EPA question

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just saw this released by EPA and did search on study and reason of how they can to this conclusion and can not find anything--If someone can--would appreciate putting up link--also you might want to submit their findings 1st and collect $500,000 reward --
CHALLENGE
$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

back to EPA--
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KBAC00&show_article=1
WASHINGTON

(AP) - The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.



Limits on carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy. In announcing the proposed finding, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations." She reiterated that the Obama administration prefers that climate change be address by Congress through broad, economy-wide limits on climate-changing pollution. But the EPA finding of endangerment prepares for possible regulatory action if Congress fails to act---
==================
Hmmm I see they got off global warming and went to climate change--considering we are going through global cooling cycle--and they can now blame any normal change in climate as excuse.

---Wall St Journal had some interesting questions for them--
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html

<LI class="dateStamp first"><SMALL>APRIL 17, 2009, 9:08 P.M. ET</SMALL> <!-- ID: SB124001537515830975 --><!-- TYPE: Politics and Policy --><!-- DISPLAY-NAME: --><!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --><!-- DATE: 2009-04-18 00:01 --><!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --><!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --><!-- article start --><!--CODE=INDUSTRY SYMBOL=DENCODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OUSBCODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=ONEWCODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=FREECODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPOL-->How Carbon Dioxide Became a 'Pollutant'

By KEITH JOHNSON

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant.
The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.
Carbon-dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fluctuated wildly for millennia; at one point billions of years ago, it was the dominant gas in the atmosphere---


back to issue --If anyone can find studies/proof EPA based their opinion on on--please post link.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Here you go, Wayne!

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/GHGEndangermentProposal.pdf

Send it in and I'll split the $$$$ with you

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I went thru all 132 pages and saw no where that proof was established beyond reasonable doubt--all were could be-probably-most likely etc as it has been since the beginning.

Maybe you can direct us to the page wher their conclusive proof is presented

--they are predictions based on opinion--will wait for you to give us page that proves otherwise

---and speaking of predictions how about this one.


March 10th, 2009 2:50 PM Eastern
Cap-and-Trade = The Biggest Tax Increase In U.S. History

<!-- --><!-- by -->
By Phil Kerpen
Policy Director, Americans for Prosperity
President Obama opened his address to a joint session of Congress last month by saying ?the economy is an issue that rises above all others.? By that standard, his key energy proposal fails badly. Obama?s proposed Kyoto-style cap-and-trade plan would be the biggest tax increase in American history. It would hit every American who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that has to be grown, shipped, or manufactured.


Cap-and-trade is a way to impose a massive energy tax and pretend it?s not a tax. It puts a cap on overall greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a market for companies to buy and sell the permits. In Obama?s version, the permits would all be auctioned off and the hundreds of billions of dollars would be used to fund higher government spending.

The hardest hit will be those least able to pay: lower income families, who spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy.​

The so-called cap-and-trade energy tax would, according to the president himself, force energy prices to go way up. In an unguarded moment, speaking to The San Francisco Chronicle last year, Obama said: ?Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket? they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.?
The economic impact of imposing these huge new costs on energy consumers would be devastating. Even using the Obama administration?s own numbers, it would amount to a tax hike of $645.7 billion over the first 8 years, over $80 billion per year.
But as the cap becomes more and more strict over time, those costs would skyrocket into the trillions of dollars.
Obama?s proposed 83 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 dwarfs the proposal from last year?s Lieberman-Warner bill, which included a 63 percent reduction.
An analysis commissioned by the American Council on Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers projected the economic impact of last year?s bill by 2030: 3 to 4 million fewer jobs, $4,022 to $6,752 in lower annual disposable income per household, an annual hit to GDP of between $631 billion and $669 billion, and much higher energy prices ? 60 percent to 144 percent higher for gasoline and 77 percent to 129 percent higher for electricity.
These figures are all adjusted for inflation. The hardest hit will be those least able to pay: lower income families, who spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy. The Obama plan requires considerably steeper cuts and therefore will be even more expensive.
Much of the cap-and-trade tax revenue will be earmarked for the so-called Making Work Pay tax credit, worth $400 for a single-worker family and $800 for a two-worker family. So while the left hand offers $400 or $800, the right hand snatches $4,000 (or more) from the pockets of American families. Some deal.
This is not an unintended consequence of the plan?it?s the intended goal. President Obama made it plain as day when he said that he wants to give so-called renewable energies a market advantage. That requires stepping in with heavy taxes to dramatically raise the price of fossil fuels, which are much, much cheaper than renewables and are projected to remain so for a long time, especially since oil prices have come down sharply.
And what do we buy, environmentally, with this enormous hit to the economy? Basically, nothing. Cap and trade is already failing to reduce emissions in Europe. And even if emissions targets are met, climate models show that the reductions would have no detectable impact on global average temperatures. That?s why leading climate alarmists have hailed a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade regime as just the first step of 30 to curb global economic activity. There?s never a good time to embark down such a path, but it seems particularly hare-brained during an economic crisis.
And that?s not all, I urge you to also keep an eye on the Environmental Protection Agency. April 2nd marks the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that found, on a 5-4 decision, that the EPA can shoehorn a cap and trade regime into the 1970 Clean Air Act, passed before anyone in Congress?or anywhere else?had even heard of global warming theory. EPA is likely to celebrate the anniversary by laying plans for moving ahead. Before Congress does anything else on this issue, they should pass a clean bill to stop the EPA and give us time to consider our policy through the proper democratic process.
No matter whether it?s through legislation or regulation, cap-and-trade would destroy the only bright spot in the current economic environment, low energy prices, and cause severe economic pain. Anyone who supports it can?t be serious about putting the economy first.
Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.


IMO The reason for recent EPA report--is new admin Lisa Jackson recently appointed by Gumby--trying to get his agenda through--

---and what say you?
:0corn

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Oh. . . I was just responding to the "please post link."

I could respond to your other questions, but it would kind of be similar to getting in an argument about the correct procedures in open heart surgery - neither one of us know anything about it, but only one of us knows that.

Since I don't know the facts, I'll just stay on the side of the Nobel prize winners and you can stay on the side of the "Junk Science" guy

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Yes you did post link--which is what I asked
--so I owe you an apologie for coming off defensive--
Sorry Bobby--and thanks for link--was exactly what I was looking for.:toast:

 

[smurphy]

neither one of us know anything about it, but only one of us knows that.

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Oh. . . I was just responding to the "please post link."

I could respond to your other questions, but it would kind of be similar to getting in an argument about the correct procedures in open heart surgery - neither one of us know anything about it, but only one of us knows that.

Since I don't know the facts, I'll just stay on the side of the Nobel prize winners and you can stay on the side of the "Junk Science" guy

I guess per Nobel Prize winners your referring to Al Gore

as far as Junk Science guy you might add--
--31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, http://www.petitionproject.org/
including 9,029 with PhDs .
In fact you can check who signed it in your state.




<TABLE class=copy cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR id=article_headline><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>
Scientists Debunk Global Warming



</TD></TR><TR><TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=article_datestamp id=article_date vAlign=top align=left>Monday, December 15, 2008 9:06 AM

By: Geoff Metcalf

</TD><TD class=article_datestamp id=article_fontsize vAlign=top align=right>Article Font Size </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD id=article_content vAlign=top>


?Hypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging.?

? Alexander Theroux​

Smart people continue to do stupid stuff . . . personifying the Metcalf bromide about ?some people don?t want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices.?
Notwithstanding the Nobel Prize, Oscar, and ubiquitous fawning of the limousine liberal legions, the empirical reality is global warming is an urban myth.
Over 650 international scientists are out of the closet and articulating their dissent over the folly of manmade global warming bull excrement.
For the full Senate report, go here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
My chronic criticisms (of over a decade) are insignificant. However, others (far more credentialed and knowledgeable) are finally being heard.
?It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don?t buy into anthropogenic global warming,? says U.S Government Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

?Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history . . . When people come to know what the truth is; they will feel deceived by science and scientists,? reports UN IPCC Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

Nobel Prize-winner for physics, Ivar Giaever, says, ?Global warming has become a new religion.?
The list is long and growing.
What remains amazing is that smart people (who ought to know better) continue to enable a scientifically discredited, overwhelmingly expensive, junk science boondoggle.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger remains captive of liberal lieutenants to feed the Hollywood myopics fueling the gospel according to Al Gore. President-elect Barack Obama seems intent on placating his disgruntled liberal base with the way expensive bone of global warming fanaticism.
Meanwhile, ?real? threats from Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, and wildcard terrorists are only exacerbated by the begrudging acknowledgement that terrorists have a major ?jones? to deploy biological weapons of mass destruction. States, national and global economies are lower than whale poop and bailout mania inevitably will spark big-time inflation.
Why do the nattering nabobs continue to feed the fictional global warming beast?
According to Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet, ?The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn?t listen to others. It doesn?t have open minds . . . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.?
Frankly, the problem (which most pols are scared spitless to admit is a problem) is the same challenge scientists now face. Atmospheric physicists James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, noted, ?Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.?
Despite the overwhelming contradictory science, the promoters and enablers of the Global Warming panic lack the courage to admit they were wrong, and move on.
Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, hit the nail on the head when he candidly said, ?The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.? Follow the money honey, but wait ? what money?
The Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/global-warming-freeze/ recently noted, ?It is time to file this theory [Global Warming] in the dustbin of history . . . Alarmists are in denial and running for cover.?
The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of U.N. flacks who authored the media enabled (hyped) IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Obama has said he plans to cut U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, now about 17 percent above 1990 levels, back to 1990 levels by 2020 and then by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
According to the Guardian, in Britain, European Union officials have proposed making an 80 percent to 95 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050 in exchange for developing countries? reducing their emissions by 15 percent to 30 percent over the next decade.
Bush rejected Kyoto, which sets 2012 targets for 37 developed nations to cut emissions, because it would cost too much. What was ?too costly? for the Bush administration (given the current global economy) is confiscatory for the new Obama team.
Global warming is bogus . . . to throw billions of dollars that don?t exist after a media enabled liberal dream quest is counterintuitive and a cancer that needs to be surgically and finally removed from the body politic.++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bottom line is- we have one side wanting to debate the science behind findings and the other refusing to do so.
Wonder what side I'd lean to?


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Isn't there a comment period for the EPA's study. Why don't you send all of your FACTS to them instead of posting them on a gambling message board? This seems like an important topic to you

Take it to the streets, Dogs

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

If they won't discuss it or debate it with scientific community--I doubt they listen to me

The crux of the matter--
you have many in scientific community who depend on gov grants for funding--and know disent can cost them and their projects--or you'd have mass outrage.

If it goes through--you will have mass outrage from all who will not qualify for gov energy subsidies--which brings us back to square one--the tax payor vs Da Base- pretty transparent agenda

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing



Thursday, April 23, 2009By Marc Morano

[FONT=times new roman,times]'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Climate Depot Exclusive[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman,times]Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]?The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,? Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. ?They are cowards.?[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]According to Monckton, [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had ?chickened out? and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]?The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,? Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]?Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'? Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 ) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times][/FONT]

 

[Chadman]

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Sheesh, that's a lot like holding private secret committee hearings on energy/environmental policy as a first course of administration policy and excluding any democrats or experts that might have a different opinion about it, huh? How DARE democrats pull a stunt like that!