Global Warming

“Why are sadistic scumbags drawn to law enforcement?

Because they can live out their sick fantasies using powerless people and get away with it.”

“powerless people? Like those down on their luck who either have "basic shelter" or the "mission" as a choice. So you force the owners to upgrade to your "Hill" attitude?”

“Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather


The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, the federal court of appeals where I once clerked, has allowed a class action lawsuit by Hurricane Katrina victims to proceed against a motley crew of energy, oil, and chemical companies. Their claim: that the defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions raised air and water temperatures on the Gulf Coast, contributing to Katrina’s strength and causing property damage. Mass tort litigation specialist Russell Jackson calls the plaintiffs’ claims “the litigator’s equivalent to the game ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.’”

In Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, the plaintiffs assert a variety of theories under Mississippi common law, but the main issue at this stage was whether the plaintiffs had standing, or whether they could demonstrate that their injuries were “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions. The court dismissed several claims but held that plaintiffs indeed could allege public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. The court also held that these latter claims do not present a so-called “political question” that the court doesn’t have the authority to resolve. You can read about the Court’s ruling in more detail at the WSJ Law Blog and Jackson’s Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts Blog.
.........

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/19/next-move-suing-the-sun-for-unseasonably-cool-weather/”

“I hear they are pushing 'credits" for families with only one child....it kinda started like this in Mao's China....anyone want to review where they are today?”

“Ya know when the entire "gorebal Smarming:" thing hits, what the left does not understand it but eventually the UN will be determining "poor" and "rich"


LOL the first day some of these "Societal Parasites" discover their "PO' Money" makes em RICH as hell on a world standard...LOL”

“I thought this was an Onion article at first. How ridiculous.”

“Mutt my idea would be a process of "loser pays" And if the losers can't afford it...let the attorney's E and O insurance cover it....LOL as soon as attorneys see that they can make a bundle suing other attorneys....litigation will disappear like Honor at a Democrat party meeting”

“$90.00 oil soon? Hey, how 'bout that $dollar$, eh?
last edited: 10/22/09 7:15:45 AM”

“http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/poll-us-belief-in-169483.html

OOOPS...seems the Religion is dying.

WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.


.Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.”

“Pollution is down even, because we don't manufacture anything (unemployment)and the temps seem to be following. Thanks republicans for not winning the election.”

“Fire Marshall Dan, LOL”

“Still Grumpy over the Failure of 606? (LOL)”

“
Sarge & EXlax' Science Education = Crashing Failure.

Refer to the recent teabagger story in The Onion re: the need for increased resources for Public Education....

This thread illustrates the problem beautifully.

”

“Truly AMAZING...Tilty takes a humorous article written in an avowed "parody" as God's Honest Truth...LOL...”

“God's honest TRUTH?”

“National / World News 2:06 a.m. Friday, October 23, 2009



Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling

By DINA CAPPIELLO

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Graphic shows poll results on global warming
Enlarge photo
Former Chief Executive Tung Chee Hua, left, Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speak at the U.S. China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation in Beijing, China, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said that cooperation between China and the U.S., the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, is crucial to tackling the climate change crisis. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)
Former Chief Executive Tung Chee Hua, left, Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speak at the U.S. China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation in Beijing, China, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said that cooperation between China and the U.S., the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, is crucial to tackling the climate change crisis. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)
DELETES section on percentage who believe it is due to human activity; graphic shows poll results on global warming
Enlarge photo
Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, left, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speak at the U.S.-China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation in Beijing, China, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said that cooperation between China and the U.S., the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, is crucial to tackling the climate change crisis. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)
Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, left, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speak at the U.S.-China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation in Beijing, China, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said that cooperation between China and the U.S., the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, is crucial to tackling the climate change crisis. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)
More Nation & World stories »



Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People&the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. Thenumber of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.

The steepest drop has occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.

Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That's down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year's poll.

"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," suggested Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.

Political breakdowns in the survey underscore how tough it could be toenact a law limiting pollution emissions blamed for warming. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say there is no solid evidence of global warming, up from 31 percent in early 2007.

Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.

Jane Lubchenco, head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a business group meeting at the White House Thursday: "The science is pretty clear that the climate challenge before us is very real. We're already seeing impacts of climate change in our own backyards."

Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to higher energy prices. And a majority — 56 percent — feel the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.

But many of the supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science.

Regional as well as political differences weredetected in the polling.

People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.

"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993, was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.”

“So, it's a bear market in GW with all the standard bull market rallies that all fail until a 'V' bottom is formed and the bull grabs the thermometer by the horns and wrestles upward.”

“Those two quarters of "Earth Sciences" at Walton Way University are really paying some dividends.... EH, Danny Boy?”

“October 23, 2009
Proposed Global Warming Bills and Regulations Will Do More Harm Than Good
by Ben Lieberman

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward aggressively to regulate fossil fuels in the name of fighting global warming. Recent agency proposals would start with emissions standards for cars and trucks, but these would likely lead to subsequent regulations affecting a million or more businesses and other energy-using entities.

Even the EPA itself admits that regulations will be burdensome, and it has not hidden the Obama Administration's strategy of threatening unworkable regulations to spur Congress to pass legislation instead.[1] The Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills, like the proposed regulations, are an expensive and ineffective response to the overstated threat of global warming. Indeed, the best answer is: none of the above.

EPA v. the U.S. Economy

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court held that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. However, the decision did not require the agency to take this step. The Bush Administration refrained from rushing to do so, opting instead to gather information on the potential economic and environmental consequences of addressing global warming in this manner. This was a wise move: Even putting aside growing doubts about the seriousness of the global warming threat, regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is a very poor way of addressing it.[2]

Nonetheless, the Obama Administration has reversed course and accelerated the regulatory process, proposing both a new motor vehicle emissions rule as well as an overall finding that carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare.

Although the proposed rules address all greenhouse gases, the main target is carbon dioxide, which is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion--the coal, oil, and natural gas that provides Americans with 85 percent of their energy. The only way to reduce emissions is with costly measures that drive up the price of using this energy. The EPA's proposed new motor vehicle standards would increase the sticker price of new cars and trucks by $1,300 according to the agency. Others say much more.[3]

A Regulatory Pandora's Box

New motor vehicle regulations are bad enough, but the Clean Air Act does not end there. Once something is regulated as a pollutant under one section of the act, it is automatically regulated under several other sections. Fully applying the rest of the Clean Air Act to sources of carbon dioxide emissions would result in severe adverse economic consequences.

For example, the stringent New Source Review permitting program applies to any source that emits 250 tons of any regulated pollutant per year, and in some cases as little as 100 tons per year. Most pollutants currently regulated are trace compounds like smog or mercury that are typically measured in parts per billion, so this threshold level sensibly distinguishes between minor contributors and significant ones.

But carbon dioxide is not a trace compound. Background levels of naturally occurring carbon dioxide alone measure 275 parts per million, and even relatively small usage of fossil fuels could reach 250 tons. Thus, even the kitchen in a restaurant, the heating system in an apartment or office building, or the activities associated with running a farm could cause these and other entities to be regulated--potentially more than a million buildings, 200,000 manufacturing operations, and 20,000 farms.[4]

New Source Review permitting imposes an average of $125,000 in costs and takes 866 hours to complete.[5] These and other onerous programs would now be imposed, for the first time, on a million or more entities beyond the large power plants and factories that have already been regulated in this manner.

EPA admits the unworkability of applying Clean Air Act red tape to nearly everything that uses more than minimal amounts of energy.[6] Indeed, the agency concedes that state and federal permitting authorities would "be paralyzed by enormous numbers of these permit applications"[7] The agency's solution is to try to rewrite the statute, turning the 250-ton threshold into 25,000 tons, thus exempting all but the largest industrial sources.[8] However, past EPA attempts to take liberties with the Clean Air Act language have failed to survive the inevitable court challenges.

The Threat of Regulation to Spur Legislation

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has candidly admitted that one of the goals of the highly problematic regulatory proposal is to spur on legislation: "Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," she recently stated, adding that "we get further faster without top-down regulation."[9]

While the regulations would be disruptive to the economy, the legislation currently in Congress would be very damaging as well. The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the economic impacts of Waxman-Markey found $393 billion in lost gross domestic product each year, nearly $3,000 in annual energy costs for a household of four, and over a million net job losses.[10] The Kerry-Boxer Senate bill was introduced with many details missing, but it appears to be at least as costly.

Both the regulatory and the legislative approaches unilaterally target American emissions and leave the rest of the world off the hook; thus, it would accomplish little. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger estimates that, even assuming continued man-made global warming, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100[11]--an amount probably too small to verify and certainly too small to matter. The proposed regulations would be just as ineffective.

Rather than settle for the least bad of two undesirable options, there is a better approach to the issue: Do not pursue any problematic policy, regulatory or legislative. H.R. 391, sponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), would eliminate any EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It is currently the subject of a discharge petition, which would allow it to come to a vote before the full House.

Remove the Threat

Rather than respond to the threat of problematic regulation by enacting problematic legislation, Congress should remove the regulatory threat and then debate various global warming legislative proposals on their merits. The merits of costly cap-and-trade proposals are highly dubious, but they are not made any better by the specter of EPA regulation.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]BusinessGreen.com, "EPA Signals Carbon Regulations Could Be Introduced Within Months," September 3, 2009, at http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2248808/epa-signals
-carbon-regulations (October 22, 2009).

[2]Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris, "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2407, April 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment
/wm2407.cfm

[3]Steve Siler and Mike Dushane, "Obama's CAFE Fuel Economy Standards to Create Fleet of Tiny, Expensive Vehicles," Car and Driver, May 2009, at http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/09q2/obama_s_cafe_fuel_economy
_standards_to_create_fleet_of_tiny_expensive_vehicles-car_news (October 23, 2009).

[4]Portia M. E. Mills and Mark P. Mills, "A Regulatory Burden: The Compliance Dimension of Regulation of Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, September 2008, p. 3.

[5]Carrie Wheeler, "Information Request for Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These amounts would likely be less for smaller entities, but the overall burden would be substantial given the limited resources and in-house expertise to deal with them.

[6]Environmental Protection Agency, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," pp. 15, 19, September 30, 2009, at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/GHGTailoringProposal.pdf (October 22, 2009).

[7]Ibid., pp. 15, 19.

[8]Ibid., pp. 2.

[9]James Murray, "EPA Signals Carbon Regulations Could Be Introduced within Months," BusinessGreen.com, September 3, 2009, at http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2248808/epa-signals
-carbon-regulations (October 22, 2009).

[10]David Kreutzer et al., "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 09-04, August 6, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm.

[11]Chip Knappenberger, "Why Waxman-Markey Is Not a Climate Bill," June 29, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=3507#more-3507 (October 22, 2009).”

“Once again I remind you. The Gorebal Smarming crap has NOTHING to do with saving the planet. It has EVERYthing to do with controlling your life.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas. ”

“A vegetarian diet is better.

No, it's not.”

“Saw something on Yahoo that NOAA (Motto: We Ain't Guessed it right yet)saying essentially as a result of "ground sensors" that the temps aren't actually declining...LOL

They base their incredible ability on 130 years of experience....130...and you figure that it was truly only a semi accurate science since the what 1960's.

Still 130 years in Geological time. That is Scientifically insignificant.”

“'Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas. '

Good example of hot air from someone that ate up the crap of denial.”

“http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/27oct_eve.htm?list100250

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/


The key concept is solar minimum       (LOL)

”

“http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2009/10/28/video-supermodels-strip-climate-change

Changed my mind. I know support the anti-global warming campaigns.”

“Um yeah but lets be honest....would you rather be in conditions where the girls wore Bikinis or Mukluks and Parkas (LOL)?”

“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece

She was particularly critical of claims made by scientists and environmental groups two years ago, when observations showed that Arctic sea ice had declined to the lowest extent on record, 39 per cent below the average between 1979 and 2001. This led Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, to say that Arctic ice was “in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return”.

Dr Pope said that while climate change was a factor, normal variations also played a part, and it was always likely that ice would recover a little in subsequent years, as had happened. It was the long-term downward trend that mattered, rather than the figures for any one year, she added.

“The problem with saying that we’ve reached a tipping point is that when the extent starts to increase again — as it has — the sceptics will come along and say, ‘Well, it’s stopped’,” she said. “This is why it’s important we’re as objective as we can be, and use all the available evidence to make clear what’s actually happening, because neither of those claims is right.”

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, said: “Some claims that were made about the ice anomaly were misleading. A lot of people said this is the beginning of the end of Arctic ice, and of course it recovered the following year and everybody looked a bit silly.” Dr Allen said that predictions of how the world was likely to warm also needed to be framed carefully. While there was little doubt that the Earth would get hotter, there were still many uncertainties about the precise extent and regional impact.

“I think we need to be very careful about purporting to be able to supply very detailed and apparently accurate information about how the climate will be in 50 or 100 years’ time, when what we’re really giving is a possible future climate,” he added.

“We’re not in a position to say how likely it is and what the chances are of it being different. There’s an understandable tendency to want to make climate change real for people and tell them what’s going to happen in their postcode, and that’s very dangerous because it gets beyond the level on which current models can operate.” ”

“WAHAHAHA Bump”

“This thread is a laundry list of modern Americans' scientific illiteracy.

It's an embarrassment.”

“I bought my science on e-bay, hay hay! That's what going Rogue is all about.
last edited: 10/31/09 7:40:05 AM”

“scientific illiteracy = not understanding that "warming" actually means "fluctuating temperatures and stuff", and "increased hurricane destruction" actually means "less hurricane activity and strength and stuff".”

“


”

“Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]”

“from what ive seen, there seems to be little conclusive evidence FOR or AGAINST man-made global warming, so both sides need to put their waving dicks away”

“... except that the avg. temperature of the globe has dropped over the last 11 years”

“It is impossible that one side is not completely hot and the other is almost totally cold, except really warm too.”

“and it has RISEN over the last 100

the critical question is, is this a natural rise, or not?”

“How could it have risen BECAUSE of increased co2 levels over 100 years, and then last 11 that we've pumped more co2 into the air than ever in the history of mankind, it went down?

Because, it didn't increase because of the evil white man.”

“How could it have risen BECAUSE of increased co2 levels over 100 years

i never said it did.”

“im with you on this issue. i do not believe that global warming is man-made. altho there seems to be somewhat of a correlation of increased co2 levels and increased temps, there is not a large enough time sample to say that it is causal. and the measurements of the last 11 years are damning

but, i also realize that there is a lot of science that i do not understand, so i try to keep an open mind”

“GAWD did it.”

“god is giving us all a dutch oven”

“Maybe it's the sun?

duh”

“salebored, that's the first post of yours I've ever not wanted to reclaim the time lost reading it. Keep up the good work.”