Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

Consciously deceptive.. lol.

The short answer is that the Ohio blog is wrong.

If the endangerment finding had not been issued, but the waiver still was, there would have been a question as to whether granting the waiver constitutes regulation under the Act (such a chain of events would have required some tortured logic, but that's not new for EPA).

Regardless, the waiver was not the EPA's first action on regulating GHG. There was the ANPR in 2008, and then the proposed endangerment finding in April 2009. The dominoes were already tipped, as it were.

 

Your postings during the campaign, were as vitriolic against Obama as those of any neo-con on this board. If you didn't hate him, it was impossible to tell.

I stand corrected that you do believe in AGW. But your assertion that human activities do no harm to the environment is essentially the same as saying they have no effect. You seem to be the most prolific poster in the denier column here.

I presume you are referring to cap and trade in the above slander. I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE POST in which I have supported or even hinted at support for cap and trade. I have NEVER supported cap and trade, and I have never so much as suggested support for it.

What I do support are HEAVY taxes on carbon. I support caps, but no trade. Cap and trade does nothing but shift pollution from here to there, and given the ways of government, the caps would be set above current emissions levels, accomplishing nothing.

I have, in fact, advocated a tax of $15 a gallon on gasoline, and taxes on other fossil fuels in proportion to their carbon content. (The quantity of coal that contains as much carbon as a gallon of gas would pay the same $15 tax. And the same for other fossil fuels.) (I'd be willing to consider a lower amount, as a compromise with people who are concerned a carbon tax would hurt the economy. I'd settle for $10 a gallon.)

I have NEVER said that pollution rights should be traded, and it's a damn lie to say I have! You owe me an apology for that slander.

I still think that Obama is well-intentioned. I said during his campaign for the Presidency that he was a centrist and that his policies were far too weak, but that I felt he was honest and well-intentioned.

His problem is that he's a compromiser, in an era when the other party refuses to compromise and is out for blood. He seems unable to attack or to be assertive. This does not really surprise me: The U.S. is still far too racist for an assertive Black man to rise in politics to his level. I would be disappointed in him if I expected more. After 8 years of the stupidest man ever to reside in the White House, and the prospect of his intellectual twin becoming vice-President under a decrepit and senile has-been, I altered 40 years of habit and voted for the lesser of the two evils. The candidate I really liked was Dennis Kucinich. I still like Obama. I just wish he'd grow a pair.

 

Good luck with that. The deniers are going to run the House committee if Boehner wants to be Speaker.

 

Wow. The waiver would have never been issued without the mass court case. California had twice attempted to regulate mileage and twice been told it was not part of the clean air act, and they had no standing. The court ruling was all about that. The only thing california needed after they got the ruling they wanted was to get the emission regulated. The ohio blog was not in isolation, it was indicative of the feelings at the time.

I do not believe congress ever intended to hand carte blanche to California in regulation of car emissions simply because it was the worst polluter. I further doubt most in congress wanted the loophole to allow California to continue to grab power from the federal government. The mileage standards perhaps should not be part of the NHTSA, but they certainly should not be part of the state of california's mandate. Look california could drastically cut pollution in the LA area simply by stopping the grandfathering of highly polluting cars. Instead they would like to set the policies of this country, and ignore their own pollution. So here is the science question. If car emit 20% less carbon dioxide than the federal law in the 17 carb states, will it make the earth even 0.1 degree cooler. Will it preserve the California coast line? Or is this just another matter of politics. You know my thoughts.

 

As I stated, I believe the waiver could have been issued without Mass. v. EPA, although such a situation is extremely unlikely (any administration that would grant the waiver would also most likely agree that GHG is a pollutant that requires regulation). But that's a moot point.

Mass. v. EPA was not about EPA's denial of the CA waiver. It was about EPA's denial of a petition for rulemaking. They are two separate actions.

Congress certainly did not intend to give California carte blanche. But they did give the executive branch the power to give CA carte blanche, and in most cases, the executive has chosen to grant that power. The reasons for this are varied.. it was not only because CA had the worst air, but also because they had already implemented a program.. and let's not forget the size of California's congressional delegation.

Do you really believe that people would tolerate a law that requires old cars to be mothballed? Conservatives would certainly not support such a law, nor would liberals (as such a law would disproportionately affect poorer citizens). There would also be a constitutional question regarding ex post facto.

No single regulation will prevent increases of atmospheric CO2 concentration (or cause reductions in global temperature).. so that argument is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

 

You really should spend less time reading conspiracy sites and spend more time with critical thought. There was a large debate about climate change during the 70s....which was before Margaret Thatcher and the CRU. The first fully researched papers on AGW started appearing in the 50s.

Special interest groups tend to donate money to both political parties. Ken Lay was everyone's buddy. And he was on the late senator Heinz's foundation (before Kerry's election bid). Enron donated 1 million dollars to the Bush election campaign, and let Bush use their corporate jet.

But I'm going to have to call BS on them being able to donate $70 billion to climate research. Was that a typo on your part, or are you intentionally way over exaggerating again?? The only quick info I found was that Enron gave an estimated 2.5 million to research and conservation from 1994 to 1996

Given your speculations on what the majority of climate scientists believe, I'm also skeptical about your AGW funding conspiracy schemes. On Goldman's site, they say they've invested up to $2 billion to renewable energy providers as of 2007. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $12 billion they were lent from taxpayers.

 

The suit was brought after the waiver was rejected again. It was brought by the states wanting california to have the waiver, and decided law that would help california get the waiver. The ruling also said that under the CAA water vapor is also considered a polutant, so massacusets or california does not need to prove physical harm from the substance.

California's CARB has written laws based on bad science and work done by people with fake credentials. CAA language most definitely gives california powers because at the time it was considered the worst. It was also president Nixon one of the all time great corrupt politicians that gave the power. Its time to kill that part of the act. Maybe the overstepping with diesel and bio-fuels will get congress to correct this imbalance of power.

The laws in california are set to make every new car cost $1000 more. A regulation getting rid of grandfathering of poluting but non-historic vehicles would get rid of 8 times the polution of the new laws. Why should every person in a carb state pay extra while not getting rid of the problems? That poor citizen thing is really a fake argument. These ancient guzzlers cost more to maintain and fuel than most used cars, likely many new cars. It is false at the premise. When I lived in california I had a housemate with an old mustang convertible. It couldn't pass but it didn't have to. I don't think that given there are new cars for the needs california can speak out of both sides of its mouth. Let's make new cars more expensive for new buyers, and keep the old polluters on the road.;-(

NO its absolutely the point. It is a false issue that lowering co2 in california lowers its environmental risk. This is a global policy discussion, so the greedy politicians in california should not have their say over other states. What is the matter with leaving this to the federal government. Oh yeah, less power for corrupt politicians in California to get the masses to vote for them despite failures in most areas.

 

I've got two responses to that. First, if true,, too freaking bad! If that is what it will take for us to begin to solve the issues that are all to obvious to many, then so be it!

Second, nearly every "clean" technology has ended up costing way less than predicted, and in the long term saved way more than it's costs, so see also point # 1!

 

Daniel,Noted and my apology.

Actually I didnt word it well, but my feeling is that everyone who promotes the theory of AGW calamity ,is enabling the political solution of Cap and Trade.
That solution bankrupts the coal industry and supplants mainly nuclear power.
Meanwhile enriching the carbon traders.

 

Assume for the moment that you are wrong, and the consequences of AGW are significant.

Even if what you you say is correct,, what do you then suggest?

Just like the "don't tax me" kind of person whose response to everything "government just wastes money, so don't tax me", just being against cap and trade doesn't provide any real suggestion as to a solution. It seems, with out being mean spirited, is akin to putting you fingers in your ears so that you don't have to hear the bad news.

 

They lobbyed to have climate change research funded by the government.
Enron didnt spend that.You buy congress for peanuts .

 

Then why don't you buy congress to stop AGW research since you're so against it? OK, I'll play along. Where's your evidence that Enron was the primary lobbyist for climate change research...and who paid 70 billion dollars for climate research during what time period? (since according to you, climate research only started in the 1980s)

 

I was mistaken, the US has spent $79 billion on climate change research.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

Once again, stats from a well funded denial source (who, by the way, doesn't reveal who/what/where it's funding comes from. I believe I will take this with a grain of salt thank you very much!

Any organization that in it's opening page extolls the evils of Al Gore is pretty suspect right out of the gate!

 

Thank you. Apology accepted.

I feel that your "theory" is unjustified. It's very much akin to people who said, not so many decades ago, that anyone who favored civil rights for black people was supporting the Communists, because the Communists favored civil rights.

Climate change is real. And it is ludicrous to say that the massive amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere is not contributing to it in a big way. It is also ludicrous to say that fossil fuel is infinite, and therefore we can squander it without limits and incur no consequences. It is vital that we significantly reduce the burning of fossil fuels, BOTH because of climate change, AND because they are a limited resource.

I share your concern that the energy giants and the politicians they own favor nuclear energy. And I share your feeling that cap and trade is a boondoggle, since the caps are set so high that carbon emissions will continue to skyrocket. But the solution is not to deny AGW. The solution is to promote renewable energy, which is good for the economy in every way, and also substitutes for carbon-based fossil fuels.

 

This is the last time I'll say it: you're confusing two different petitions. Mass v. EPA was about the ICTA petition to regulate GHG, not about California's petition for a waiver under Sec. 209.

The decision did not say that water vapor is also considered a pollutant. In fact that term does not even appear in the decision. The reasoning in the decision, however, could lead to that conclusion, but EPA chose not to put water vapor in the endangerment finding because "[d]irect anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change."

CAA allows ALL states to set standards more stringent than the Act, with the exception of motor vehicles. For vehicles, only states with programs in place before 1966 could continue to regulate vehicles. The reasoning for this was explained in my previous post.

I'm not against such an action. I'm just saying it won't fly. Do you really think there is the will in this country, even in CA, for a law that says "you can't drive your car anymore"? Keep in mind that a key opposition to the health care reform is that it forces you to buy a product. You go on and on about the evil greedy corrupt CA politicians and CARB, and then you turn around and support a law that would force people to junk their cars? How do you think such a law would play in the media?

Politicians in CA don't have any say over other states. The other states have the option to go under the CARB regime or national regime. If they don't like what CARB does, they can choose to go back to the national regime. They'll have to find other emission reductions to meet SIP goals, of course.

The problem with leaving it to the feds is that the previous administration did not want to move on the issue, that many federal legislators would like to reverse Mass v. EPA, and/or that a new President could conceivably revoke the endangerment finding in bring us back to 2008. CA is just following the old saying.. if you want something done right, do it yourself.

 

And you're still mistaken. If you look at appendix 1, you'll see that from 1989-2009 (which covers not just the Clinton administration), that they cite $32,508 million for climate research. Who knows what "research" is classified as.....but there has been even more research then what this paper is talking about. Also, where's your proof that Enron was the main lobbyist for climate change research?

 

hahahhahahahhahahhhahahhahahhahaahhhahahhahahahahhahaha

Over the 8 years of the bush administration
First they said GW was false,
then they said GW might be real, but AGW was false
then they said GW was real and natural, and AGW was false
then they said AGW might be real, unlikely significant
then in the last months of the second term, they said AGW was real, but of uncertain significance and deserved further study while precipitously cutting funding and making a circus show by inviting the western nations to a US hosted summit to be chaired by chief clown Senator Inhofe.

Take you head out of your nether regions, and take the propaganda BS somewhere the ignorant might believe you. People with memories larger than a worm remember that bush/repubs gutted the EPA, placed political zombies in charge, and went so far as to ignore EPA white-papers from meritocrats they had not run out of the department. They also sued California to prevent CO2 regulation, arguing that CO2 is not a pollutant.