« Dem State Senators Refuse to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance in New York | Main | Obama Pledges That Gays Will Be More Equal Than Others »

If there was any goverment agency that should be eliminated its the EPA

Weren't moonbats screeching about the evil Booosh and the EPA ignoring science, or something like that?

Change? When?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

"You can't believe this story - it's from FOX News. And besides that - this Inhofe person is from Oklahoma! Oklahoma for Obama's sakes!!! Give me a break! That's the heart of fly-over country and demonstrates why we fly over it. There can't be an IQ in Oklahoma over about 40."

The Ghost SmellsStoned

There you go idiot. I saved you the trouble of having to post in this thread.

Our Congressmen already know this. So really, there's only two reasons why they would want Cap and Trade to be the law: money it will make for them from the industries that will profit from Cap and Trade, and what the legislation will do to the American economy as a whole.

HYUK,HYUK,HYUK SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE NAME TO ENVIROMENTAL DEFECTIVE AGENCY becuase when liberal moonbats are in charge its defective SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK.

*With his pinky finger held to his mouth*
Ladies and Gentlemen, as you may be all aware, Global warming has been the greatest trick ever played on mankind, and I intend to benefit from it. I will make Cap and Tax law unless, of course, you pay me 1 million dollars...oh right...100 million dollars! That is all.

*With his pinky finger held to his mouth*
Ladies and Gentlemen, as you may be all aware, Global warming has been the greatest trick ever played on mankind, and I intend to benefit from it. I will make Cap and Tax law unless, of course, you pay me 1 million dollars...oh right...100 million dollars! That is all.

I will never forget the story my father told me about when he was in college in the 1970's. He was studying to become an earth sciences teacher, and one of the geology professors said in a lecture that "...people now are saying that we're headed for another ice age. That the planet's getting too cold. And 30 years from now, they'll be saying that the Earth is getting too hot. Just you wait and see. And don't you believe a word of it..."
I have never forgotten that story, and I have vehemently opposed this AGW garbage both on and off the air every time it comes up in conversation. And it sounds to me like more people are going to understand in the very near future as well.

Your blog is very nice and i have found sufficient information about brain dumps here. You have really done a very good job for the improvement of this blog. I really appreciate your efforts. Thanks a lot.

It is impossible for an increase of 0.01% CO2, which only absorbs and radiates 3 narrow bands of IR, to be a "significant" factor in heating the remaining 99.9% of our atmosphere.

America is being bamboozled.

Its 100% about CONTROL. THEY want to micromanage every aspect of our lives. This winter we will all be freezing in the dark. The wealthy types like Obama and the other pols in Washington will be nice and warm. They can afford energy even if the price triples or quadruples.

Todays high 67, normal high 82. And this morning I saw a flock of Canadian geese - flying south. Birds are smarter than the birdbrains in Washington.

RICH, that's not 0.01%, it is 0.00001%. Ten parts per MILLION. The total persentage right now is about 370/1000000. The difference in the last 100 years, or so of the industerial age has added about 10 - 20 parts per million. A HIGH estimate of the effect of mans effort would put it at 0.000025% added. You are right, there is no way that effects the other 99.999975%.

You can't stop the signal.

So when the hell is the revolution gonna start?

What I know: The only thing I see is that the earth goes into cycles of global cooling and warming, and in 20-30 years we should be seeing another cooling cycle. However, those cycles ARE becoming more extreme, and when the cooling cycle comes, it will most likely be more extreme than the last one. I do not know if it is the people who are affecting the extremity or if it is purely environmental.

Soon, FREE...soon.

HO HO HEY HEY WE DONT NEED THE EPA SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK IM COMMING TO A CRAP ON THE PLANET OF THE MOONBATS HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

I am sure Brandeen will be outraged at this suppression of science.

By outraged, I mean, he might express some lukewarm "I'm not entirely comfortable with this" type statement followed by a strong denunciation of Global Warming Heretics.

Here's the real truth of the matter....

Congress is considering legislation that has the potential to raise your energy bills significantly, along with the price of just about everything you buy.

Estimates on how much the 1200-page Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade National Energy Tax legislation could cost vary, but estimates range between $750 and $3,100 per family per year. Washington typically low balls the cost of things, thinking they can get them into law before Americans know the true cost. This bill includes budget gimmicks hiding the full cost.

The plan is for the federal government to limit carbon emissions. The government will auction carbon emission permits to energy producers, refineries and factories (usually through speculators) so they can emit more carbon. Many credits are also given away to special-interest groups. The cost will then be passed onto consumers. The president’s budget included $646 billion in “cap and trade” revenue.

The idea is to purposely increase the cost of energy from fossil fuels like natural gas, coal or petroleum, about 85 percent of electricity produced. The price of everything you buy will go up, even food, because there will be a hidden national energy tax built into the price of everything.

One leading Democrat senator told the Washington Post: “This is the greatest revenue generating (tax) proposal of our time.” In other words, it’s all about taking more money away from everyday Americans so politicians can spend your money on politician’s favorite programs.

Estimates are this bill will have a negligible effect on the global environment. Carbon emissions from U.S. competitors in China, India and the rest of the developing world are exempt from these caps and they will continue to increase. China is already the world’s largest carbon emitter.

This costly national energy tax will put U.S. products at a competitive disadvantage and further erode our ability to compete with the rest the world. The result will be the loss of millions of jobs as we will see more jobs move to countries that will not impose these caps. It’s no wonder China has essentially endorsed this legislation. With a U.S. unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, it’s estimated that this tax will cost Americans 2.5 million more jobs.

I’m opposed to this plan and am working to bring a little common sense to the discussion. I will vote against this tax because it is not good for the U.S. worker, small businesses, seniors living on fixed incomes, and parents struggling to raise a family. Washington doesn’t need any more of your money; it needs to control spending. Europe adopted a similar plan several years ago and it forced jobs to leave Europe and caused electricity prices to skyrocket. It’s all pain and no gain.

There you have it. It has NOTHING to do with global warming...and straight from a liberal politicians mouth. For once.

Clarification of my last post - The article was written by Bep. Bill Posey R-FL in the June 25 2009 edition of TC Palm Treasure Coast news. The liberal democrat comment was meant for paragraph 5 of said article.

That would be Rep. Bill Posey....

Damned blind as a bat...

Anonymous,

Incorrect on your part, as far as .0001% CO2.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is estimated that CO2 concentration has increased by [approximately] 100 parts per million (280 to 380).

100 ppm translates into 0.01%.
1,000 ppm is .1%
10,000 ppm is 1%
100,000 ppm is 10%
and 1,000,000 ppm is 100%

Hope that helps :)

Here is a memo issued by a very prominent (moonbat) U.S. scientist who is continually referred to by the MSM:

“According to a statement issued this week (June 1 2009) by the
Interacademy Panel, whose 60-some members range from the Albanian Academy
of Science to the Zimbabwe Academy of Science, (wow) a quarter of the CO2
produced by human activity in the last 200 years has been absorbed in the
oceans. Unfortunately, excessive CO2 in the oceans is no more benign than
that in the atmosphere. Marine life that depends on calcium carbonate is
particularl. (sic) Moreover, ocean acidification is irreversible on a timescale
of thousands of years. The only way to mitigate ocean acidification is to
reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Even a quick cursory glance by a dummy like me can see a major fallacy in the report.
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

The report states:

"Based upon current measurements of ocean pH, analysis of
CO2 concentration in ice cores, our understanding of the
rate of CO2 absorption and retention in the surface oceans,
and knowledge of the CaCO3 buffer (Section 2.2.2), it is
possible to calculate that the pH of the surface oceans was
0.1 units higher in pre-industrial times (Caldeira & Wickett
2003; Key et al 2004). This 0.1 pH change over about the
past 200 years corresponds to about a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions." (pg 17)



The results are based on a model where the assumptions are given without any values, much less a summary of how those values would be derived. (Beyond the scope of the paper I assume, at least for us here hillbillies.) But okay, accepting the results, we can refer to the table in the report which states that average ocean pH = 8.07 and preindustrial pH = 8.18, a 0.1 increase with a 30% increase in [H]. Agreed, but then its clear that the error term (+/-0.3 units; pgs 14 & 16) will cause changes in these values to overlap for the period of the assessment. That is, there is no statistical difference in these values, indicating that nothing is out of range for the average oceanic pH for over 200 years.

Therefore by their own decision rules, the oceanic buffers must be working

This is the kind of pseudoscience that is driving the GW scam and is being hailed uncritically by some of our top scientists.

Another word for this, is Fraud.

A lot of Liberals, scientists and polititions KNOW "global warming" is a hoax, but they keep it alive because it brings them money and power.

Nuke the whales.

Parts per million = parts/million. That is 380/1,000,000 = 0.00038. The actual addition (if it can be nailed down to mankind) over the last 100 years is, as you stated about 100PPM. Sorry I missed a space, but the math doesn't. In any event it's too insignificant to make a difference. Some periods of the fossil record show CO2 at 6000+PPM, and not an SUV in sight.

Eric,

"Some periods of the fossil record show CO2 at 6000+PPM, and not an SUV in sight."

Absolutely correct. And life was thriving with that much CO2. Look at how big the dino's were.

Here is what I have concluded:

The somewhat accepted and mostly peddled theory that CO2 is a little, or significantly warming our atmosphere, defies the laws of physics.

Here's why:

Our atmosphere is, for all intent and purpose, warmer near the surface, and cooler away from it. In other words, most of our atmosphere (including CO2) is cooler compared to the earth's near surface. Thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, we know that:

1. Heat always rises.

2. Heat is transferred from warm to cold. NOT the reverse!

Question: How can HEAT naturally transfer from an upper level [cold] molecule to a nearer surface [warm] molecule? Wouldn't that defy the second law of thermodynamics?

http://www.entropylaw.com/

The alarmists time is almost up. Unfortunately, the climate bill is about to pass, inflicting a serious wound to the already wounded economic strength of America.

[sniff-sniff]

Is that a revolution I smell?

If there was any goverment agency that should be eliminated its the EPA The current administration and all the other wasteful usless agencies that have done nothing but cost taxpayers more money!

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at June 30, 2009 9:04 PM

There ya go Spurwing, fixed that for you sweetie.

Dear Tracey CO2,

As asphalt cures, it breaksdown and releases you. On sunny days, asphalt can be very hot to walk on, and it hurts my little feet. Is black asphalt hot because more CO2 is forcing the surrounding air to warm the asphalt?

Love,
Little Jimmy

------
REPLY FROM CO2:

No, Little Jimmy, CO2 is released from asphalt [after] it is warmed by the sun. Basically, the molecules in asphalt get excited by the suns energy, flipping and rotating against each other. This friction causes heat. This heat then releases me, CO2.

I am a product of warming, not the producer of of it.

Love,
Little Tracey CO2

Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming or influence climate is a mistake that will have no significant effect on climate and takes away freedom and prosperity.

The Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years appears to have ended. The 30 year or so Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) uptrend that combined with the Solar Grand Maximum to produce the late-20th-century temperature run-up has started its 30 year downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is resulting in continued planet cooling. (The cooling will be slow because of the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans) The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence on average earth temperature than total solar irradiance (TSI).

Many Climate Scientists appear to be completely uninformed of some relevant science and appear to understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of accepted paleo temperature data it is trivial to show that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century.

Climate Scientists have adopted the word 'feedback' but use it completely differently than the way that has been successfully applied for decades by engineers in multiple practical common applications such as automobile cruise control, aircraft autopilot, missile guidance, electronic circuits, etc. etc.

Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This separation (there have been many others) corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature. I wonder how wide the separation will need to get before the IPCC and a lot of others are forced to realize that maybe they missed something.

As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been misled.

The EPA is totaly a bunch of sinister green nazis

Dan Pangburn,

Good post.

The "accepted" science, which is water and its vapor, GHG, acts as a warming agent, is incorrect.

Water vapor, GHG, is actually a [cooling] agent, not a [warming] one. Without water, our planet would not be green. It would be hot and baked brown.

Perhaps we could focus on the major GHG [cooling] the planet, before worrying about a minor one [warming] it?

But then again, the AGW-GHG warming theory, defies the laws of physics.

Hey come on let's be adult and intelligent... there is NO global warming... cows by the millions and wild animals to boot have been defacating on this planet for thousands of years result no temperature change. the cloud over LA was recorded in ancient indian drawings on cave walls the same for the brown cloud over denver "bowl" and the "yellow rain" in Minnasota or Michigan ( Are you calling indians liars?) also, part of original eco system effects, automobile CO2 is used for trees to produce O2 something we need, hello. I went to school too and I am just a mother/grandmother and I am not stupid or gullable. Now I didn't mention religious beliefs yet but, hey why not; God is the creator and if He can create the entire Solar System as well as create us something a big explosion didn't and couldn't create, I am sure He expected and knew we would because He said,"be fruitful and multiply" I am sure He knew mathmatically what the outcomes would be today down to "the numbers of the hairs on your head".
Now it's your turn to be surprised when the only ones supporting this fraudulent theory and faux pah is liberals laughing all the way to the bank this includes the democrats and the Pres.
Please consider all the facts check out other sources than the liberal guru's who "say they have all the answers". Don't be hoodwinked or duped by this sheer and utter nonsense. This includes the fact the diabetes is curable and cancer is caused by a fungus and curable too, but not by "modern medicine".wake up and smell the foxes in the chicken coop!

When are we going to get in gear and stop this madness????? We cannot continue to sit here complaining about all the lies and deceit coming from Washington and do nothing .
Global warming is another hoax that gives the people in power up in Washington to extract more money from we the same people who elected them to serve our best interest. Congress has way over stepped what they were originally were intended .