Hemp, on another note, the fact that these guys are getting all fizzed up over "upgrade it to clean energy standards" , when we do not as yet know what those standards are, belies their true concern. Which is in a nutshell anything proposed by the current Administration/Congress/Senate.
EPA supresses study skeptical of global warming.
by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest members politics
-
-
read good books
"Why not be a gentleman and answer my question:
ok shakespeare - how many ppm of atmospheric CO2 would you set as a maximumupper limit?
Couple of words"
Well Besty at the risk of being called a gentleman I will give you the old college try although my interest in Global Warming is more the conspiracy side the staments of eliltes that preceeded it in the corridors of power... but anyhow here is the answer you want me to parrott a-www-k the government says and I the will dutifully puppetishly repeat that...
"NASA's top climatologists tell us that the safe upper limit of atmospheric CO2 that we should aim to stay below is probably between 300-350 ppm. We have already overshot it. The longer we stay above that, the less likely we could still turn back the long term climate change that we have set in motion, which will eventually proceed way beyond human control."
Now this is the cut and past that I really believe...
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University"
Al Gore said the science behing Global Warming is settled "he meant it was settled as far as people that he would allow to work for him."
Dr. William Happer, currently a professor of Physics at Princeton University, was once fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, also disagrees with Gore’s claim that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the temperature of the earth and is a threat to mankind. Happer appeared before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb. 25 and explained CO2 is in short-supply in relative terms of the history of the planet.
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene [geologic epoch] – 280 [parts per million (ppm)] – that’s unheard of,” Happer said. “Most of the time, it’s at least 1,000 [ppm] and it’s been quite higher than that.”
Happer said that when CO2 levels were higher – much higher than they are now, the laws of nature still managed to function as we understand them today.
“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said. “You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that, you know, we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”
That directly conflicts with the line Gore has been telling the media for years. In November 2007, Gore told NBC’s “Today” that there was “as strong a consensus as you’ll ever see in science” that global warming was caused by mankind"
-
SacrificialLoon
“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said. “You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that, you know, we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”
That's simply untrue, for the past 800,000 years CO2 levels have been between 200-300ppm. We're now at 390 ppm and going up 1-2 ppm per year.
Edit: looked up current CO2 levels. it's 390.18 as of may 2009, may 2008 was 388.5.
-
-
shamus100
Attack of the cut-and-paste nutjobs!
-
read good books
That's simply untrue, for the past 800,000 years CO2 levels have been between 200-300ppm. We're now at 390 ppm and going up 1-2 ppm per year.
"One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO 2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.
Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO 2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO 2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO 2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO 2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now? "
Adjacent graphic
-
read good books
Shamus I didn't complain when you put those cut and paste pictures of monkeys.
-
shamus100
Point taken.
I've moved on anyways from monkeys...
Thanks again for not quoting Prisonplanet.com . I have really seen progress in you!
-
mkr32208
No burn you and read have become the forums political equivalent of JCanon. Your fools, there is no reason to even bother reading the asinine bile you spew out.
-
read good books
mkr I try to be concise but with questions that come up with Global Warming how can you be? You seem to have a bone to pick with people who see things differently than yourself.
Burns and I don't compare notes his posts are mores main stream conservative his issues revolve more around the science and tax fairness, I agree with that but I also see the men behind it, the banksters the men who are the intergenerationally rich, the royals of Europe and elsewhere, the descendents of the robber barons here. They pull the strings of the puppet politicians around the globe and give you a farce like Global Warming so they can Big Brother regulate every aspect of your life and carbon and stimulus tax their old enemy and competitor the middle class out of existence. I read and heard how they predicted this in their documents, and their memoirs, their building a Global Government with only two economic classes. Their deliberately wrecking our economy.
If you want to call me a crackpot for taking them at their word then go ahead, they count on the public not being able to believe such things.
Shamus thanks but ...I can find the info elsewhere on the net, but the internet broadcasts at prisonplanet.com would wake up anybody to the real world.
