Politics

EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases Without Congress, So They Intend To

|

Who needs Congress to pass laws regarding carbon emissions when you've got an EPA? From today's Washington Post:

The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation.

The move, which coincided with the first day of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, seemed timed to reassure delegates there that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions even if domestic legislation remains bogged down. But it provoked condemnation from key Republicans and from U.S. business groups, which vowed to tie up any regulations in litigation.

In Monday's much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.

In a way, the administration can claim, the Supreme Court made 'em do it. The move

was also a belated response to an order from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court said, the EPA had not only the power but the obligation to regulate the gas. (In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

Live by the courts, die by the courts? The Competitive Enterprise Institute is already suing:

CEI announced that it will file suit in federal court to overturn the endangerment finding on the grounds that EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal…..

"Today's decision by EPA will trigger costly and time-consuming permitting requirements for tens of thousands of previously unregulated small businesses under the Clean Air Act," said Marlo Lewis, CEI Senior Fellow.  "A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine….

EPA's action today is in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that required EPA to consider whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Carnage in Baghdad, Primary To Fill Kennedy Seat, Good News in the Cancer Wars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is a total end-run around congress. Since even the act of living produces carbon dioxide as a by-product, the EPA just assumed defacto taxation powers over all human activity.

    1. I think you’re missing the strategy here.

      I don’t think they’re avoiding congress; I think they’re giving congress it’s worst case scenario.

      Now all the Obama Administration has to do is come back from Copenhagen with something less awful than what the EPA will do or make what the EPA will do worse than whatever he comes back from Copenhagen with.

      Either way, congress won’t be the problem we’re hoping for. What are they gonna do? Vote for the worst case scenario?

      The Obama Administration just effectively burned the bridge behind congress. We can’t go back, so he doesn’t have to worry about congress anymore. Congress will do pretty much whatever he wants so long as it isn’t as bad as the EPA.

  2. I don’t like the sound of these here ‘Boncentration Bamps’..

  3. So, is there a way to fight this if we, and by “we” I mean non-evil people, come out on the losing end once all litigation has been exhausted?

    1. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it

      1. It’s really obnoxious when antigovernment losers trot out the Declaration of Independence as an excuse to advocate the violent overthrow of government because of policies they don’t like. Pathetic.

        You know what most of the Declaration is? A list of specific grievances justifying revolutionary action, with the explicit proviso that such an accounting of actual injustices is necessary in order to take such action. The government acting in a totally lawful manner to regulate a universally shared environmental problem does not cut the mustard.

        1. Shut the fuck up, Tony, you tiresome cuntsmear.

          1. Hey now!

        2. I am a tad ignorant of the history. Were the policies that the DoI cited lawful in England at the time?

          1. Even if they were, I’m pretty sure treason wasn’t.

            My point is you gotta have something better than “the government is trying to save the planet–break out the guillotines!”

            1. Fuck you. I’ll kill who I like.

              1. It is much more satisfying if you kill those that you don’t like.

            2. A list of specific grievances justifying revolutionary action, with the explicit proviso that such an accounting of actual injustices is necessary in order to take such action.

              This is what you said the Declaration was. You reversed your position in 24 minutes. Is it only because you agree with the government’s action on this issue?

              1. I’m saying the rhetoric goes to great lengths to say that revolution is mostly an undesirable thing and should not be done for petty reasons. If they were around today I’m sure they’d say it should not be done for the sake of scientific illiteracy either.

                1. I’m sure they’d say it should not be done for the sake of scientific illiteracy either

                  I know AGW theory better then you do. To me you are the scientifically illiterate.

        3. I am sure we could, quite easily, come up with a list of “intolerable acts.”
          Torture, Wiretapping, Bailouts and a laundry list of other, quite illegal, activities.
          I consider the regulation of CO2 to be tyrannical, as it is a normal by-product of life, energy production, and commerce. This is a 21 century version of the Stamp Act.

          1. I don’t see anything counter to libertarian principles in regulating greenhouse gases. Why should industries be allowed to pollute our shared environment with impunity? Isn’t one of the few purposes of government you believe in to enforce the boundaries between private property? Why should they be allowed to dump their garbage on my lawn, so to speak?

            It’s so curious. It’s almost as if the actual principles you claim to live by don’t even matter as much as making excuses for the polluting energy status quo.

            1. Why should industries be allowed to pollute our shared environment with impunity?

              The theoretical effects of global warming are 50 years or more away. You are saying that the unborn (or even the unconceived) have property rights. That is bit of a stretch from someone who does not even recognize Kelo’s property rights.

            2. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

        4. We’re anti-BIG-government, Tony. As opposed to pricks like you who want government to have unlimited power (as long as it’s your party doing all the powermongering).

          1. I don’t want government to have unlimited power. Just enough to be able to counterbalance the power of industries that are causing harm to me. If it was a guy dumping antifreeze on your lawn you wouldn’t have a problem with government getting in the middle of it.

            1. Bullshit. You want government to have the power to regulate our lives 24/7.

              You’re no better than a right-wing powermonger, Tony. You just have different ideas on how to run our daily existences, at the threat of gunpoint.

              1. No I don’t. Look I lived in the UK for a time and I got REALLY annoyed by a lot of their nanny state stuff. I do not want the government telling me how to live.

                Unless I’m doing harm to someone else, then it’s their job to tell me how to live in that instance.

                1. You don’t get it, Tony – even if you did abhor how they do things in the UK, we’re headed in their direction, policy-wise – and it’s your party at the helm at the moment, not doing a goddamned thing to stop it.

            2. Just enough to be able to counterbalance the power of industries that are causing harm to me.

              Global warming will have no effect on you. You will be dead by the time there are health or economic or environmental effects.

        5. The government acting in a totally lawful manner to regulate a universally shared environmental problem does not cut the mustard.

          Have you ever heard of the concept of separation of powers?

          The EPA is asserting legislative powers for itself.

      2. Circumstances have arranged themselves so that it is now possible to celebrate one more year of my sucking up oxygen on this planet. I was planning to skip it, but as long as this weekend is fun I’ll consent to aging.

        If you read this and I’m fond of you, I’m trying to get a gathering of folks to do dinner at some fairly yummy sushi establishment or something. Will probably eat somewhat early and then play the rest of the evening by ear. There are a couple of parties to crash and some interest in going to a few shady bars. Come and go as you please!

        Let me know by way of phone call, text message, IM, LJ comment, or skywriting if you’d like to tag along to help me celebrate the most important day of the year, the anniversary of my being shat into this cold, uncaring world. Toodles!

        1. Hey fuckhead, I’m tired of your use of force against me.

          One day I may get so tired of it I decide to defend my self. You and your ilk better fucking run when that day comes.

        2. A Protrait of the Troll as a Whiny, Miserable Twat.

          1. Tony: a cuntsmear or the cuntsmear?

            1. Again, Hey!

        3. Happy Birthday Tony!

          1. Technically, a crack-whore taking a blood-streaked dump isn’t birthing.

  4. You Are Getting Overcharged At The Grocery Store!

    Unfortunately, I am in the same exact situation as millions of Americans. I have three credit cards completely maxed out one other 5/6 maxed out, I just can’t understand why every time I go to the supermarket (twice a week) the prices on everything keeps going up 35 cents at a time, I dread to open my utility bills, I am afraid to check my car’s gas gauge and the thought of putting the heat on in the house send a shiver down my spine. Yes, these are truly the worst times I ever recall in my life. Knowing that so many of you guys are in the same situation provides no comfort for me either. Two weeks ago my mom gave me the sampler program from the company at http://unitedstatesdiscounts.com and this has absolutely helped me significantly. It has helped to eliminate the price increases on many things and in most instances I am paying less for food and merchandise than I did five years ago. It has taken away so much stress from my life. I hope that my message will help others here out of this difficult time.

    dPwvDryhhR

  5. I would encourage people to read up on New Source Performance Standards in the Clean Air Act. When the EPA goes through with this, any building over the size of an ordinaty McMansion is going to be subject to NSPS review. This will shut the economy down. It is absolute lunacy. But, the upside such as it is, is that it will effectively end any chance of Democrats winning an election for about 20 years.

    1. With all this administration’s transparency, I am unable (so far) to find the actual NSPS. 8-(

      Would someone *kindly* Google them for me … John?

      As a token of my appreciation I will not vote for the dems in 2010.

      1. The Clean Air Act required EPA to create a list of the important categories of stationary sources of air pollution, and to establish Federal standards of performance for new sources within these categories. These standards are known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and apply to newly constructed sources or those that undergo major upgrades or modifications. The standards include both equipment specifications as well as operation and measurement requirements.

        EPA and the state or local air quality agencies are responsible for ensuring that new stationary sources will meet the NSPS, and that existing sources subject to these standards continue to comply with them.

        http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/ci……html#NSPS

        That is a short version. Now if CO2 is a pollutant, any building or operation that emits CO2 is going to be a stationary source of pollution and subject to NSPS.

      2. 40 CFR Part 60

        This is a train wreck waiting to happen and I have front row seats.

  6. Yesterday, December 7, 2009 ? a date which will live in infamy ? the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the EPA.

    1. excellent.

    2. excellent!

    3. ++++++++++++

      excellent!

  7. Enough about Palin—Man, I wish I’d thought of that for a headline.

    1. Don’t worry, you will. 🙂

      1. I hope it goes viral.

  8. Someone needs to regulate the EPA’s emissions. They are a danger to public health.

    1. +1

      1. Don’t forget about carcinogens in Barney franks. Very hazardous to health!

        1. God knows what’s in the buns…

          1. Now, I don’t believe in an omniscient god, but I would imagine he delegated that info.

            It’s safe to assume the same as in the Frank: tongue, lips, and butthole. I apologize for that statement.

            1. We want some of that!

  9. The problem with having a human brain is the ability to recognize that as a species, we have lost our fucking minds.

    * shuffles off to the kitchen for a huge bowl of chili and a Macanudo*

    1. You had best watch out with that chili.

      From wikipedia:
      “The major components of the flatus, which are odorless, by percentage are:

      * Nitrogen: 20?90%
      * Hydrogen: 0?50%
      * Carbon dioxide: 10?30%
      * Oxygen: 0?10%
      * Methane: 0?10%”

      Two of those are major greenhouse gases. Your farts can now be regulated by the EPA!

      1. I’ll just buy some Beano for someone else as a carbon offset.

        1. Check with Anonymity Bot first. Or was that Beeno?

  10. In a way, the administration can claim, the Supreme Court made ’em do it… In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

    Not only will they claim they were forced into it but that it was Bush’s fault. A trifecta for Obama.

  11. I posted this in the morning links, but it bears repeating. I live in NW Indiana, which is industry-heavy and pretty bad off economically. These regulations will destroy the local economy.

    1. That’s the point.

    2. Somebody has to clean up the approaches to Chicago, after all. Quit being so fucking selfish.

  12. As some of you know, I am not a Palin supporter, but ask yourselves this: If Palin were president, would she pull this shit?

    1. Better yet, Levi Johnson. No, too ambitious. Eventually voters will have to vote for candidates in comas for the country to thrive. At this point I would vote for Boo Radley to stop this nightmare.

      Maybe if the govMint starts regulating American Idol – then the outrage would boil over.

  13. These regulations will destroy the local economy.

    Well, how did YOU think Obama was going to meet his goal to cut US greenhouse gas emissions?

    1. The ironic part is that this area has been solidly Democrat since the beginning of time. But I doubt even this would be enough to change anyone’s mind. Some politician will blame the bust on “teh corporatoins”, then ride in on a white horse with checkbook in hand. That’s one reason I moved to a new county.

  14. As I expected, the Democrats are just as much in love with the “unitary executive” as the Republicans.

    I wonder how long it will be before Obama begins to publicly refer to himself as “The Decider”?

    1. Decidumacator?

  15. Does this mean I need a point-source permit for my bathroom exhaust fan?

  16. Time to get serious about global warming. We need to outlaw cattle and meat consumption. But how would we grow our organic food? How much of Ed Begley Jr.’s crap could we use for fertilizer? Gore looks like a healthy pooper. The crap that comes out of Gore’s mouth, besides his sublime poetry, could sustain organic farming for quite a while I suppose.

  17. LOL< I am not sure which agency is the most useless. The EPA, FDA or the TSA.

    Jess
    http://www.be-invisible.ua.tc

    1. The bot just won the Internet. Forever.

  18. Does this mean I need a point-source permit for my bathroom exhaust fan?

    Yes. Also, there will be fines if you exhale more than the legal limit.

    1. Thank goodness I only have 60% lung capacity. Do I get a tax break? A stipend for not doing anything to mitigate my asthma? Maybe they should tax the fuck out of inhalers and Singulair.

      1. Thank you! I’m severely asthmatic and have other pulmonary issues and I’m going to use this on a few hapless lefties I know.

        1. I hope they’re entirely hapless, as the argument is completely illogical and without merit. It really only works if you claim to have 0% lung capacity.

  19. How many pages of EPA methane regs will it take to save us from the scourge of backyard compost heaps?

  20. Tony and Chad are busy in the shower, having celebrated this victory.

    Hey, guys, that stuff isn’t really good for hair gel. Scrub scrub!

  21. Good to see you doing your part, Sweet’n’Low. Unfortunately, we can’t give you a tax break, because that’s the same thing as stealing from whatever the gubmint wants to spend money on. However, your defective corpus has the thanks of a grateful nation.

  22. Do I get a tax break?

    No, but they’ll probably subsidize ball gags.

  23. CEI announced that it will file suit in federal court to overturn the endangerment finding on the grounds that EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal…..

    That’s their angle? They can’t be serious. I’d love to see this argument, actually, maybe the anti-science fraudsters will get as big a smack down as they did in the Dover case.

    1. I’d love to see this argument, actually, maybe the anti-science fraudsters will get as big a smack down as they did in the Dover case.

      You’d better hope not. They’re on the ropes as it is.

    2. That’s their angle? They can’t be serious. I’d love to see this argument,

      You won’t like the discovery and cross examination of Mann, Jones and Briffa.

      It will be fun to see a lawyer ask them what they did with the IPCC review comments. or what “In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.” means

  24. Who needs Congress to pass laws regarding carbon emissions when you’ve got an EPA?

    Well, Congress did pass a law, which the Supreme Court interpreted as requiring the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. It is commonplace, both at the federal and state level, for the legislative branch to pass laws allowing or requiring an agency of the executive branch to develop regulations with respect to a particular issue. Don’t believe me? Check out the Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html) and the rules code for the state of Maine (http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/rules.html) In Maine, regulations (called “rules” in Maine) are either “major substantive” or “routine technical,” the latter not being subject to legislative review.

    So the legislative branch passed a law, the judicial branch interpreted the law, and now the executive branch will be implementing the law. We may not like the particular regulations the EPA comes up with, but so far this is going exactly like my 4th grade teacher said it should go. Go America!

    1. It’s commonplace, and at the federal level it’s also unconstitutional, since the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the authority to delegate its lawmaking powers to another branch. Don’t expect our courts to read and comprehend plain text, though.

  25. jesus flippin crispie! the damn bot can post, and everything i put gets marked as spam!

    oh yeah, good job bot!

  26. Since human beings exhale carbon dioxide, it’s not long before they start rounding up evil polluters into camps.

    1. If each of us would just hold our breath for 30 minutes each day, we could reduce the carbon footprint of the US and reverse AGW.

      Tony/Chad/Morris should start today.

  27. My Big Fat Government Takeover:

    Detroit is in decline because its automotive giants no longer build the kind of cars Americans want to buy? Let’s have the president sack the CEO of General Motors, and then use the bailout money as leverage to appoint a car czar and get GM and Chrysler to build the kind of cars that Washington wants.

    Wall Street execs are getting sweet bonuses at a time when millions of other Americans are unemployed? Well, instead of encouraging these financial concerns to pay back the Troubled Asset Relief Program monies and get the taxpayers off the hook, send in Ken Feinberg to set their salaries.

    Health-care spending is inefficient? The answer is obvious: Expand the Department of Health and Human Services and give its secretary more power. Under the bill now before the Senate, for example, Kathleen Sebelius would have the authority to decide what care insurance companies could offer, who could get an abortion under a government-run plan, what prices were fair, and so on.

    Of course we shouldn’t draw any conclusions from an advisory task force that recently created a stir when it suggested women get fewer mammograms?and Ms. Sebelius’s disavowal in the face of public heat. She pointed out that the task force does not set government policy. But at some point some government task force will?and there will be fewer ways around it.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..87466.html

  28. A step in the right direction, but the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect are vapors of dihydrous oxide and not carbon dioxide. Yet the EPA continues to bend to the will of the dihydrous lobby and refuses to ban this dangerous chemical.

    1. Don’t you mean hydolixic acid?

    2. DHMO is a silent killer. Every year thousands of infants die by inhalation of this evil, evil chemical. We should ban it for the children.

  29. The smartest move the GOP could make would be to step back and let the Democrats have everything they want, but with sunset provisions. They’d soon rule the US for 30 years.

    1. Yep. The Dems sat around in the wilderness talking to themselves for 8 years and convinced themselves that the reason they were not in power was because they were not left enough. Then, the Republicans handed the government over to them out of shere incompetance. So, the Democrats were never debased of that notion. They honestly believe that their poll numbers will turn around if only they pass cap and trade and single payer health insurance.

    2. The sunset provisions would be deleted in paragraph 5, p. 1467 of some other unrelated bill that nobody notices until too late.

      And you explicitly accept that by not emigrating, so they have your consent, bitch.

  30. This is really really bad, guys. It puts us in the path of the EU. And trust me they already have all those bullshit regs there, its a freakin nightmare.

  31. Why should industries be allowed to pollute our shared environment with impunity?

    This would be a reasonable question, if you weren’t using the Newspeak Dictionary definition of “pollution”.

    1. Everytime Tony or his boyfriend farts, a polar bear dies.

      1. John, give em some credit. They plug the source of the emissions on a regular basis.

        1. (NTTAWWT)

    2. It doesn’t fucking matter what word you use, doesn’t change the fact that CO2 emitting industries are damaging the common environment and you guys are arguing that they should be allowed to continue. You know, for freedom.

      Are there any libertarians with actual libertarian principles, or are you all just really unwitting shills for CATO-funding industries?

      1. Um, your tragedy of the commons argument has a few holes in it. A good place to start realizing this is the recent economic NB prize. (I know its the bank of kjlmkjhtghwjkl, and not the Nobel. Spare me.)

        If you honestly want to argue the commons argument I would seriously, not being an asshole, look at the work surrounding it. It’s proving interesting that societies aren’t all fucking retarded like the morons on Easter Island.

        1. Ostrom definitely doesn’t argue that the tragedy of the commons doesn’t exist. She identifies ways in which shared resources can be effectively managed by the people who use them, but it has to be done right, and there’s no guarantee that effective management will always happen as if by magic.

          I’m saying, specifically, that certain industries are polluting the one atmosphere the human species has, and there is no indication that they plan to stop on their own as long as it’s profitable to do so, and certainly not in time to stop major problems from happening.

          If things did magically work themselves out without regulation, then it would have had to have done so by now.

          1. If things magically worked themselves out with shitloads of regulation, Tony, we’d be problem-free by this point. Wouldn’t we?

            That’s why your end of the spectrum is as abhorrent and anti-liberty as the far-right end – both want to control how we live. We’re just a nation of 300 million children, all addle-headed and incapable of autonomous function without some “czar” or “Department of” to regulate and punish us. That’s all your side – and theirs – is good for… the ultimate busybody with an unlimited expense account.

            1. I hardly think it’s busybody nanny-statism for the government to prevent entities from damaging our shared environment or to facilitate the cleaning up of the mess. Who else is gonna do it?

          2. I’m saying, specifically, that certain industries are polluting the one atmosphere the human species has, and there is no indication that they plan to stop on their own as long as it’s profitable to do so, and certainly not in time to stop major problems from happening.

            What major problems?

            1. Really. I thought there major problems happening right now, and we have no time to lose! Sea ice, hockey sticks, polar bears, etc! You saying those aren’t “major,” Tony? Or is the catastrophe going to always be right around the corner?

              1. Really. I thought there major problems happening right now, and we have no time to lose! Sea ice, hockey sticks, polar bears, etc! You saying those aren’t “major,” Tony? Or is the catastrophe going to always be right around the corner?

                Why does it matter if polar bears become extinct?

                1. If that were the only thing that will happen, a strong case could be made that inaction is preferable.

                  Polar bears are just the tip of the iceberg, of course.

          3. and there’s no guarantee that effective management will always happen as if by magic.

            Actually she argues that it is “magic”. In fact she argues that human beings seem to act like other animals in that they find an equilibrium when it comes to resource management all without the help of idiots like you telling them how to do it.

            Her argument is specifically anti-centralization of resource managment.

      2. …said the shill for the AGW industry…

      3. WhAAAAAAAAAAAAA
        WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        There Tony. I fixed it for you.

        1. What the hell is wrong with you people? The IPCC said CO2 is setting the planet on a path to catastrophe. Didn’t you see Gore’s movie? Jesus. He said there’s a complicated relationship between CO2 and warming. I heard Al Gore can poot a thunderstorm.

      4. Well, then, tell us what the “libertarian” solution is.

        1. You asking me? I don’t have a clue. Apparently it’s to deny reality so you don’t have to think about a libertarian solution.

          1. That’s because mankind cannot destroy the climate, short of global-scale nuclear war.

            But you think mankind can do it with mere automobile and power plant exhausts. Which you want to regulate based on some Chicken Little horseshit science.

            If you drive a car, Tony, you are a hypocrite. ANY car. Electric ones don’t count.

            1. You’re just wrong. That’s all I can say. Get educated. Eventually you’ll have to realize that you’re wrong and that science is actually right. Until then you’re just proving the point I made directly above.

              1. So then James Hansen is right about the Venus Sydrome ?

                Or is he just some kook that nobody ever heard of?

              2. I can tell you why i am confident that the science is unsound. In light of the CRU’s and other climate scientists cover up of spurious proxies can you say why you are confidant in AGW theory?

                Without clear evidence that there was no Medieval Warming Period how can you believe that current warming is unprecedented?

          2. That’s the answer I expected.

            Do you have any solution at all for your so-called “reality”? One, that is, that actually solves the problem that you claim exists, and isn’t just the seizing of an opportunity to enact policies you were dying to enact anyway?

            1. I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think I just have a bug up my ass about the oil industry, and that I’ve orchestrated a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and governments to fabricate a fake crisis just to stick it to them?

              I would very much prefer there were no crisis to address and we could go on using cheap energy with no cost to the environment. Unfortunately that’s just not the case. If you believe government has the rightful authority to protect citizens from invasions of foreign armies, then I don’t see why it’s wrong for them to protect citizens from natural disasters.

              1. I would very much prefer there were no crisis to address and we could go on using cheap energy with no cost to the environment. Unfortunately that’s just not the case. If you believe government has the rightful authority to protect citizens from invasions of foreign armies, then I don’t see why it’s wrong for them to protect citizens from natural disasters.

                There is no evidence that global warming will create a natural disaster like the Venus Syndrome .

                James Hansen is just a con artist.

                If the data had to be “tricked” and the decline had to be “hidden”, then why should we believe the predictions of the effects of global warming?

                1. You have to try hard to be this ignorant. Look, I spend a lot of time reading crackpot denier stuff, why don’t you have the courtesy of at least glancing at a credible source on this subject?

                  1. You have to try hard to be this ignorant. Look, I spend a lot of time reading crackpot denier stuff, why don’t you have the courtesy of at least glancing at a credible source on this subject?

                    James Hansen is not considered a crackpot; he heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences in Columbia University.

                    He also stated that oil company executives should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature.

                    He is also writing an article which includes in the title “our last chance to save humanity”.

                    1. I know he’s not considered a crackpot. What’s your point with this Venus crap?

                    2. I know he’s not considered a crackpot. What’s your point with this Venus crap?

                      James Hansen prediucted that global warming will result in Earth’s oceans boiling away within a few centuries.

                  2. Where can I find one?

                  3. You have to try hard to be this ignorant.

                    We can all tell that you speak from experience.

              2. It’s possible since I’ve been told for my entire life by people like you that the world is coming to an end, unless I submit myself to the all-knowing all-wise…politicians?

                But anyway, what is this wonderful solution you have? I’m sure I won’t like it, but perhaps I can live with it? (Hell I put up with a lot these days, what’s a little more?)

                1. I’m sure you can live with it, certainly better than you can with the alternative of doing nothing.

                  There’s nothing anti-freedom about making polluting industries pay for the damage they’ve caused to the environment. The solution is to fix the market so that the actual cost of polluting energy sources is accounted for and they’re not subsidized to continue polluting. Any solution anyone is talking about is market based.

                  1. Can you vague that up a little for me? Just how will the industries pay, and to whom? What will the money be used for? Specifically, I mean. And tell me specifically how this plan will fix the problem.

                    I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable of me to need more than vague platitudes.

                    1. I’m not equipped to explain a specific scheme that will work. It will involve pricing CO2 emissions out of existence and creating a market environment favorable to clean energy, if not directly subsidizing it. How will your life be yoked to eternal servitude to the state by this?

                    2. My life will be yoked to eternal servitude of the state by this because energy is an integral part of a modern economy. Your scheme will call for direct, powerful, detailed control of energy by the state. There will be few aspects of my life that won’t be affected by this.

                    3. Well, everyone is an emitter of CO2. If the state has unlimited authority to control carbon emissions, then it can kill anyone at any time for any reason.

              3. So when do we goto war with China over their emissions?

      5. It doesn’t fucking matter what word you use, doesn’t change the fact that CO2 emitting industries are damaging the common environment and you guys are arguing that they should be allowed to continue. You know, for freedom.

        So what?

        Have you ever heard of the concept of evolution?

        1. Um, why should everyone on the planet get to have it decided for them that–for no good reason–we should continue polluting until the planet is unlivable for human beings? How is that not a form of tyranny?

          1. Telling people how to live IS tyranny, Tony. Which you espouse.

            1. Um, no it’s not. Not when they want to live in a manner that harms me. Or do you believe the government enforcing anti-murder rules is tyranny?

              1. Not when they want to live in a manner that harms me

                Without Western industrial civilization, you would not be alive.

                On the other hand, environmentalist parasites are

          2. I tell you what Tony, why don’t you teach by example and fuckin’ kill yourself already.

          3. Um, why should everyone on the planet get to have it decided for them that–for no good reason–we should continue polluting until the planet is unlivable for human beings? How is that not a form of tyranny?

            We are not close to having the capacity to making the planet unlivable for human beings.

            Russia is an environmental basket case as bad as anywhere on the globe, and yet the place is not unlivable for human beings.

            1. We are not close to having the capacity to making the planet unlivable for human beings.

              How do you know? Is that just something you’re assuming because it sounds right?

              It would take an enormous leap of faith to claim that the amount of greenhouse gases we’ve dumped into the atmosphere over the last century would not have negative consequences.

              1. It would take an enormous leap of faith to claim that the amount of greenhouse gases we’ve dumped into the atmosphere over the last century would not have negative consequences.

                You are the one having faith.

                You assume that extra greenhouse gases will “make the planet unlivable for human beings”. You can not prove that there will be negative consequences of any kind, let alone that it will make the planet unlivable. Indeed, I have pointed out that Russia is an environmental basket case, to put it mildly. And yet…

                James Hansen predicts that global warming will boil Earth’s oceans away . As it turns out, that belief is based upon faith.

                1. I can’t prove it, but relevant experts have a high degree of certainty that it will have negative consequences. That’s the situation you’re faced with. If you know something that the relevant experts don’t, go get published. Otherwise you’re talking out your ass.

                  1. I can’t prove it, but relevant experts have a high degree of certainty that it will have negative consequences

                    Experts like James Hansen, who claimed that the current global warming will boil the Earth’s oceans away?

          4. we should continue polluting until the planet is unlivable for human beings? How is that not a form of tyranny?

            No one but crackpots believe that the earth will be unlivable due to the theorized effects of global warming. Not even the most severe predictions of the IPCC support your claim.

  32. I propose we tax the Congress for all the CO2 they produce. Maybe they will STFU and stop passing shit legislation. Same principle as taxing cow farts, or smoke stacks.

  33. This is a total end-run around congress.

    As a general rule, I do not find that objectionable.

  34. Are there any libertarians with actual libertarian principles, or are you all just really unwitting shills for CATO-funding industries?

    Urrrrgh!

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

    1. Funny how Tony bitches about libertarian purity, yet he abhors everything about any facet of libertarianism.

      Just shows how the far-left and the far-right hate the libertarian philosophy.

      1. I think the philosophy itself is silly and totally unconvincing, but I appreciate when people are rational and consistent in what they believe. When I find someone who is a libertarian and also those things, I’ll let you know.

        1. Oooo, wicked burn from the statist. I am wounded, sir, you have thrashed me soundly.

          Fucking leftist retard control freak.

        2. By “rational and consistent” you mean “talks about freedom, but supports the State anyway”.

          1. But you do “support the state,” just to a much more limited degree. Unless you’re an anarchist, then you have to believe that the state has the rightful authority to enforce my claim to my property and livelihood and thus punish anyone who causes damage to it. Right?

            1. Well, actually I am an anarchist. (In part because of the tendency of people like you to stretch “limited” government far beyond its limits.) But if I were a limited-government libertarian, I would expect you to show how your private property (not the entire fucking planet) was damaged, exactly who caused it, and limit the punishment to the responsible parties. Rather than give you carte blanche over every human on the planet based on some “consensus” about how the world is coming to an end.

        3. I think the philosophy itself is silly and totally unconvincing

          You think CATO funds industries and that the theorizes effects of global warming will make the earth unlivable.

          What you think has been proven to have no bearing on reality.

    2. CATO-funding industries

      what?

      Guys i seriously think we should stop talking to tony. This is really nut job stuff.

      CATO is a non-profit think tank. to think they have any money to give to say the coal industry is pure lunacy.

  35. A cheerleader for theft and slavery lectures us on the principles of freedom. How rich and creamy the cluelessness on Chony’s part.

  36. So why not a straight-up, revenue-neutral carbon tax? Could it be that reducing carbon emissions isn’t the actual goal?

    1. Using a cap ‘n trade system rather than just straight up tax n regulation has been a longstanding Cato/reason libertarian solution to pricing and controling externalities.

      It’s been used sucessfully for some 15 years in the case of SO2.

      I will grant you that CO2 is a lot harder (and may not be suitable) because unlike SO2 or mercury, the target rate is not a clearly defined, and the ‘commons’ is considered global not regional. (and the emitters more numerous, and that there are both emiiters and sinks)

  37. Bret Stepens in the WSJ today pretty much sums up Tony and his fellow travelers.

    Some of the choice bits

    Revolutionary fervor: There’s a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of “bourgeois” values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s?in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that “our lifestyles are unsustainable.” Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that “civil disobedience has a role to play” in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)

    Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet “new man.” At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.

    Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller “The World Without Us,” environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it’s no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that “no human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral'”?its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.

    Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it’s “global warming” when there’s a heat wave, but it’s “climate change” when there’s a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..94380.html

    Some people hate freedom, prosperity and ultimately themselves. Those people will always be drawn to totalitarian ideology. AGW is just the current fashion. When it is over, Tony and his ilk will find something new.

    1. What a bunch of dishonest, name-calling bullshit.

      Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it’s “global warming” when there’s a heat wave, but it’s “climate change” when there’s a cold snap.

      It was not climate ‘alarmists’ who were responsible for the shift in terminology. Scientists use the terms interchangeably, but from a public relations perspective, it was Bush talking points hack Frank Luntz who suggested opponents of climate reform use “climate change” because it sounded less scary than “global warming.” This was not an instance of scientists or pro-climate reform people playing politics with words, it was Republicans playing politics with words.

      The past decade was just declared the warmest ever recorded, by the way.

      1. “The past decade was just declared the warmest ever recorded, by the way.”

        No they haven’t dumbass. First, even if they were, “recorded” is a pretty short time period. The past decade is cooler than the medieval warming period. Second, the CRU emails have called into question the entire process of reconstructing climate from the past. They can’t get their methods for reconstructing past temperatures to match up with known data. We don’t know what the “warmest on record” is because we don’t know what the past temperatures really were.

        Just shut the fuck up. You do nothing but annoy people and embarass yourself.

        1. http://online.wsj.com/article/…..09250.html

          Idiot. It’s even in your beloved Wall Street Journal.

          1. “Despite 1998 being the warmest individual year, the last 10 years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,” the statement from the U.K.’s national weather service said. ”

            The same people who were revealed as frauds in their e-mails. There 160 records are mostly reconstructions that they can’t verify.

            In other news the Pope says that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead in three days. You are such an illiterate dumbass Tony.

            1. This is one of the problems with climate science, and the assertion that every major scientific body has come out in favor of it. There are too many “scientific bodies” make statements like this that contradict the science. The US National Academy had this to say on the “1998 warmest year” claim.


              “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999)
              that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least
              a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for
              individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because
              not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”

              link

      2. *yawn*

      3. It was not climate ‘alarmists’ who were responsible for the shift in terminology

        IPCC.

        the CC stands for climate change and the IPCC first report was in 92.

        You claim that some W Bush adviser went back in time and changed the name of the IPCC from the IPGW does not hold an ounce of facts.

      4. The past decade was just declared the warmest ever recorded, by the way.

        The record is only 30 years long.

        One out of three decades is not a convincing argument.

  38. No, John. I believe Tony and his ilk really haven’t thought it through. Some of the puppet masters, though…

    1. True. They aren’t smart enough to think it through. For them it is more of an emotional attachment. It is a way of feeling important and being a part of a big cause. Life is much more interesting and meaningful when you are trying to save the world from catastrophe.

      1. But isn’t that also what we’re trying to do, ultimately?
        Honestly, I sometimes think I should just sit back and enjoy the ride to hell. I’ve got mine, so I’ll be comfortable enough come what may.

        1. In some ways yes. You are right, whether it be the Depression or Soviet Russia some people individually do really well no matter how bad the times are. But, you can’t help but feel some need to object to things when they go wrong. I think leftists are more likely to try to find meaning through government and social change projects than libertarians or conservatives.

          1. We loves us some Soviet Russia-style government! Only politicians should have limousines and jet planes and two-ply toilet paper! Eviscerate the proletariat!

  39. By the way, all you jokers who were putting the climate deniers down, I think this is the kind of thing you get for being off topic.

    Global Warming stopped being about the science and started being about public policy a long time ago. And if after all this, you’re still talking about the science as if it were relevant…

    Time to focus on pubic policy. What the Obama Administration wants to do with public policy should be opposed no matter what the science is. And if it takes some climate deniers to roll that ball up the hill, then the more the merrier.

    1. Global Warming stopped being about the science and started being about public policy a long time ago. And if after all this, you’re still talking about the science as if it were relevant…

      It was evident way back in 1988 when the TTAPS solution that Carl Sagan and four other scientists came up with back in 1983 was ignored.

  40. James Hansen explains the Venus Syndrome .

    Anyone still believe him?

  41. Tony wants to abolish CO2.

    Plants need CO2 to survive.

    Tony want to kill all the pretty flowers and majestic forests.

    Why do you hate Planet Earth, Tony?

    1. What we need is some science showing how vegetables grow bigger since the industrial revolution. Would be tough to separate the effects of our genetic manipulation though.

      But think of the head explosions it would cause: “CO2 Responsible for Feeding Mankind Since 1870.”

    2. “it’s got electrolytes!”

  42. You’re just wrong. That’s all I can say. Get educated. Eventually you’ll have to realize that you’re wrong and that science is actually right. Until then you’re just proving the point I made directly above.

    Seriously?

    WTF

    Are you spoofing yourself, now?

    1. Well when someone goes to such lengths to deny scientific reality there’s not much more you can say other than “get educated.” It’s the same fucking conversation I’ve had with creationists for years. You can present all of the data and logic in the world but they still don’t WANT to believe.

      1. Tony,
        The only scientific reality that exists, exists in your head. There isn’t a “scientific consensus” among anyone but a few climate scientists who have now been revealed to be frauds who were making sure anyone who disagreed with them didn’t get published. And that is just talking about the idea of AGW. The preposterous claims that man made warming will cause sea levels to rise and biblical plagues and super hurricanes is just fantasy. There is no scientific support for that. There is no scientific evidence that would justify spending trillions and destroying the industrial state. You just live in a fantasy world of superstition and ignorance and call it science to make yourself feel better.

        1. John do you honestly believe the world’s major powers are gathering in Copenhagen to impose a nefarious tyrannical scheme on everyone? Aren’t there easier ways of going about it than convincing the vast majority of scientists in the world to invent fake science, then impose–horror!–clean energy on the good people of earth? Just because they (the world’s governments and the scientific community) want to stick it to industry? So you not see the absurdity of what you’re proposing?

          1. ? Aren’t there easier ways of going about it..

            Umm, actually, this sounds like one of the easier ways of imposing international tyranny. Sending our troops to conquer everything would take much more effort.

            1. You do realize you guys sound like paranoid nutcases who should probably be locked up, don’t you?

              Exxon doesn’t give a shit about you. Why all the shilling for them? Hell even Exxon acknowledges global warming now. Are they part of the conspiracy to decrease their own profits?

              1. Obama doesn’t give a shit about us, either, Tony. Him and his ilk only care about using issues like global warming to maintain or increase power over us.

          2. Tony,

            The people in Copenhagen are in the process of steeling billions of dollars and ceasing control over millions of people’s lives. The AGW hoax has given them a new excuse to replace communism as a totalitarian ideology.

            As far as the scientists go, there are not the many climatologists out there. The ones that are there get their grants and tenure based on their ability to sing the company song of AGW. The CRU e-mails reveal what nasty horrible bullies the people who run the field are. There are tons of skeptics from other fields. That is why CRU wouldn’t release their data. They knew once competant programers, physicists and mathemticians who didn’t have a stake in AGW looked at their work, they would be done. Indeed that is exactly what is happening. Only fanatic believers like you won’t admit it.

            IN answer to your question, yes, there is every reason for the people in Copenhagen to lie. They will benefit enormously from AGW. It is the rest of the world that will suffer.

          3. It’s not as far-fetched as you might think. It’s the method that governments have always used to expand their power: gin up a “crisis” and then propose themselves as the “solution” (that basically sums up the Bush administration right there).

            When Rahm Emanuel said that no crisis should be allowed to go to waste, he wasn’t saying anything new. At most, it was unusual to hear a pol say it so baldly.

            1. Okay but there’s no evidence whatsoever that such a massive worldwide scheme exists. Where are the whistleblowers? Surely among the participants of EVERY major scientific organization on the planet there’s one person noble enough to expose the hoax. The hacked emails certainly didn’t expose a hoax (even though tools like John think they did).

              There’s not one head of state who’s not bought into the totalitarianism-via-clean-energy scheme? This kind of conspiracy requires extraordinary evidence to convince a rational person it could possibly be real.

              1. What you’re missing is that there is no need for a “conspiracy” as such; just mutuality of interests. Anybody who can gain will jump on board–not always for the same reasons. This accounts for the conflicts amongst the various governments; each is looking out for its own interest, not that of the planet.

                There are people fighting against this because they see it as being against their interests. You know, the folks you call “deniers”, “flat-earthers”, etc.

                1. That’s a pretty cynical view of human nature.

                  Let’s just get down to it. You trust the process of science in every aspect of your daily life, save one (two if you’re a creationist). You enjoy the fruits of scientific progress with every technology you use and every bit of information about the universe, except in this field. Your motives are your business, but to say on the matter of climate change science is totally corrupted, you have to suspect every other branch of science. Not getting on a plane any time soon I hope.

                  1. Not at all. I don’t “trust the process of science” as such.

                    I don’t know how old you are; do you remember the 1970s? I was a teenager then, and I was taught in school that a man-made ice age was in the offing. Now, I don’t bring that up on the claim that this silly-ass theory disproves AGW theory; they’re both silly-ass theories. But it does raise the point that “settled science” as such doesn’t exist. I was also taught that Pluto is a planet. In other words a goodly chunk of the “settled science” that I was taught in school is now moldering in a landfill somewhere.

                    Let’s just get down to it. You use the cui bono approach to anybody who is skeptical of AGW; you figure they must be collecting a check from Exxon or Peabody Coal. But you freely trust others who stand to make big bucks from cap ‘n’ trade, or who get big government grants from politicians who have an ax to grind, or politicians who will gain incredible power over every person in the country. Your motives are your business, but you ought to apply your cui bono a little more consistently.

                    And no, I’m not getting on a plane soon. Not because I don’t trust the science of flight–I can actually see that working with my own eyes. But rather because your precious Big Government makes it a thoroughly miserable experience in the name of an illusory safety.

          4. Subterfuge and misdirection used as cover for one’s real agenda ?!

            1. Because paranoid accusations without a shred of evidence trump an entire field of science!

          5. No, a good cause (rooted in widespread fear and alarmism) is a huge boon for those that want to shift society in an authoritarian direction. E.g. the War on Drugs, the War on Terror.

      2. Yeah, Tony, you AGW alarmists really really really believe in all that horseshit. That’s why, when you have conferences to scold the rest of us for emitting CO2, you greentards have to bring 1,200 limos, 140 private planes, and caviar wedges to the party.

        Why should anybody believe in the central dogma of this apocalyptic death cult of yours and its Goracle when it’s obvious that its own priesthood doesn’t believe in it? If you’re so all-fired scared out of your skull that C02 emissions are killing us all, why aren’t you calling for these eco-fascists to be executed for their rape and murder of the planet?

        Obviously, you aren’t because you don’t believe any of that horseshit either. You’re lying, and you know it and we know it and you know that we know it and you know that we know that you know we know it.

      3. Well when someone goes to such lengths to deny economic reality there’s not much you can say other than get a fucking job leech. Come back when you graduate from Kommunity Kollege and start paying taxes.

      4. Well when someone goes to such lengths to deny scientific reality there’s not much more you can say other than “get educated.”

        You have denied scientific reality a number of times. Please get educated and stop posting here until you do.

  43. Are you spoofing yourself, now?

    Tony’s been spoofing himself for a long, long time.

  44. The only thing about climate change that could reasonably be considered a consensus, is that the climate has been warming in recorded temperature history. Further, it is essentially agreed that temperatures have been rising since the fairly well documented little ice-age, and that writings about the medieval warm period lead us to believe that it isn’t as warm now as it was then.

    All this about CO2 causing warming is based almost exclusively on the work of a few scientists, based on temperature proxies built primarily from tree ring data. The data and their formulas don’t even remotely predict recent temperature readings. In fact in their graphs they stopped their plots in nice convenient spots just before, despite their fiddling, the expected temperature dropped, and inexplicably spliced modern instrument temperature readings on top to show their supposed unprecedented warming.

    The truth seems to be, as best we can determine, that the current warming is no more inexplicable then the same rate of warming from the end of the 19th century, and is entirely explainable through normal, natural fluctuations. The plots showing this unprecedented warming require fudging quite a bit with what our best historical temperature estimates were, in order to make it seem as though the current warming can only be explained through green-house gasses.

    In fact if we take their predictions seriously, based on the current level of CO2 concentrations, and their claims about the stability of the temperature record, we should be roughly 1-1.5 degrees Celsius warmer by now.

    1. All this about CO2 causing warming is based almost exclusively on the work of a few scientists, based on temperature proxies built primarily from tree ring data.

      Flat-out lie. This is the age of the Internet people. Any literate person is capable of acquainting himself with facts on this issue. Unless you just don’t want to.

      1. Take THAT aelhues! You stubborn, illiterate, planet hater!

        *ignoring all those facts aelhues included in his post*

      2. Show me where I’m wrong Tony, and while you are at it, take a look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..rwin-zero/ and tell me why it has no bearing whatsoever on your dismissive, and ignorant position.

      3. Yes, and what the facts reveal to us is that evidently you’re a damned liar and a fool. Or not literate.

      4. Even given that, it no where near justifies screwing the worlds population over in an attempt stop the unstoppable.

        1. On that note, which is going to hurt the developing world more, a couple degrees warmer, and higher sea levels, or significant dampening of the worlds economy, and pricing energy out of reach.

          Considering the warming is not proven to be occurring, or combatable, I’ll take option number two.

          1. Considering the warming is not proven to be occurring, or combatable, I’ll take option number two.

            Warming is combatable with thermonuclear weapons; Carl Sagan and four other scientists proved this to be true in one of the most groundbreaking scientific papers since Einstein’s “On the Elctrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.

            1. Hehe.

              I of course was leaving out the options that would with high certainty, leave us in worse shape then the worst mildly reasonably AGW predictions.

              1. I of course was leaving out the options that would with high certainty, leave us in worse shape then the worst mildly reasonably AGW predictions.

                The AGW predictions being cited are far from reasonable

        2. What evidence do you have that any policy will screw “the worlds population over”? The costs of climate change mitigation are minimal compared to the costs of climate change.

      5. What a well-argued and factually rich refutation. You sure gave me a lot to think about!

      6. Flat-out lie.

        Then tell us what other evidence is there that current temperatures are unprecedented.

    2. If we take the IPCC predictions over the years, we find that the models predict less (_________fill in your favorite prediction from the IPCC) than actually occurs. The models are (understandably) conservative in their estimates due to the large uncertainties in the data and the process by which they are put together.

      1. …they sure did predict LESS COOLING than actually observed…

  45. I try and stay out of Climate Change discussions because I tend to believe that it is possible that global warming exists and that it can be attributed to human activity. However this is the kind of stupid crap that repels me about the AGW crowd. Anyone with half a brain should, at the very least, be highly concerned by any government agency being given unfettered control over every aspect of their live. But too many suffer from Tony’s delusion that “the government is trying to save the planet” and therefor any action it takes is appropriate. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are. It doesn’t matter whose rights are trampled on. It doesn’t matter how many people are hurt. It just doesn’t matter because they are “saving the planet”.

    1. Just want to point out Bees, that AGW “deniers” almost exclusively agree that there is warming. Even that CO2/greenhouse gases, contribute to that warming. Where we disagree with the “consensus”, is the amount of that contribution, and the feedback of it in the system. In order for AGW predictions to be true, they need something like a nine times multiplier in the feedback, where there is no studied natural system that shows more than a one multiplier. Normally there is loss in any natural system. The alarmists want you to accept that you should take the accepted temperature impact of CO2, and multiply it by nine for each doubling of CO2.

    2. But too many suffer from Tony’s delusion that “the government is trying to save the planet” and therefor any action it takes is appropriate. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are. It doesn’t matter whose rights are trampled on. It doesn’t matter how many people are hurt. It just doesn’t matter because they are “saving the planet”.

      How can it turn out any worse than George W. Bush’s attempt to bring democracy to Iraq?

      1. and…and…your mother wears army boots.

      2. Well, it can do the one thing Bush’s liberation of Iraq never did: it can fail.

        Technically, though, wouldn’t the failure of 0’s tyrannical plans for us be a good thing? Whereas the success of Bush’s Iraq liberation has got the Iraqis celebrating Christmas.

        Hmmm… paradox.

  46. This

    As a result, the court said, the EPA had not only the power but the obligation to regulate the gas. (In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

    is somewhat at odds with this

    EPA’s action today is in response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that required EPA to consider whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    As any good bureaucrat can tell you, the obligation to consider something is not the same as an obligation to do something.

    Anyone know which of these the 2007 decision really required?

  47. Smoking-gun evidence of data manipulation of at least one station in the raw data from Australia. It’s really good, please read it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..more-13818

    1. Thank you. It’s an amazing study.

  48. I suppose Tony has had enough of reading and arguing with us idiot deniers, and is off being consoled by others that just know they’re right, regardless of the evidence. After all, there’s a consensus!

  49. Actually I was having lunch.

    I don’t know I’m right, I just assume that the relevant experts are more likely to be right than a few anonymous Internet morons.

    1. How many gallons of gasoline did it take for you to enjoy that lunch, Tony? Don’t you feel guilty?

      1. Yeah, and how much C02 have you been spewing into the atmosphere every time you open your pie-hole? Or methane when you open the hole at the other end of your digestive tract? (Of course, with the likes of you, Tony, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.)

  50. Well, Tony said it’s the age of the Internet people, so it’s up to us, we guess.

  51. Hey, Tony… was that a free-range lunch, or a fair-trade lunch? What was the carbon footprint of the meal in question?

    C’mon, answer honestly. You feel guilty for living, thus you have a hand in destroying the planet.

    Rope ain’t THAT expensive. Buy hemp, it’s organic. And be sure to anchor it to a sturdy crossbeam… we don’t want to have to pay a nursing-home RN to wipe drool from your chin.

  52. Al Gore (Global Saviour and Time Traveler) …

    What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

    last e-mail:

    Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009

    Don’t misunderstand Al’s point .. you see Al Gore lives in the future .. sometime around 2019.

    Hey, with Al Gore living 10 years into the future, even if Global Warming is ever proven true, we have another 10 years before the window closes.

    1. A regular Buckminster Fuller he is.

  53. According to my view, they seem to have no idea of how the regulations can be met

  54. Greenhouse effect is the gradual warming of the air surrounding the earth as a result of heat being trapped by environmental pollution.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.