Discussion in 'Environment' started by Zoom-boing, Mar 6, 2010.
FOXNews.com - Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling
The challenges are pure politis, no science involved.
On global warming, the science is solid | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
In recent months, e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom and errors in one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports have caused a flurry of questions about the validity of climate change science.
These issues have led several states, including Texas, to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (also known as greenhouse gases) are a threat to human health.
However, Texas' challenge to the EPA's endangerment finding on carbon dioxide contains very little science. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott admitted that the state did not consult any climate scientists, including the many here in the state, before putting together the challenge to the EPA. Instead, the footnotes in the document reveal that the state relied mainly on British newspaper articles to make its points.
The reality of these key points is not just our opinion. The national academies of science of 32 nations, and every major scientific organization in the United States whose members include climate experts, have issued statements endorsing these points. The entire faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M as well as the Climate System Science group at the University of Texas have issued their own statements endorsing these views (atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/climate-change-statement; Climate Systems Science, Jackson School of Geosciences - News). In fact, to the best of our knowledge, there are no climate scientists in Texas who disagree with the mainstream view of climate science.
We are all aware of the news reports describing the stolen e-mails from climate scientists and the errors in the IPCC reports. While aspects of climate change impacts have been overstated, none of the errors or allegations of misbehavior undermine the science behind any of the statements made above. In particular, they do not alter the conclusions that humans have taken over from nature as the dominant influence on our climate.
This article was submitted by Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University; Katharine Hayhoe, research associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas Tech University; Charles Jackson, research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin; Gerald North, distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University; André Droxler, professor of earth science and director of the Center for the Study of Environment and Society, Rice University; and Rong Fu, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin.
Zoom, you posted from Faux, I posted an article by real scientists.
The integrity of British newspaper reporting is beyond repute.
This just in: Reputable scientists have concluded that oxygen can be hazardous to our health. EPA to monitor oxygen use and tax it.
FURTHERMORE: Reputable scientists have concluded that oxygen when combined with a corresponding amount of hydrogen, in a special chemical process, creates a substance which can also be extremely dangerous to humans. EPA to monitor this chemical compound's use and will be taxing it.
Cap n tax petered out so the EPA wants to do a plan B, shove it through without congressional approval. Yet another governmental power grab. Par for the course for this admin.
You missed the point.
I missed no point at all. We have a situation where we are actively creating a disaster for our descendents, and people like you are more interested in protecting the profits of energy companies than in addressing reality.
Virtually the whole of the scientific communtity states that GHG emissions are creating a situation similiar to other periods of adrupt climate change in the geological history of this planet. Periods that were characterized by major extinctions.
I don't give a flying fuck about the profits of energy companies.
What I do care about is the government exerting more and more control over the people all in the name of science.
What I do care about is not being taxed into oblivion by a bunch of well meaning (yeah right) bureaucrats.
You always try to separate the science from the politics of GW but it cannot be done. So I will always make my decision based on what will secure and increase my freedoms not what will endanger and decrease them.
Like I said, he missed the point.
Separate names with a comma.