Obama Sets Emission Rules

[Conan71]

[tshane250]

I just don't understand how someone can definitively argue that the current change in climate is manmade, since the climate has been in constant flux long before the industrial revolution, long before man ever was on the scene. . . all the way back to when the Earth was formed.  There are many scientists (and I use that term loosely) who cherry pick data that supports their theories, rather than looking at all the data - if that's even possible.  Nevertheless, I am all for reducing our dependence on dirty burning fossil fuels and being good stewards and green and all that.  I just wish the government would use honey (in the form of incentives) rather than vinegar to achieve that end. 

[Wilbur]

I'll stay out of the 'global warming' stuff since I've already said a little human infestation will have no impact on something that's been around for 6,000,000,000 years and has been much hotter and much colder then in any human's time..... but I digress.

The problem with the new standards is, it will actually hurt the very industry we're trying to help.  Mandating Americans to drive small, less safe cars will simply drive Americans to buy more used cars that are larger and much more safe.  Purchasing more used cars simply hurts the car makers (really, the government) who's trying to jam cars down our throats we don't want.

The Left keeps pointing at Europe and all their small cars.  Yes, traffic in Europe is beyond crazy, roads are small and a small car is what everyone wants.  In the US, population is less, roads are bigger and speeds are higher (for the most part, Germany is crazy with speed.  I was a little uncomfortable driving there).

Americans want big cars to increase safety, help with their big families and to haul more stuff.  They're willing to pay the extra price and to buy more gasoline.  They don't want the government mandating we drive some Smart car.

More government regulations aimed at the auto industry is the LAST thing we need.  Many of the small cars in Europe aren't here because they don't meet so many of the fed's regulations.

[nathanm]

Funny that large cars are actually less safe for everybody but the folks inside them, and even then, the benefits are mixed at best. (You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)

On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that. We also know we're dumping a crap ton of it in the atmosphere. It follows that there is an effect. We can argue about how much effect it has, but believing that there is no effect is like believing that not brushing your teeth won't result in rotten teeth.

And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.

Thirdly, what the earth was like before humans doesn't really concern me. Keeping it habitable for me is a much greater concern. I'm selfish. love mother nature. If the change is natural, I'd like to stop it before we choke on clouds of methane boiling forth from the oceans and most of the seafood I like to eat (and the things the seafood I like eats) dies from the ever increasing ocean acidity caused by the ever increasing dissolved carbon dioxide content. I'd also prefer that my SO's parents not have to move in with us when the ocean creeps up to their ~10ft AMSL home.

My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.

On the bright side, it looks like the sun may not be as active this solar cycle as it has been in the past few, which should help a little from the reduced incoming solar radiation, thus buying us time.

[Breadburner]

Funny that large cars are actually less safe for everybody but the folks inside them, and even then, the benefits are mixed at best. (You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)

On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that. We also know we're dumping a crap ton of it in the atmosphere. It follows that there is an effect. We can argue about how much effect it has, but believing that there is no effect is like believing that not brushing your teeth won't result in rotten teeth.

And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.

Thirdly, what the earth was like before humans doesn't really concern me. Keeping it habitable for me is a much greater concern. I'm selfish. love mother nature. If the change is natural, I'd like to stop it before we choke on clouds of methane boiling forth from the oceans and most of the seafood I like to eat (and the things the seafood I like eats) dies from the ever increasing ocean acidity caused by the ever increasing dissolved carbon dioxide content. I'd also prefer that my SO's parents not have to move in with us when the ocean creeps up to their ~10ft AMSL home.

My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.

On the bright side, it looks like the sun may not be as active this solar cycle as it has been in the past few, which should help a little from the reduced incoming solar radiation, thus buying us time.

[Wilbur]

That's funny!!

[tshane250]

Actually, it is interesting to note that temperatures since the 1970s have been on the rise, which directly correlates to a) increased CO2 and b) a reduction in particulate matter in the atmosphere via tighter pollution control laws.  It seems prior to that time there was more of an equilibrium happening between greenhouse gases and the human volcano effect (think London fog).  Of course there are other bigger factors at work as well, like the sun and natural climate fluctuations.  It's also interesting to note that we are one catastrophic volcanic eruption from a nice cool down and it appears the Yellowstone volcano is past due and Anak Krakatoa (the son of the famous Krakatoa) is a rebellious teenager now and could spew at anytime. 

Also, I do hope that everyone who is concerned about this is doing their part to curtail their carbon footprint.  Let's not place burden on others while not doing our part.   

[cannon_fodder]

Nathan,

You raise two simple points:

1) What the Earth was like before you were born.  Not so long ago it was too cold for you to survive as you currently do.  Not long before that it was far too hot for homo sapien sapiens to be comfortable.  Not too long ago a weather shift brought famine to much of Europe (and tons of Irish to the United States).   It changes.  Carbon dioxide levels naturally change too (based on ice cores) - long before we were changing it.

and 2) The Sun has energy cycles.  Sometimes it produces more heat on Earth, sometimes less.  Exactly what these cycles are and what the effect is, we don't know.



So are we changing the environment?  Absolutely. 

Does that change include more CO2?  Yes it does.

Is that causing the Earth to warm?  Hypothetically it is possible.  But in reality, no one knows.

If the sun is due for another 10,000 year down cycle, maybe more greenhouse effect would be what we need.  If the continents are arranged in such a way that the currents are to slow and the ice grow (another ice age is deemed inevitable), we may wish we had more heat.  Or maybe the cycle is continuing the uptick that started 11,000 years ago and the warming will continue no matter what we do.  Maybe another volcano will erupt and put our C02 emissions for the last 20 years to shame with the crap it spews out in a couple months.  Maybe the plankton in the ocean blooms and reabsorbs the C02 at caster rates.  Or maybe we are already screwed and it's too late to do anything about it.

It's worth thinking about and looking into.  But we really don't know the effects of either our pollution or our proposed solutions to it.  The environment WILL change with or without people and we simply don't know what effect we will have on that change.  Given that unknown, I hesitate to sacrifice to achieve unknown ends or prevent unknown outcomes.

[Conan71]

(You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)

You watch too many James Bond movies.

On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that.

No we don't.  Computer models can be manipulated to predict anything someone wants it to point to.  With billions of government money keeping scientists and their lackeys on a payroll, who wouldn't keep pumping hysteria?  NASA has to keep itself relevant, especially in tough economic times with deficit spending spiraling out of control. 

Sunday, February 01, 2009
Real Scientists Repenting on Human Global Warming Fraud
Well well well, the now-retired NASA supervisor of James Hansen, the researcher who has made a 20-year career out of hyping global warming (and who is known to be VERY sloppy with his data), is slamming his former colleague.

In an e-mail to the U.S. Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works, Dr. John S. Theon writes:

I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system [That is true. --ed.] because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

The only repudiations from liberal blogs about Dr. Theon is that he was not responsible for writing Hansen's performance reviews and that he's been retired since 1994.  Hansen first brought his global warming hysteria to D.C. in 1988.

And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.

My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.

Who are you to say there's no room for debate?  Just because you've convinced yourself this isn't a sham doesn't make it right for the other billions of inhabitants of the planet.  James Hansen is a nut-job, read his rantings on Columbia University's web site.  Titles like: Temples of Doom, The Sword of Damocles?  There's a "Letter to Michelle and Barack Obama" which urges carbon tax as a method of wealth redistribution.  He doesn't even have the decency to refer to him as Senator or President Obama.  The guy is a megalomaniac:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

Here's the main page of his ravings:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Hansen has come under fire from former co-workers and his chain of command for his flawed conclusions.  The guy has an agenda.

Is it possible there could be man-made global warming?  Sure it's possible.  Is it definitive?  No.  For certain, ground level temps in population centers are warmer than rural areas as we generate more BTU's of heat, there's more pavement to retain the heat of the day etc.  Most certainly there's been an increase in average temps of population centers over the last century as we've continued to expand them.  Is it causing overall "global warming"?  Truth is, no one knows for certain why the average temperature has increased by an "astounding" .6 C over the last 100 years.  That figure is even debatable within the scientific community.

[Breadburner]

What these young kool aid drinking dingle-berry's dont realize is the same idiots were telling us there was going to be another ice age 30 years ago......Thank god for wisdom by years and common sense....