Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Some of you may be aware that the Environmental Protection Agency is "considering" naming CO2 a pollutant...and thereby gaining the ability to control and make rules without legislative approval...regarding anything which adds CO2 to the atmosphere.

This is supposed to be a scientific and public and transparent consideration...not a political one. Now, the CEI...a conservative advocacy group against global warming has found FOUR sepearate EPA memos which indicate that the EPA is stifling dissent within its ranks on this issue. This is illegal and reprehensible and could end up costing us all trillions of dollars if the greenies in the EPA get to do with CO2 what they can do with DDT.

Here is an excerpt:
CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which
indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was
essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated
within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of
this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not
because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.
CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket,
and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new
study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals
against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.
********
Read the whole article...whether you are liberal or conservative, you should be offended by this conduct. If you are, please contact your Congressmen/women and ask them to read the e-mails and conduct an investigation and insist on the buried study being made public.Thanks

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0...%206-23-09.pdf

[craigimass]

There is a long history of EPA and Government involvement in these matter, certainly heading both ways. The Bush administration 100% shut down the science of the big NASA dude who published climate reports. They stripped the EPA (I know people who work there and with them) and told them NO NEW REGS. Of course, that is not the way we should want regulation to work!

As to the newest situation, you might want to look at the recent Supreme Court decision, which REQUIRED the EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant if science determines it has any affect.
"The Supreme Court said in April 2007 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide emissions, linked to global warming, endanger public health and welfare.
If that is the case, the court said, the EPA must regulate the emissions."

We are a country of laws and the Supremes interpret the Constitution as it applies to situations like this. They have spoken for now. The case was brought by the states.

My suggestion would be that email and letter writing will do little good. If you feel very strongly, press a court case and go back to the Supremes. I don't think you can turn over Supreme decisions with a letter.

[ebs001]

Originally Posted by craigimass

The court directed the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide emissions, linked to global warming, endanger public health and welfare.
If that is the case, the court said, the EPA must regulate the emissions."

The EPA had better do as they are told. If they do, they will determine that CO2 is not a pollutant, does not cause global warming and does not endanger public health and welfare and therefore, will not have to regulate it. The purpose of writing is to get the EPA to do their job as mandated by the Sureme Court. Simply put CO2 is not a pollutant but a very necessary component of air for life on this planet to exist. A little reading of some of the even of the early posts in this thread will show the EPA that CO2 does not cause global warming. Cams post shows that the EPA is not doing it's job but are mindlessly and unscientifically charging ahead. The EPA needs to do it's job properly

[ssneade]

Guess who has joined the global warming movement? ACORN. Yep, your friendly community organizers and voter fraud organization has decided to throw its efforts into the global warming movement. This is according to the World Watch Institute:

Brian Kettenring, ACORN's deputy director of national operations, said his group - the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate- income people in the United States - was inspired to join the Climate Equity Alliance and work with groups such as the Sierra Club after seeing the vulnerability of cities such as New Orleans to rising sea levels and more intense climatic events. The group, which lobbies for affordable housing and improved education in urban areas, is also encouraged by the hope of "green jobs," environmentally sustainable employment opportunities.

"ACORN families understand that building a green economy that's sustainable and builds jobs for working families is good for them, good for the environment, and good for communities," Kettenring said.

ACORN's contribution will include direct lobbying of Congress. In the long term, Kettenring expects more ACORN chapters to become involved in green jobs initiatives, such as efforts to collect federal funding for weatherizing urban buildings.

Now where in there do you see any concern for the environment? None. It's not about that. It is about gaining power for your segment of the population. More specifically, it's about gaining some control over the government's use of power. That's all that this global warming movement is about ... it is a fraud and a scheme created to empower people who would otherwise be selling Che Guevara t-shirts at a street fair.

[camaraderie]

Craig...the Supreme Court did NOT say CO2 is a pollutant. Don't lie. What the court said is:

" In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

The correct answer to the QUESTION is :
There is no scientific proof that there is man-made global warming caused by emissions of CO2. CO2 is necessary to life on earth and is not a pollutant...indeed more CO2 may be better on the whole for the planet. Therefore CO2 is not a pollutant within the meaning of the law.

At worst...the EPA should conclude..."The scientific evidence is increasingly unclear and therefore we cannot classify CO2 as harmful until or unless the evidence becomes more clear. Doing otherwise would be both unscientific and a great burden on USA citizens."

But...as usual Craig tries to change the subject. The subject is that the EPA is LYING and burying legimate, scientific analysis from its OWN scientists and staff in order to further a political goal.

The sub-text to industry is.."You had better agree to the Waxman 1200 page Climate Bill or be prepared to face far worse from the EPA"

[ssneade]

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. It is tempting to describe such a cycle as "weak" or "mild," but that could give the wrong impression.

"Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather," points out Biesecker. "The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."

The 1859 storm--known as the "Carrington Event" after astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating solar flare--electrified transmission cables, set fires in telegraph offices, and produced Northern Lights so bright that people could read newspapers by their red and green glow. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a similar storm occurred today, it could cause $1 to 2 trillion in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure and require four to ten years for complete recovery. For comparison, Hurricane Katrina caused "only" $80 to 125 billion in damage.


The latest forecast revises an earlier prediction issued in 2007. At that time, a sharply divided panel believed solar minimum would come in March 2008 followed by either a strong solar maximum in 2011 or a weak solar maximum in 2012. Competing models gave different answers, and researchers were eager for the sun to reveal which was correct.

"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's lead representative on the panel. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."

Researchers have known about the solar cycle since the mid-1800s. Graphs of sunspot numbers resemble a roller coaster, going up and down with an approximately 11-year period. At first glance, it looks like a regular pattern, but predicting the peaks and valleys has proven troublesome. Cycles vary in length from about 9 to 14 years. Some peaks are high, others low. The valleys are usually brief, lasting only a couple of years, but sometimes they stretch out much longer. In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists.


Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.

"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."

In recent months, however, the sun has begun to show timorous signs of life. Small sunspots and "proto-sunspots" are popping up with increasing frequency. Enormous currents of plasma on the sun’s surface ("zonal flows") are gaining strength and slowly drifting toward the sun’s equator. Radio astronomers have detected a tiny but significant uptick in solar radio emissions. All these things are precursors of an awakening Solar Cycle 24 and form the basis for the panel's new, almost unanimous forecast.


According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.

Meanwhile, the sun pays little heed to human committees. There could be more surprises, panelists acknowledge, and more revisions to the forecast.

"Go ahead and mark your calendar for May 2013," says Pesnell. "But use a pencil."

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by ssneade

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. It is tempting to describe such a cycle as "weak" or "mild," but that could give the wrong impression.

"Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather," points out Biesecker. "The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."

Hey, the Mayan calendar runs out in 2013 too.

Edit - December 21st 2012, I looked it up!

"Go ahead and mark your calendar for May 2013," says Pesnell. "But use a pencil."

Many stock market enthusiasts swear that the sun spot cycle affects the markets.

[ssneade]

we're screwed......

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

Hey, the Mayan calendar runs out in 2013 too.

Edit - December 21st 2012, I looked it up!



Many stock market enthusiasts swear that the sun spot cycle affects the markets.

I thought it was April, I was sure it was April.

Are you sure?

I may have to plan to live a little longer if you are correct.

P.S. Anyone got a graph of stock markets with solar overlay?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by therapy23

I thought it was April, I was sure it was April.

Are you sure?

I just did a quick check so I don't really know, anybody got time to find out for sure ?

I may have to plan to live a little longer if you are correct.

P.S. Anyone got a graph of stock markets with solar overlay?