Uh oh! The planet is cooling

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is consensus that the world is round, and that you'll drown if you try to inhale water for a lengthy period of time.

I have faith in those concepts.

Actually it is more eliptical than round.

 

[Cypress]

Bump.....

Superfreak:

Superfreak: While I am a skeptic of man being the primary cause of global warming, I do believe that we are going through changes.

http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=173546&postcount=60

Scientists:

-National Science Academies of the G8, Joint Statement 2007: “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.”

-Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations,"

-American Geophysical Union: “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system….are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

-US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Even the guy your voting for, recognizes the need to a national energy policy, and legislation to implement it.

The fact that you think the free markets will solve it all on their own, shows the child like nature of your knowldge in addition to the out of control, angry white male side of your personality.

Under you alleged scheme, there would be no authority for pollutors to limit greenhouse emissions. Your position, is that we really don't know if CO2 from human activities is a major player in climate, or not. Therefore, you would have no legal basis to regulate it. Power companies could just as easily switch to clean burning domestic natural gas. But, that still emits greenhouse gases.

Other industrial operations that don't involve fossil fuels, but still emit greenhouse gases, would have no incentive, legal or otherwise, to reduce emissions.

Ooooo.... Gumby called me angry again.... whatever will I do.

1) I never said we didn't need a national energy policy Gumby... that is your first strawman

2) I never said that we had to rely solely on the free market... that is your second strawman

3) What alleged scheme are you referring to Gumby? The one where I said lets reduce our dependency on foreign energy and fossil fuels on the whole?

4) What you don't seem to get Gumby is that you do not need to show/prove (or whatever other claptrap you can come up with) how much man is contributing to global warming in order to do something about global warming. It is an unneccessary step and takes the focus away from solving the problem. You are delaying the effort to combat global warming by your insistence on finding out how much man is to blame.

5) We have pointed out to you time and again the reasons that the politicians can give in their energy policy..... IT IS GOOD FOR OUR HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. Thus, we need to invest heavily in clean/alt energy.

All your bullshit about needing to prove mans contribution before we can set a policy is bullshit. Unless of course you can answer WHY we need to know that? Will proving the approximate contribution change any aspect of our needing to reduce the use of fossil fuels?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Don't you wingnutters understand this???

You can't impose a zero emissions policy, on anyone without a legal and scientific basis.

If you are unwilling to conclude that, human emissions of CO2 are, beyond a reasonable doubt, a major and serious contributor to planetary climate change, you cannot force anyone to stop emitting it.

Your "zero emissions" energy policy would be sued by industry groups in court, and you would get the living tar beat out of you by their lawyers.

Under your policy, their position would be: "fine, we'll install scrubbers to remove particulate matter. But, we're going to use domestic and canadian natural gas, and you can't do shit about regulating our emissions of greenhouse gas from those fossil fuel".

Nor, under you idiotic policy, would you have ANY authorirty to go after other industries that don't involve fossil fuels and yet are major greenhouse gas contributors: the agricultural industry, and in particular the large livestock and confined animal operations.

LMAO.... now you have created a "policy" that we have supposedly proposed? Do tell us the details of our "policy" Gumby. Make sure you quote the posts where we stated the policy.

 

[Cypress]

LMAO.... now you have created a "policy" that we have supposedly proposed? Do tell us the details of our "policy" Gumby. .

Damocles: we gave good reasons to use such a policy even if there wasn't a consensus……The "requirement" would be to remove all emissions

.

 

[Cypress]

In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling

. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).

This is so easy to understand, even the woefully uninformed and angry Superfreak should be able to get it.

Simply saying we want to get off saudi oil, and develop green energies to reduce particulate pollution, in no way shape or form, fundamentally addresses the issue of greenhouse emissions. Without an acknowledgement of the significant environmental impacts of greenhouse gases, they cannot legally be regulated. Even ramping up solar and wind programs, we’re still many, many decades away from every having solar and wind be a large component of our energy mixture. For the foreseeable future, we will be relying on fossil fuels, to a great extent. Whether foreign, or domestic. We can’t wait 50 years to address global warming. While we develop alternative energies, we need to find ways to minimize the greenhouse emissions from our industries, and agricultural operations.

If you want to claim that you don’t have the foggiest clue if CO2 emissions are causing climate change, you will have no authority and no basis for developing policies that either prohibit greenhouse emissions, or reduce and mitigate them.

And if you tried to introduce policies that incentivized or required the reduction of greenhouse gases, without acknowledging legally what exactly the problem is with greenhouse gases, industry groups would sue your policy in court and the case would be over in 5 minutes. With you losing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is so easy to understand, even the woefully uninformed and angry Superfreak should be able to get it.

Simply saying we want to get off saudi oil, and develop green energies to reduce particulate pollution, in no way shape or form, fundamentally addresses the issue of greenhouse emissions. Without an acknowledgement of the significant environmental impacts of greenhouse gases, they cannot legally be regulated. Even ramping up solar and wind programs, we’re still many, many decades away from every having solar and wind be a large component of our energy mixture. For the foreseeable future, we will be relying on fossil fuels, to a great extent. Whether foreign, or domestic. We can’t wait 50 years to address global warming. While we develop alternative energies, we need to find ways to minimize the greenhouse emissions from our industries, and agricultural operations.

If you want to claim that you don’t have the foggiest clue if CO2 emissions are causing climate change, you will have no authority and no basis for developing policies that either prohibit greenhouse emissions, or reduce and mitigate them.

And if you tried to introduce policies that incentivized or required the reduction of greenhouse gases, without acknowledging legally what exactly the problem is with greenhouse gases, industry groups would sue your policy in court and the case would be over in 5 minutes. With you losing.

Gumby called me angry again..... poor gumby.... nobody loves him...

 

[Cypress]

Gumby called me angry again..... poor gumby.... nobody loves him...

I accept your surrender

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I accept that you are a complete moron.

 

[Damocles]

You're comparing something spiritual & something for which there can be no proof with science, and kind of disparaging the scientific method in the process, just by comparison. Consensus was not arrived at by "indoctrination" with regard to global warming; how do you arrive at that conclusion? That shows more your personal belief on the subject & bias, than anything else.

I'm surprised you'd try that. It's a really bogus, dishonest comparison, and I think you have to know that.

When consensus is used to badger other scientists into silence it is indoctrination.

 

[Damocles]

You can't require companies to remove CO2 emissions, unless there's a legal basis for doing so.

If Congress is unwilling to make a legal finding, as part of an energy policy, that CO2 is a pollutant by virtue of its greenhouse properties and the findings of the climate science community, you can't ENFORCE a zero emissions policy on industry. Unless you legally make a finding that CO2 is an environmental threat, you can't make anybody stop emitting it. It's not like there's one techonology that magically eliminates all emissions.

If you tried to enforce a zero emission policy on polluters (including CO2 emissions) without a legal basis, or finding of fact on the harm of CO2, your energy policy would be sued in court, and you would lose big time

And the only way to legally find that CO2 is an environmentall threat, if for rightwing deniers to finally admit what the rest of us know: CO2 is heating the planet up. That's the ONLY basis on how you can regulate it. It's not a pollutant, at atmospheric concentrations, in any other sense of the word "pollution."

You can require them to remove whatever you wish by creating the legal basis. This is just plain "OMGZ!! Must be CO2!!111!shiftplusone!"

You can "require" a goal of emissionless energy and pay to get it done, creating a large national urgency like they did with a moon trip. All while working to simply remove all pollution and emissions from our energy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You can require them to remove whatever you wish by creating the legal basis. This is just plain "OMGZ!! Must be CO2!!111!shiftplusone!"

You can "require" a goal of emissionless energy and pay to get it done, creating a large national urgency like they did with a moon trip. All while working to simply remove all pollution and emissions from our energy.

Strawman coming in 3.....2....1.....

go for Gumby....

 

[Cypress]

You can require them to remove whatever you wish by creating the legal basis. This is just plain "OMGZ!! Must be CO2!!111!shiftplusone!"

You can "require" a goal of emissionless energy and pay to get it done, creating a large national urgency like they did with a moon trip. All while working to simply remove all pollution and emissions from our energy.

You can require them to remove whatever you wish by creating the legal basis.

Damo, you should really brush up on public policy, before you ever decide to run for public office.

No, the government can't require you to do whatever they wish, on a whim. There has to be a legal justification for making a prohibition or requirement.

If you don't recognize CO2 as a pollutant, and a major global warming compound, you will have no basis to demand that anyone remove it from their emissions. There's no one magic widget, or gadget that removes everthing from an emission. Power plants emit steam. Right now, CO2 is consider, for legal purposes, the same as water. Its a non-pollutant. You cannot require power plants to limit steam or CO2 emissions, without acknowledging what exactly the public health problem with CO2 is . Not matter how much you insist you can,

And we won't have emissionless green energy, to any great extent, for another half century at least.

 

[Damocles]

You can require them to remove whatever you wish by creating the legal basis.

Damo, you should really brush up on public policy, before you ever decide to run for public office.

No, the government can't require you to do whatever they wish, on a whim. There has to be a legal justification for making a prohibition or requirement.

If you don't recognize CO2 as a pollutant, and a major global warming compound, you will have no basis to demand that anyone remove it from their emissions. There's no one magic widget, or gadget that removes everthing from an emission. Power plants emit steam. Right now, CO2 is consider, for legal purposes, the same as water. Its a non-pollutant. You cannot require power plants to limit steam or CO2 emissions, without acknowledging what exactly the public health problem with CO2 is . Not matter how much you insist you can,

And we won't have emissionless green energy, to any great extent, for another half century at least.

You are a maroon. You can set very high standards and promote it within the context of the "lunar landing" style national urgency. The goal is emissionless energy production, not "less CO2!" I know it is hard for you to comprehend reducing ALL emissions to zero, but it can be done.

Also promoting the ending of fossil fuels will pretty much reduce that all without a "require".

You think that the only way to break a glass is with a hammer. I promote thowing the glass away.

It's like you beg for them to get out the bludgeon and make you plant trees rather than thinking about how nice it would be if we were totally off the dead dinosaur teat and were able to create energy without ANY pollutants or emissions.

 

[Cypress]

You are a maroon. You can set very high standards and promote it within the context of the "lunar landing" style national urgency. The goal is emissionless energy production, not "less CO2!" I know it is hard for you to comprehend reducing ALL emissions to zero, but it can be done.

Also promoting the ending of fossil fuels will pretty much reduce that all without a "require".

You think that the only way to break a glass is with a hammer. I promote thowing the glass away.

It's like you beg for them to get out the bludgeon and make you plant trees rather than thinking about how nice it would be if we were totally off the dead dinosaur teat and were able to create energy without ANY pollutants or emissions.

Damo, there's no such thing as "emissionless" energy, outside of solar and wind. And those two technolgies will never amount to more than a fraction of US energy production for the next half century or more. So, lets dispsense with the "We need emissionless energy" argument you've been clinging to to address climate change.

For the foreeseable future, were are going to have power plants, agricultural operations, and cars that emit a vareity of compounds: water, steam, carbon dixoxide, sulfure compounds, particulate matter.

Sulphates and particulate matter are already regulated, and their emissions limited. Because there have been legal and legislative findings that they are harmful to human health.

Steam, water, and carbon dixoxide are not considered pollutants, under Bush Adminstration prescendent. There's now way to regulate, or legally limit their emission.

To really get zero emissions from any power plant, would be prohibitivley expensive and probably technologically impossible. To tell power plant operates, dairymen, and confined animal facilities that they have to cut their steam, CO2, and particulate matter emissions, but you can't evey tell them why they have to cut there CO2 emissions, will get you laughed out of town. I realize its painful for some to admit they were wrong about CO2, but that's what its going to take.

Unless you can admit that Carbon Dixoide is a significant public health hazard, they won't be any way to regulate on incentivize a reduction in their emmission. And you can talk about "clean emissionless energy!!!" all you want, but that is decades and decades away from having any real impact.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, there's no such thing as "emissionless" energy, outside of solar and wind. And those two technolgies will never amount to more than a fraction of US energy production for the next half century or more. So, lets dispsense with the "We need emissionless energy" argument you've been clinging to to address climate change.

For the foreeseable future, were are going to have power plants, agricultural operations, and cars that emit a vareity of compounds: water, steam, carbon dixoxide, sulfure compounds, particulate matter.

Sulphates and particulate matter are already regulated, and their emissions limited. Because there have been legal and legislative findings that they are harmful to human health.

Steam, water, and carbon dixoxide are not considered pollutants, under Bush Adminstration prescendent. There's now way to regulate, or legally limit their emission.

To really get zero emissions from any power plant, would be prohibitivley expensive and probably technologically impossible. To tell power plant operates, dairymen, and confined animal facilities that they have to cut their steam, CO2, and particulate matter emissions, but you can't evey tell them why they have to cut there CO2 emissions, will get you laughed out of town. I realize its painful for some to admit they were wrong about CO2, but that's what its going to take.

Unless you can admit that Carbon Dixoide is a significant public health hazard, they won't be any way to regulate on incentivize a reduction in their emmission. And you can talk about "clean emissionless energy!!!" all you want, but that is decades and decades away from having any real impact.

Yeah, because something has yet to be discovered or made efficient enough to "amount to something" it means that it never will.

You are defeatist and only promote doom because CO2 was not mentioned in the solution.

The reality is working TOWARDS that will reduce ALL emissions, INCLUDING CO2. And only a dolt would focus solely on that and refuse to recognize other emissions as pollutants.

You and five religious zealots walking down the street preaching doom and destruction and handing out the tracts. Only CO2 must be spoken of... All else is WITCHCRAFT!11!!11SHIFTPLUSONE!

 

[Cypress]

You can toss out all the "dolt" and "moron" insults you want, but it's clear you don't understand public policy or the legislative process at all. I'd hold off on running for public office, until you brush up on it more.

I work with Sierra Club and other environmental groups on issues like this: and I can guarantee you that your simplistic solution of "lets just get emissionless energy, and not worry about if CO2 is a problem!" is not only simplistic. It doesn't work that way. Even McCain knows this. He has promotoed a public policy for greenhouse emissions, that has the legal and legislative underpinnings I've been trying to educate you on.

 

[Damocles]

You can toss out all the "dolt" and "moron" insults you want, but it's clear you don't understand public policy or the legislative process at all. I'd hold off on running for public office, until you brush up on it more.

I work with Sierra Club and other environmental groups on issues like this: and I can guarantee you that your simplistic solution of "lets just get emissionless energy, and not worry about if CO2 is a problem!" is not only simplistic. It doesn't work that way. Even McCain knows this. He has promotoed a public policy for greenhouse emissions, that has the legal and legislative underpinnings I've been trying to educate you on.

LOL. Translation: I think CO2 is the only thing we ever have to worry about when considering emissions.

One more time. I said that even if CO2 WASN'T (please note the if, and note that I said it every time) an issue my plan would continue because there are myriad other reasons.

I also said that CO2 was ONE of the reasons we should do this.

Now, let's see if you can create that same strawman again and pretend that it has substance in this argument.

Let me guess, you will again repeat "CO2!" as if it is the end-all, be-all of the argument and pretend that this point wasn't already made. Then you will prove Thread Director right and with a religious fervor will continue ranting about this as if it is the only thing we should be talking about and/or reason that any sort of energy plan should exist without regard to the other reasons provided.

I will then again tell you that CO2 is ONE of the things we should be lowering and that this is far more comprehensive of a problem and here are a myriad of other reasons we should be working on this goal...

Then you will pretend again that CO2 is the only thing that we should talk about, and in your religious fervor pretend that I suggested that we not worry about it at all and that because of that you are much holier in the eyes of Gaia because the great god Consensus tells you so...

And one last thing, see if you can actually honestly answer this one...

If it was required to lower ALL emissions as the goal is ZERO emissions, would CO2 emissions go down?

 

[WC Grouch]

You can toss out all the "dolt" and "moron" insults you want, but it's clear you don't understand public policy or the legislative process at all. I'd hold off on running for public office, until you brush up on it more.

I work with Sierra Club and other environmental groups on issues like this: and I can guarantee you that your simplistic solution of "lets just get emissionless energy, and not worry about if CO2 is a problem!" is not only simplistic. It doesn't work that way. Even McCain knows this. He has promotoed a public policy for greenhouse emissions, that has the legal and legislative underpinnings I've been trying to educate you on.

LOL!
The Sierra Club...
Those of us who actually live in the Sierras think of you guys as a crackpot religious cult. How's that spotted owl thing going?