Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions

[Polk]

Now were arguing levels of draconian authoritarian central control over the whole population (except, of course, for the regulatiors), based upon a hoax?

Oh, brother.

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those crazed conspiracy theorists who thinks there is some secret scientific cabal.

Its obviously that global warming is a hoax. The fact that you've fallen for it doesnt change that its rather stupid to give up our rights and strengthen a potential totalitarian style government to fix a problem that doesnt exist.

It's not "obvious". The vast majority of scientists support the theory. That a few cranks sitting at their keyboards think some vast scientific conspiracy exists doesn't change that fact. If there were an actual problem with the theory, you'd have people actively trying to show why it's false. That there isn't and instead keyboard commandos like yourself are rattling on and on about some secret plan by scientists to enslave you speaks volumes about the science. Limiting the amount of polluants that can be pumped into the air equals totalitarianism? Do you even stop and think before you speak?

 

[Oddball]

Your "vast majority of scientists" talking point is a fiction as well.

Attacking those who point out such facts as "cranks" and "keyboard commandos" merely further gives away the complete weakness of your collectivist authoritarian wet dream.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not "obvious". The vast majority of scientists support the theory. That a few cranks sitting at their keyboards think some vast scientific conspiracy exists doesn't change that fact. If there were an actual problem with the theory, you'd have people actively trying to show why it's false. That there isn't and instead keyboard commandos like yourself are rattling on and on about some secret plan by scientists to enslave you speaks volumes about the science. Limiting the amount of polluants that can be pumped into the air equals totalitarianism? Do you even stop and think before you speak?

There are people actively showing why its false. Namely the lack of any warming in the past decade.

I remember growing up and being told as a kid that global warming would flood NYC and other coastal cities by 2010. If they were wrong then why should I believe anything is different?

You do realize that these alleged pollutants are the very gases humans exhale dont you? You do realize that nature has already placed a system in order that converts what we exhale back to oxygen dont you?

You dont know what science is. Consensus isnt science. You cant vote on what reality is. Tell me, why do scientists have to manufacture figures and hide data if the science is settled and they are being honest? People who tell the truth dont have to manufacture evidence.

 

[Polk]

Your "vast majority of scientists" talking point is a fiction as well.

Attacking those who point out such facts as "cranks" and "keyboard commandos" merely further gives away the complete weakness of your collectivist authoritarian wet dream.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#

 

[Polk]

It's not "obvious". The vast majority of scientists support the theory. That a few cranks sitting at their keyboards think some vast scientific conspiracy exists doesn't change that fact. If there were an actual problem with the theory, you'd have people actively trying to show why it's false. That there isn't and instead keyboard commandos like yourself are rattling on and on about some secret plan by scientists to enslave you speaks volumes about the science. Limiting the amount of polluants that can be pumped into the air equals totalitarianism? Do you even stop and think before you speak?

There are people actively showing why its false. Namely the lack of any warming in the past decade.

Except that your claim is false.

An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

...

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

...

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

...

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com

You do realize that these alleged pollutants are the very gases humans exhale dont you? You do realize that nature has already placed a system in order that converts what we exhale back to oxygen dont you?

The Earth has processes in place to deal with naturally produced CO2. It does not have a mechanism for dealing with the additional CO2 humans are adding via artificial processes, which is why the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 35 percent in the past 200 years.

You dont know what science is. Consensus isnt science. You cant vote on what reality is. Tell me, why do scientists have to manufacture figures and hide data if the science is settled and they are being honest? People who tell the truth dont have to manufacture evidence.

Don't need to have a vote. The data is crystal clear. You can claim the books are cooked all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Oddball]

Your "vast majority of scientists" talking point is a fiction as well.

Attacking those who point out such facts as "cranks" and "keyboard commandos" merely further gives away the complete weakness of your collectivist authoritarian wet dream.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Yeah....928 papers out of 11,000+ submitted.

Little wonder that none of those allowed to be considered disagreed with the trumped-up "consensus".

"Back in the real world" indeed.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those crazed conspiracy theorists who thinks there is some secret scientific cabal.

Its obviously that global warming is a hoax. The fact that you've fallen for it doesnt change that its rather stupid to give up our rights and strengthen a potential totalitarian style government to fix a problem that doesnt exist.

It's not "obvious". The vast majority of scientists support the theory. That a few cranks sitting at their keyboards think some vast scientific conspiracy exists doesn't change that fact. If there were an actual problem with the theory, you'd have people actively trying to show why it's false. That there isn't and instead keyboard commandos like yourself are rattling on and on about some secret plan by scientists to enslave you speaks volumes about the science. Limiting the amount of polluants that can be pumped into the air equals totalitarianism? Do you even stop and think before you speak?

This total load of crap might actually be worth at least fertilizer, except your champion refuses to enter into any serious debate. Gore has been challenged to numerous opportunities to explain over the last several YEARS. Original data exists in two places now and they are not sharing. At least one data source yesterday was shown here and the results were very damning to your side.

The scienitific community is very much like our own country. The citizens can object all they want, but their elected leaders can spout junk like this all day long. Peer review is a joke. Very similiar to having the Democrats review Health Care Reform.

 

[beowolfe]

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

If emissions are truly destroying the planet, then why is there any 'trading' and any money chaning hands at all? Just cap emissions, no money involved, then maybe I'd believe their reasons were altruistic, even though the so called science is bull shit. They don't give a damn about the environment, they give a damn about their investments and all the billions to be made off of carbon trading, that's the bottom line.

Because those arguing like you have already screamed bloody murder at hard caps with no ability to evade them.

 

[beowolfe]

That's just hunky dory, let's kill millions more jobs!!!! God forbid you breath or pass gas, you will get your taxes raised. lol That's an idea, let's hang a meter around everyone's neck and see how much co2 they are putting out and you can just pay on a sliding scale according to your emmisions count. LOL

Are you seriously just worried about them killing jobs? Im much more concerned with the logical conclusion of this "regulate CO2" attempt. After all, one of the biggest contributors to CO2 in the environment is exhaling. How long before they start trying to stop that in order to "Save our planet"?

You just lost the modicum of credibility that you had.

 

[Polk]

This total load of crap might actually be worth at least fertilizer, except your champion refuses to enter into any serious debate. Gore has been challenged to numerous opportunities to explain over the last several YEARS.

There is no reason for Gore to debate. The research stands for itself and Gore is not a scientist. He knows that the reason deniers want him to enter into a debate is so they can find a cherry-picked skeptical scientist to talk circles around him and make it look like Gore is out of touch with the scientific community. Meanwhile, the reality is that the vast majority of scientists agree as to the causes of climate change, while a few, mostly people on the payroll of energy companies, deny it. The credibility of the bought and paid for deniers is equal to those researchers on the payrolls of the tobacco companies who claims cigarettes had no negative impact on health.

I guess if you wanted to put him a non-scientist, you could have him debate one of your champions like anti-Semite and proven fraud like Chris Monckton.

 

[Newby]

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

If emissions are truly destroying the planet, then why is there any 'trading' and any money chaning hands at all? Just cap emissions, no money involved, then maybe I'd believe their reasons were altruistic, even though the so called science is bull shit. They don't give a damn about the environment, they give a damn about their investments and all the billions to be made off of carbon trading, that's the bottom line.

Because those arguing like you have already screamed bloody murder at hard caps with no ability to evade them.

Do you seriously believe that? You really believe that none of these people are out to make serious money on this? That is their SOLE motivation. Carbon is the result of every action a human being takes on this planet, it has no intrinsic value. They've found a way to give it value, declare it 'bad' for you, and therefore control it and you while making billions in the deal. And you wonder why they defend it so vehemently and bake the science books to make the fools of the world believe what they are saying? In 20 years you will regret that you fell for this scheme.

 

[Newby]

This total load of crap might actually be worth at least fertilizer, except your champion refuses to enter into any serious debate. Gore has been challenged to numerous opportunities to explain over the last several YEARS.

There is no reason for Gore to debate. The research stands for itself and Gore is not a scientist. He knows that the reason deniers want him to enter into a debate is so they can find a cherry-picked skeptical scientist to talk circles around him and make it look like Gore is out of touch with the scientific community. Meanwhile, the reality is that the vast majority of scientists agree as to the causes of climate change, while a few, mostly people on the payroll of energy companies, deny it. The credibility of the bought and paid for deniers is equal to those researchers on the payrolls of the tobacco companies who claims cigarettes had no negative impact on health.

I guess if you wanted to put him a non-scientist, you could have him debate one of your champions like anti-Semite and proven fraud like Chris Monckton.

Al Gore is an idiot, and he thinks you are one too, cause you're going to pay millions in taxes in order to emmit carbon and he's going to make millions in the process.

Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees'

 

[saveliberty]

This total load of crap might actually be worth at least fertilizer, except your champion refuses to enter into any serious debate. Gore has been challenged to numerous opportunities to explain over the last several YEARS.

There is no reason for Gore to debate. The research stands for itself and Gore is not a scientist. He knows that the reason deniers want him to enter into a debate is so they can find a cherry-picked skeptical scientist to talk circles around him and make it look like Gore is out of touch with the scientific community. Meanwhile, the reality is that the vast majority of scientists agree as to the causes of climate change, while a few, mostly people on the payroll of energy companies, deny it. The credibility of the bought and paid for deniers is equal to those researchers on the payrolls of the tobacco companies who claims cigarettes had no negative impact on health.

I guess if you wanted to put him a non-scientist, you could have him debate one of your champions like anti-Semite and proven fraud like Chris Monckton.

Hell, I'd debate him. Your right the vast number of scientists do agree on the causes of climate change. It starts with the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes and POSSIBLY MAN. The research stands as fraud at the moment. Did I mention the Antarctia ice cap is GROWING and contains 90% of the world's ice?