon is stored in the ocean in numerous ways, and what is often forgotten is that the World’s oceans are also one of the large emitters of CO2 on the Planet, and this occurs naturally, hence the title of oceans as a vast CO2 pump.”
The problem I have is where the author states “This does not really cause much harm…”. The reason for my problem is that the absorbtion of CO2 into the ocean DOES have a detrimental effect – namely the reduuction of ocean pH levels due to the creation of H2C03 (carbonic acid). Ocean acidification has a direct impact on the lifecycles and sustainability of large numbers of marine life that sit across the food chain. Basically as pH levels fall, the ability for corals, molluscs, crustaceans and other calcifying organisms to form shells and the like is severly impacted. Those that can form shells have shorted lifespans and less successful reproductive cycles. Only small variations in pH levels are required to have this impact.
Global Warming is only one side of the CO2 story. Ocean acidification is another, and to me, much more frightening. How many other implications are there that we have not taken into account.
What conversation do you want to have with your grandchildren? “we thought we had a problem so we built a better world” or “we didn’t think we had a problem and we left it too late”…
There IS no MAN MADE Global Warming, There NEVER has been any MAN MADE Global Warming, There never WILL be any MAN MADE Global Warming.
CO2 is NOT a Pollutant it is a vital part of the cycle of life,
More CO2 more Plants, More Plants more food for animals and Man. So apart from being completely WRONG the Green NAZIS are also anti life.
BTW the bozos on here who are trying to say too much CO2 is bad for the planet need to back up THEIR arguments with data which PROVES that todays CO2 levels are out of line with HISTORICAL CO2 levels and a CONCLUSIVE peer reviewed OPEN document which defines the OPTIMUM and HARMFUL levels of atmospheric CO2. And please no closed loop peer reviews no MANIPULATED data no TRICKS and no ‘HIDING THE DECLINE and no DESTROYING EVIDENCE.
Then and ONLY then can you moonbats spout your Green NAZI BS but until then please be quiet the big boys are talking.
Ocean acidification…Carbonic acid…OK prove that theory…if the carbon cycle (as a process) has been relatively consistent over time, then the oceans were far more acidic in the past, when CO2 levels were higher..
You’re assuming that PH is being driven by carbonic acid…now prove it. And then prove that it is actually the PH change that’s doing the damage (eliminate all other variables). Think of the problem like an engineer, not a scientist. It is enlightening.
During the Clinton administration, people were told that the candidate didn’t inhale. In a reversal, this administration tells the American people they shouldn’t exhale. Were these the idiots that were sniffing glue during biology? As a matter of nature, humans and animals EXHALE CO2. In a similar fashion, during plant respiration, plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen. So without CO2, we have no plants, hence, no oxygen and all the animals and such die, including humans. Is this what the mean to do? It’s idiocy.
Someone, please, stop these idiots before they kill us all with their poorly formed good intentions.
Regulate, legislate, and assume human life gets better. Ignore sun-cycles. Pretend mid-ocean rifts are myths and not sites where billions and billions of tons of magma and related gasses percolate into the oceans. Assume irrelevance of CO2 precipitating to limestone in processes inexorable. Forget that green plants worldwide grow healthy in abundant CO2. Forget that CO2 vented equates to the wealth of nations. Then you will have my vote by force and not by reason.
Wow! If it is true, then we must immediately close all venues which allow more than 100 people to congregate in an enclosed area as their very lives will be in peril due to the dangerous CO2 being exhaled. Madison Square Garden, the Met, all conference venues, even the House and Senate!!! (That wouldn’t be too bad – might as well let them continue to stay in their houses – we might be able to make some of them sick enough to return home). All malls need to be closed immediately. Don’t forget all schools – all of that CO2 (plus methane). Boxing matches, hockey games, basketball games, colleges, large restaurants, Well, I’m out of breath from making this list. I wonder if I can hire a lawyer – Edwards has “retired” to sue the government for not stopping these public dangers in time to save my life. Inhale. Exhale. Stop the trains,buses. Oh, the danger being faced by all those going to Copenhagen. Boggles the mind.
CO2 is a naturally produced gas. We all know about plants and photosynthesis. Taking in of CO2 and the release of Oxygen.
Our air is made up of various substances. It is not just oxygen. Actually too much oxygen and it too can become toxic to humans but I don’t think that it would be hazardous to the environment. Not sure!
The issue is not that CO2 is unnatural or natural. The problem is that it has increased greatly and that daily increase alters our environment. We produce far more natural CO2 than what can be converted back into oxygen.
Much of our rainforests etc have been cut down – Fewer (CO2 gas converters) and continued daily increases of CO2. Which has caused the huge global warming crisis.
It needs to be controlled. Not sure if it ever will be but it is worth every effort. If not government wise definitely on an individual level anyway.
“Understanding of science,” indeed. Science is not truth. It is an attempt to discover truth, often wrong, constantly changing, and still very much subject to the biases of it’s practitioners. One thing I know for sure: The data DO lie in the hands of people lying to themselves and others. I’m sorry, mere mention of the word “science” doesn’t produce hushed awe and blind, automatic acceptance of whatever “evidence” follows it. Too many areas of science have too much in common with cult religion for that condescending “what I have said is SCIENCE!! (cue the booming reverb) and trumps all further questioning” attitude.
Oakes. Stop repeating Communist agitprop and then thinking that it makes your argument
“nuanced”. You have not the faintest idea what you ar3e talking about. Stop kidding yourself. It is all just narcissism an vanity.
Ad Lib does not know what he is talking about either.
That is not science that either of you is about. It is the regurgitation of agitprop that someone has spoonfed you that you are about. You re not engaged in rational thought. You re not even engaged in common sense,
The Co2 goes into the ocean where plankton turn it into oxygen. If it did not, we would all suffocate, you drooling nitwit.
it is a simple as this:
There is no man made glabal warming.
there is no sustained global warming. Period.
there is no climate crisis.
Man’s carbon contribution to the atmosphere is miniscule!
Co2 in not a pollutant. This is ludicrous on the face of it.
NONE of this withstands real scientific scrutiny.
The so called “climate scientists” are hacks and provocateurs, paid for by socialists and tranzi in order to justify a socialist take over of the world economy. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
It is all a lie. Stop lying to yourself. Stop lying to the rest. Stop condescending to your intellectual betters. You are behaving ike a utter fool.
Grow up, Understand your limitation. Get a productive job, have a family and stop bothering adults.
What a thoroughgoing buffoon you are.
Oakes, there is no “ocean acidification” it is all just another lie. If coral beds were not periodically destroyed by regional temperature variations and other conditions you would have been able to walk across the Great Barrier Reef 10 thousand years ago. It wold be sticking out of the water grow up. Use your head. Learn who your enemies are.
And Julie: No the problem i that over grown children like yourself have been suckered into believing what is pat3ntly false, and you lack the intellectual and moral capablity to see why this is so.
They are lying to you. they want to enslave you. Stop regurgitating their vomit.
Hey Lumpo: do you have some facts? Something real to discuss?
It is all just propaganda that you ar spouting.
there have been rifts in the ocean for millenia. Earth to Lump: There are continental plates!
What are like 23 years old. You know some of us have families to raise, mortgages to pay, kids to get though live.
Maybe you should try it. You will find that you are less easily misled.
Stop thinking that by repeating thee lies that it shows some sort of moral or intellectual gravity.
In fact it shows just the opposite.
As absurd as it is they’ve finally figured out a way to tax breathing, and the really sad part is there are tens of millions of morons who will cheer them for it.
Water vapor is a green house gas a thousand times more potent than CO2, is this going to be regulated as well? These climate change believers are just scratching the surface for all the variables effecting the climate and they want us to enact trillion dollar measures for something they admit is so complex they arent clear on many of the details? I don’t think so!
CO2 is a MINISCULE component in the atmosphere!
Climate changes, that is why its called Climate.
Greg Oakes, I have a little experiment for you. Find a small sea shell and take pictures of it from all angles, then swallow said sea shell. If your claims are true and PH is an issue for calcifying organisms your digestive acids should break down the shell and it will pass from your body as your stomach acids are much stronger than the oceanic PH.
However, I put forth that when they have to surgically remove the sea shell from your intestines and you compare the shell’s condition to the pictures you took before swallowing the shell you will find little to no change to the condition of the shell. Then again you might get lucky and it will pass naturally without the need for surgery, in that case I recommend you wash the shell thoroughly before making the comparison.
A great moment for Obama’s true supporters. Those who thought he was kidding and voted for him anyway are having second thoughts. A couple of years of poverty will begin the great American reawakening and perhaps a viable third party will be born. We need a third party composed of patriots not those looking for a lifetime job of leisure. Only a cataclysmic event can cause that. Perhaps CO2 and the EPA will be it.
I’m wondering if you were actually foolish enough to give yourself a bad case of gas Mr. Oakes, because that is what would happen if you followed my little suggestion as the calcium would react strongly with the HCl in your stomach. Then again you’d probably not notice with all the hot air exiting either end of your digestive tract.
Now the Earth has been much more hostile to life, having CO2 levels that were extremely high compared to today’s levels. Coral, plankton, and other microbes survived and flourished. At several points the Earth has undergone mass extinctions. Yet we have all of our current bio-diversity.
Now you either believe that life evolved from other more simple life forms or that *poof* all our current life forms suddenly appeared out of no where. If you believe in the *poof* theory then I can understand your excitement over the loss of even one species as it will never be replaced or adapt. However if you believe in evolution then you are aware of species evolving to meet the changing needs of their climate. If they don’t then another species arises to take its place. Why then is the extinction of any species an issue? Its happened before and it will happen again. If you doubt me take a look at the many species of Dinosaurs that no longer exist, same for fish, arthropods, mammals, insects, etc.
#40 Mongoose
Geez… I provided some information of where the atmospheric CO2 goes because it seems germane to the discussion. Back off dude and slow down, I don’t think anyone truly understands the problem or even if there is a problem with CO2 levels, not you and certainly not the CRU ‘scientists’ at UEA.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is this;
The earth is a complicated system that is obviously not well understood. I’m not an alarmist or a warmer or whatever. I certainly don’t think we should base environmental policy (or any other policy) on science that is clearly not ‘settled’. What I think we should do is develop a national strategy for energy independence. I think nuclear power which is ‘carbon-neutral’ must be considered as part of the solution. Anyone that thinks we are all going to have windmills in our backyards is sorely mistaken.
Cap’n'Tax and carbon credits are simply bad policies as they hinder economic recovery and development. These policies are simply veiled attempts by progressives for implementing their redistributive agenda.
To all those true believers that carbon dioxide is a dangerous gas, I have a suggestion for you. Stop breathing for one hour. You’ll be helping out our country and the world. Where do all these fools come from? The EPA has been a major cause of loss of jobs. Like all government bureaucracies they regulate every facet of our lives, and in doing so they destroy us.
Mongoose and Donny Denier, you really need to base your opinions on facts and not on what is convenient to believe for your pocket book. The political antics of ClimateGate and climate change denial don’t change the science around increasing world temperatures, climate instability and increasing levels of green house gases in the atmosphere. These antics simply point out that science is complex and many theories must be discussed before coming to a model that meets all challenges.
The problem is really quite simple. All the energy we have as fossil fuel is the result from hundreds of millions of years of plants growing, being trapped in sediment and compressed. Now, over the course of roughly 100 years, we have released much of the energy in this stored material and generated green house gases that significantly change the percentages of these gases in our atmosphere. There is no way that all the plants living today can suck up the C02 from millions of years of plant growth. Saying so simply indicates a complete lack of scientific understanding.
StephenW, your extremist comments indicate nothing other than an inability to consider ideas apart from those that you have burned into your mind. I support a free market system and have done well by it, but such systems only work when every contributing factor has a value or cost. If C02 and other green house gases are not assigned a financial value or regulated, then they are not treated with value by the system. As a result, excess levels of C02 are created and this has a number of damaging factors for the environment and the economy.
Mongoose, you are really quite obnoxious in your communication style making personal attacks on those with whom you don’t agree. It is fine to have an opinion and to argue it, but much of your commentary is little more than inarticulate rantings. If you have facts to add to the debate, please add and let them stand on their own if they can. Otherwise, you simply come across as an ignorant thug.
Real Deal, put the shell or an egg for that matter in vinegar and you’ll see the acid dissolve the shell quite quickly over a few days. This is basic science from school.
@Oakes #13
SO WHAT???!
About 25 million years ago CO2 was near 1000 ppm
About 140 MYA CO2 was near 2000 ppm
About 280 MYA CO2 was near today’s levels
About 380 MYA CO2 was near 4000 ppm
About 530 MYA CO2 was near 7000 ppm!!!
Life on earth THRIVED under every one of these conditions!
My question to you is: “Which of these periods is the CORRECT CO2 level? Why? Support your answer with documented facts and references.” Points will be deducted for spelling and grammatical errors.
For everyone else, Oakes picked the time frame he picked so he can argue that CO2 levels are at unprecedented highs. However, if I pick a different time frame, I can show that CO2 levels are at unprecedented and dangerously low levels! I can support my argument with documented evidence of the shocking amounts of biomass that filled all the land and seas of the earth at those times CO2 was high, as compared to today. Oakes cannot refute my argument (though I believe it to be specious and I make the argument merely for argument’s sake – like Oakes). Therefore, I expect a vitriolic and equally specious reputtal from Oakes (if he replies at all).
The fact of the matter is that nobody knows enough about the earth’s climate to argue one way or the other. The difference between Oakes (and his ilk) and myself is that I admit my ignorance and ask science to explore and learn more. Oakes hides his ignorance and asks religion to support him and silence me.
In my mind’s eye, I see Oakes clothed in a hooded hassock, holding a candle in a dark room and chanting his arguments in a monotonous undertone as protection against the encroaching light of reason. Good luck with that, Oakes!
Wellescents
Stop projecting your ignorance on other people, particularly those who have accomplished more than you have in life or ever will. That is just the problem. You imagine that you are somebody you are not. You imagine that you have capacities and capabilities that you do not have,.
You really need to grow up and try just for ten seconds to have an ADULT discussion and stop whining when adults call you on your juvenile posturings. Sooner or later you will have to face the world as it actually is, like it or not, and you will find people just laugh at immature fools and use them towards their own ends. If you behave like a child expect to get treated like one. Grow up, you are not talking to your 20 something buddies at Starbucks or your local dive.
You have the slightest idea of what science is about. NOT. THE. SLIGHTEST. I rather doubt that you could get through even third rate Math curricula. It is a bad joke, your posturing before you betters as if you had the faintest clue how the real world works. You are not even a mediocrity. You are just making as liberal arse out of yourself by pouting about “people’s style”. I could care less what an ill-educated loser like you thinks of me. No productive adult will do anything but laugh at you. You are engage in pure self-deluded vanity. Stop it before it is too late for you.
Me? I have worked in some of the foremost industrial and academic think tanks in the world. I worked in the energy business for over a decade. I have run companies of my own for years. You could not get into any those places if you had a cardiac arrest of the front doorstep. You could not get into the schools I went to, let alone graduate. I wager that I employ more people than a headcount of all the people that you have had an adult conversation with combined. I doubt that you ever rise about staff level at what ever silly job you work at, if you are employed at all. (oh, and if you are employed–I will not say “productively” employee for we all know that that is out of the question–you better start tucking it away because your socialist masters’ machinations will no doubt cost you your job soon. Could not happen to a more deserving “person”).
The problem is quite simple. Twits like you are manipulated by the enemies of civilization, and you lack bith the intellectual capacity to rise above it and the moral character to admit it.
There is no “energy problem” besides this. If we got rid of the treasonous left and pursued our energy resources here at home thing would be just fine.
You are living in fantasy world.
s
Really, I could care less what you “think” of my “style” or your effeminate “feeling”–that is just so stupidly left-wing of you. Style over substance. “Feelings” over morality and accountability. What a silly thing to say–as if anyone worthwhile cared what you think. Deep down inside you know this is true. This is how the left manipulates you.
If you think the rest of us are going sacrifice our civilization for morons like you, if you think we will sacrifice the future of out children and grandchildren for immoral fakes like you, you better start getting ready for a whole other reality
What an ignoramous.
bubblehead,
While life thrived in various levels of C02, the levels didn’t change nearly as quickly as they have with recent human activity. The very familiar recent temperature graphs (last 100 years) show the rapid rise in temperature. For life to thrive, it has to have time to adapt or you get mass extinctions. Science shows that rapid changes of various types have caused significant loss of species in a short period of time.
Your comments lumping people who disagree with you and bring other facts to the table into some hooded group of monks shows little of the scientific willingness to understand that you purport to be in of support of. While we don’t know everything about the climate by any stretch, there has been significant research that largely tends to support the view that human activity is having negative effects on climate stability.
On the precautionary principle alone, there is a need to take action on climate change to prevent the damage that our activities are having if for no other reason than there are a number of negative scenarios that can arise from what we are doing.
Mongoose,
You might do well to wipe the froth from the corners of your mouth. You are a raving nut bar to put things politely.
50. Wellescent Health Blog:
Well if you are correct we are headed for the end of the earth because the largest increasers of CO2 growth plan to increase more. They completely don’t believe a word of it.
All cap and trade will do in the US is impoverish us.
The sad thing about the CO2 hysteria is it takes both money and brainpower away from real issues.
bubblehead, the head of NASA basically made the same arguement and was CRUCIFIED by both the media and enviro groups. Who is to decide what the optimum environmental condition is. What is optimum in one location will not be for another location… The deserts of today were NOT the deserts of 10,000 years ago… which in historical terms of the planet was basically yesterday.
The simple fact is, a changing climate does not prove AGW. By all means keep reseaching and expanding our knowledge in an apolitical way. But spending trillions for such an unproven theory in simply lunacy, and any politician who advocates it I intend to make sure it’s suicidal for their career.
Stating that we will reach the end of the earth is quite an exaggeration. We will see a reduction in quality of life, loss of many wildlife species and an increase in a number of costs from dealing with climate instability. Those living in first world countries will see less of the impact than those in less stable countries.
As far as cap and trade, although I didn’t explicitly mention it, it is an option that tries to work with existing financial systems. Stating that it will impoverish the US is probably an overstatement, but it will have costs and it is not clear if it can solve the problems of green house gas emissions.
I think that there is both global warming and anti global warming hysteria in play. Whether global warming efforts are taking money away from real issues depends really on whether you think global warming is a real issue. I tend to think it is based on the science as do many others. Hence I support efforts directed at solving that problem. That said, those who are opposed to it are obviously free to direct their efforts towards causes they think are more relevant. We will always have plenty of problems against which to focus our efforts.
@#53
First, we do not know enough about paleoclimatology to be able to assert (as you did) that the rate of change today is greater than at other times! You are overstating.
Second, no one has ever been able to tie the decline of any species directly to climate change. This is a hypothesis in several cases, but no more. Hypothesis means SWAG!
Third, yes I have unflattering views of those who are trying to impoverish and ruin my country for the sake of a P-SWAG (pseudoscientific wild-a$$ guess), socialist ideology and hatred of western history and traditions. Until those people begin to listen to reason, I stand by my views.
Forth, your precautionary principle is ridiculous on its face! If I used your reasoning I would advocate for the conversion of all the resources of all the nations on earth to build machines that can go to the asteroid belt for the purpose of destroying all asteroids, because “there are a number of negative scenarios that can arise from the existance of asteroids”!
In that case, I should win, because we know for sure asteroids have led previously to the extinction of earth species, whereas so far we cannot point to any species that has been destroyed by climate change alone.
“While life thrived in various levels of C02, the levels didn’t change nearly as quickly as they have with recent human activity.”
Proof? I want concrete proof–not Wikipedia crap. And the proof cannot be from the corrupt e-mails which is more than likely your secondary or third sources from the main article. Otherwise, I got a bridge to sell you in New Jersey.
Sebastian Shaw
Do ice samples count?
Read the BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
and look for “rate of change”.
With the ice that they have been able to measure, they have not been able to determine a rate as high as what we are seeing now. Though this doesn’t go back millions of years, only a mere 800,000, it is pretty decent proof that rates are increasing way faster than normal for what we have been able to measure.
And…so? And life still goes on even 800,000 years ago. CO2 is not a primary discussion to the real problem: Totalitarianism from our government to turn us into slaves to tax oxygen. However, you’re very good at misdirection.
Misdirection… You seem the more adept at that practice given that when evidence is presented that you demanded, you change the argument.
By the way, you kind of missed the point that the high rate of C02 increase now being seen has not been seen before in all of the 800,000 years worth of ice samples. We are in uncharted territory where the best science indicates that we will do costly environmental damage.
“EPA: CO2 Threatens the ‘Public Health and Welfare of the American People.”
It’s not CO2 that threatens American health, but Loony Lisa and her whole EPA catastrophe.
Bring on the Anti-Revolution Revolution!
27. Actually, all oxygen from photosynthesis comes from water. Just a minor technical point, but the plants do turn CO2 into sugar during photosynthesis, so it’s close enough.
32. That theory makes no sense, because shells are made out of chitin, not CaCO3. Chitin is a polymer of amino-glucose, which means it isn’t affected by pH.
Bubblehead, you say
“About 25 million years ago CO2 was near 1000 ppm
About 140 MYA CO2 was near 2000 ppm
About 280 MYA CO2 was near today’s levels
About 380 MYA CO2 was near 4000 ppm
About 530 MYA CO2 was near 7000 ppm!!!
Life on earth THRIVED under every one of these conditions!”
Maybe, but not necessarily the species we see around us today. I feel reasonably comfortable in stating that if you went back to the Artinskian Age(280 MYA) you wouldn’t be able to breathe due to the lack of oxgen. My point is that pulling numbers out from dim past has little relevance to current conditions.
Real Deal & Myth Buster
First, up to clear away the misinformation above, crabs and lobsters have exoskelatons reinforced with Calcium Carbonate. Yes, their shells are chitin, but they are encrusted in CaCO3
You seem to have a misplaced idea of how Ocean Acidification impacts upon marine organisms. So what happens when EXCESS amounts of CO2 disolve into seawater to form H2CO3?
Varieties of Marine life rely upon calcification to build solid CaCO3 shells and structures. These structures then rely upon the surrounding seawater to provide saturated levels of carbonate ions to protect them from dissolution. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid, which can dissociate into hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions. Those hydrogen ions react with carbonate ions to form more bicarbonate. That bicarbonate comes at the expense of the carbonate, thus making the shells vulnerable to dissolution.
Changes in Ocean pH can also effect marine life without shells, such as anemones and jellyfish, because their internal pH tends to vary with that of the surrounding seawater.
The chemistry of this is quite basic, very mature and quite unambiguous. Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels drives down ocean pH levels.
Now think of the impact of that in an economic context. to quote from 2009 symposium on Ocean Acidification: “Without a better understanding of acidification’s effects on ecosystems, making meaningful predictions of socio-economic impacts is difficult. The potential scale of these effects, however, is cause for concern and an added incentive to increase our knowledge.
Acidification may affect marine food webs and lead to significant changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people and a multi-billion dollar industry. Coral reefs generate billions of dollars annually in tourism, which may be at risk as reef area diminishes and corals become more prone to diseases. In addition, reefs will provide shorelines with less protection from erosion and flooding.
Ocean acidification, along with warming surface waters and changes in ocean mixing, may reduce the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere and worsening its impact on the climate. Such a reduction would make it more difficult, and more expensive, to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
OK -there may be some ambiguities here as to the impact, but do you really want to put off remedial action until it is too late?
This is absolute lunacy,this government has lost touch with reality.2010 can’t come fast enough to stop these crazy bast**ds.
Oh, and Mongoose – I am probably older than you (certainly more mature, I run a couple of profitable businesses (no, I’m not a communist), have a wonderful loving family and am expecting grandchildren soon. You may need to revisit your assessment of me.
You continuously rant and rave about people not understanding the science, yet you have shown little interest in debating any scientific propositions. Your spittle flecked invective characterises undermines any serious case you may be attempting to put.
All of you who oppose the EPA should assist (i.e., donate money) organizations that are bringing suit or will bringing suit against the EPA to prevent that agency from imposing its nutty will on us. They may not protect the environment, but they will destroy us if we don’t back.
The first of the great modern Republicans created the EPA.
Now that Dick new how to pull an environmental Trick(y)
Bwahahaha
“OK -there may be some ambiguities here as to the impact, but do you really want to put off remedial action until it is too late?”
THIS is the basis for the entire global warming non-sense in my book! I have been to listened to many lectures regarding the impacts on mankind on the earth and it is always science based upon emotion.
Statements like “It may” and “it could” and “many believe”…. alot of things “may be” pardon me if I choose to wait for the facts. I can tell the difference between scare tactics and facts.
corriegenda:
The last words of my post @ #69 should have been: “… if we don’t fight back.”
Actually, the EPA threatens the health and welfare of the American people. You may think health is a reach. The jobs that are going to leave this country and move to India or China, or anyplace not so suicidal are going to make many of us unemployed and poor.
I don’t think anyone is naive enough to think Congress is going to put you on their health plan, even though we are paying for it.
Sea-shells and ocean PH????
Actually the fellas (alleged experts)held the view that the lower PH would ad versely affect sea-shells…..and set out to prove it.
They are sterling fellows (unlike the CRU-squad) and gave a press release that lowering the PH thickened the shells….
That honesty is truly refreshing.
Badda Bing!
Brian, unfortunately you only end up with facts AFTER the event. Which, when you are attempting to mitigate a risk, is too late. When faced with a risk you have two strategies – mitigation and contingency.
Mitigation is what you do upfront to avoid the risk eventuating or reducing its impact. It is money spent upfront based on the knowledge that if you spend it now it will mean that you won’t have to recover from the risk. It is there to protect you from what you might think will happen.
Contingency is what you spend after the risk has eventuated and you are trying to pick up the pieces. It is used for risks that can’t be avoided. It is there to help you recover after the risk has become a fact.
@65
Yes Greg, but we’re not talking about oxygen; we’re talking about CO2 and whether or not (as the warmists claim) CO2 levels are higher now than ever before, or that they are rising at a greater rate than ever before. Both of these claims are false.
Nice try at changing the subject, though.
Bubblehead – I don’t think that anyone has said that the level of CO2 is at its highest in the entirety of Earth geological history, which as you have pointed out is, would be an entirely ridiculous claim. I think the arguement is that it is at its highest in human history, and pre human back at least as far as 450000 years.
However, like I said, the relevance of atmospheric conditions millions of years ago is pretty much zero. It is like comparing the military capabilities of a stone age tribe with a modern army – vaguely interesting at an intellectual level but of little real use.
Sasquatch – I have tried to reply a couple of times with links to references, but I think after the shoe spammer postings with links have been disabled. But anyway…
… yes, some marine species do get increased calcification rates which DOES increase shell thickness. However the findings did have the following caveat:
“…here we show, using the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis as a model calcifying organism, that some organisms can increase the rates of many of their biological processes (in this case, metabolism and the ability to calcify to compensate for increased seawater acidity). However, this upregulation of metabolism and calcification, potentially ameliorating some of the effects of increased acidity comes at a substantial cost (muscle wastage) and is therefore unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.”
If you Google “ocean acidification shell thickness” and from the results select “scholarly articles” you will find a wide variety of papers (and no Wikipedia links).
this ruling will create many jobs—at the EPA.
they will now be able to regulate theaters for their air quality. ticket prices will have to rise to pay for protective masks that patrons to wear while viewing performances. (this will create also jobs in the new industry of mask manufacture). schools will be forced to submit to EPA inspection, lest childrens’ delicate lungs be damaged by the exhalations of their classmates. recess and sports will be effectively obviated.
we can avoid theaters and schools, but they will catch us in other ways. too much heavy breathing during sex will be outlawed. the porn industry will have to pay a special tax to cover the extra CO2 they cause customers to emit. fat people will be forced into mandatory weight loss programs to reduce their output of this noxious element. doctors will have CO2 meters in their offices to limit how many times they can ask patients to say aaaaah. very small dogs will enjoy a surge popularity because their owners will not have to pay the tax associated with large breeds, whose CO2 volume is greater.
ultimately, we will all be given CO2 allowances, and a secondary trading market will spring up to enrich goldman sachs.
From Greg,
“It is there to protect you from what you might think will happen.”
You failed to mention it is also an insane basis for creating policy. There are thousands of examples of extremely poor policies created from the mindset of what “may be”. Polar bears “may” be at risk due to declining ice… never mind the fact that their populations are increasing. The spotted owl required old growth forest for nesting… never mind the fact it has been seen happily nesting in roadside billboard signs. The desert tortoise was in danger from off-road vehicles, leading to millions of acres of closed desert land. Never mind the fact its mainly threatened by disease and ravens. Water to central CA was shut off to protect a 2″ fish which “may” be in danger from pump suctions. The list goes on and on, and I am simply tired of putting up with this policy of appeasement based upon poor science and emotion which does nothing more than keep the billion dollar green activist groups in the black. The Fish and Wildlife dept spends more money on litigation of the thousands of lawsuits than on conservation…. yeah that makes good policy.
The greenies file environmental lawsuits all the time on the grounds that a given government action, or regulation, is arbitrary just to delay things. We should do the same to them here.
We can win by simply delaying implementation of the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions, through such lawsuits, until 2013 when we’ll have a GOP President. The new GOP administration’s Justice Department can immediately settle all the pending lawsuits with agreements that CO2 is not a pollutant, that the EPA can’t regulate it, and that most of the EPA’s budget should go instead to pay the attorney fees of everyone suing the EPA about this.
Bury them in lawsuits and paperwork for four years. It’s the environmental way.
Greg,
But the point I am making is that the happy condition we find ourselves in now, where the earth’s climate is so well-suited to our existence is either a short-lived coincidence or a devinely arranged necessity. Either way, we have nothing to do with its existence or it’s transigence!
In short, we didn’t creat the Holocene and we cannot destroy it.
I still say your time frame you selected is intended merely to boost your argument and is arbitrary. My point in selecting the other points in the earth’s history is to illustrate that the climate has always been changing and it will always be changing. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE that any current trend is related to our activities.
The point I and so many others have made is the the warmists want us to impoverish ourselves to buy a pig in a poke, then trust them to deliver it! I DON’T WANT my son to grow up in a world where he has been robbed of any opportunity to prosper by a global government that reallocates wealth as they see fit, while siphoning off the cream in the process.
You want me to trust scientists (who’ve been shown to be liars) and politicians (who’ve always been liars) who want to steal my son’s future to somehow ameliorate some impending catastrophe. And I’m supposed to do this on trust alone?!
Let me ask you a few questions:
“Why do you believe in AGW? What evidence have you, personally seen or experienced, apart from anything you read or were told that would cause you to believe in AGW?”
Take a look outside; does that look like global warming to you? (Yes, I KNOW it’s late spring there!)
Bubblehead (I’m a former one): Agree completely — add the following: What the NORMAL temperature? Even Algore showed a graph dating back hundreds/thousands of years. The temp was going UP AND DOWN. So WHAT IS NORMAL regarding the temperature of the planet? If anyone can answer using the scientific method, I’ll give them a cookie.
Tom H. — Lawsuit against the EPA! How about suing the EPA for stating that I’m hazarding my own family in my own home because I’m breathing out CO2. Maybe someone can think of a better way to couch this. The EPA should be brought to the court room!
I miss that bite DDT gave my peanut butter. I personally hold those pinheads at the EPA responsible.