Now that the Environmental Protection Agency has a new boss, we hope the feds will move quickly to reverse the Bush administration's indefensible refusal to allow California and other states to move aggressively against greenhouse gases, the principal cause of global climate change. That's the subject of today's editorial in The Bee.
The Bush EPA, acting at the behest of automakers, flatly denied a waiver California needs to implement strict fuel standards as a way of reducing harmful emissions. It was the first such refusal since the federal Clean Air Act was passed in 1967.
But there's a new team in charge at the White House, and Lisa Jackson, the new EPA chief, has promised quick action. Good.
I remember back in the day when I was a kid and cops pulled over smoking cars and gave them tickets. The restrictions are to strict right now. I have no problem having to get smog checks and stuff but all the fees on gas for it is crazy. I see buses everyday blowing out black smoke everytime they stop and go which is often. Our bad air comes from the North and South and just blows into this hole we live in. Mske them clean up their air and ours will get manageable.
Russ, unfortunately this post and the cited Bee editorial are both utterly asinine.
Is there any such thing as 'global climate change'? How exactly did you measure that? If you can find any scientifically-based defense to that first premise, what makes the Bee editors think that any 'global change' is 'principally caused' by so-called 'greenhouse gases' -- let alone man-made effects?
CO2 is an extremely tiny, naturally-ocurring component of Earth's atmosphere. 95% of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere would be produced annually whether humans lived on the planet or not (and yes that's not an estimate Mike it's the actual proportion). What's 5% of 0.0384%, Russ? What is the entire state of California's '#12 ranked' contribution to that 0.0019% of the atmosphere? Do the Bee's editors honestly believe that even ONE single family's breadwinner should lose his or her auto industry job so that you and Schwarzenegger can feel like you're being 'ecologically progressive'?
The Bush EPA acted at the behest of the Bush White House, which had numerous, rational reasons to oppose the capricious, arbitrary, and hysterical proposals of California's movie-star governor. Arnold is clearly ignorant about not only science, but also economics.
At least in his case pandering to voter ignorance can be seen as preserving his own job, even if it is at the cost of real working people. What is the Bee's excuse?
Tony...Hold on here-we don't want critcal thinking to get in the way of emotionally induced ignorance and a socialist agenda.Are you trying to be a troublemaker?The children have a nanny they like...so don't mess with it by confusing them.
Tony...Hold on here-we don't want critcal thinking to get in the way of emotionally induced ignorance and a socialist agenda.
Take away the words "socialist agenda," and that pretty much describes your's and Tony's approach to this issue. There's far too much information out there to pretend we don't know anything about climate change. Get your denialist head out of the sand and look at what the vast majority of real scientists say, rather than what Rush, Sean or some guy on the internet say.
Tony I partially agree with your statements.
I think Global Warming is pseudo science at best.
On the other hand, when it comes to our water our food and the air we breathe...I want the best available. If that means car makers need to make more efficient cars then so be it. The way I look at it either our health care industry gets really really good curing the health problems that come from polluted air ( asthma, heart attacks and more ) or the people that pollute are held accountable to a set of standards.
"... what the vast majority of real scientists say..." ??? That’s a stretch! Seems that more and more scientists are coming out every day against the media-inspired, agenda-driven, pseudo-science called "global warming."
BTW, did you see the recent news item, "Snow falls in United Arab Emirates for only second time in recorded history..."? 1/24/09
"Global warming," don’t ya know?
T.C., I can't address what "seems" to be the case to you, as that is merely your subjective observation, based on who-knows-what. As for snow in the UAE, do you think "global warming" means that we will have year-round balmy weather simultaneously on every spot on the globe? Unusual and extreme weather events are actually one of the things that was predicted a long time ago. When there is more energy in the atmosphere, we will see more unusual weather, not just more heat.
John, I agree with what you wrote. But CO2 is not a pollutant, so it's a different subject from the one you wrote about.
T.C., you & Brian are both spot on in your posts -- as you've seen many times, all the facts in the world won't open the eyes of someone like Mike D. He's made up his mind, and actual evidence, whether it's the new NASA studies indicating cooling sea temperatures since 2003 or the implications of these two unusually cold winters, to name but 2 recent & uncontroversial examples, won't be enough to convince him he's completely & publicly wrong.
And Mike D., I should tell you that 'heat' is 'energy.' That's actually the definition of heat. And as in T.C.'s extremely salient example, precipitation occurs because of cooling air, not 'more energy' (heat) in the 'atmosphere.' Look it up.
Tony, my mind can be changed. But like I said, I prefer to rely on scientific consensus, not just the opinions of some guy on the internet.
And, yes, I'm aware that heat is energy. Perhaps you should read a textbook on atmospheric processes to see what effects adding more heat/energy can have on the atmosphere. For example, while it's true that cooling air produces precipitation (because it holds less moisture than warm air), that means the air must be warmer to begin with. And the cooling process is the result of air movement, which takes energy (heat). If you think cooler air = more precipitation, please explain why Antarctica is the dryest place on earth, precipitation-wise.
A lot of dissembling, Mike D., as usual with you. It's kind of funny how you contradict the literal words of your own previous post without any apparent sense of self-awareness. But it sounds like you're coming closer to accuracy in your latest one.
Your words don't indicate much expertise in meteorology, or science generally, so I won't waste list time clarifying thermodynamics for you. The bottom line is simply what it was already: T.C., and Brian, and John, and I, were quite right to be skeptical of your and Russ' blind, uncritical, dogmatic acceptance of uninformed media spin related to so-called climate 'change.'
Tony, you accuse me of "dissembling," but your accusation is completely devoid of substance. Please point out where you think I was wrong, or where these alleged "contradictions" are, if you can.
And in the meantime: (A news item):
"Al Gore (Ozone Al) is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming."
"But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings. A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations."
"'I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside,' a Republican lawmaker (said), 'and if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel.'"
O the irony of it all!
Perhaps all future global climate change hearings should be scheduled in the summer, in order to avoid distracting impressionable conservatives with "ironic" January snowfalls.
Hmmm ok Tony I guess the point I am trying to make is that a reduction in the amount of oil we consume is a positive thing. Oil is a pollutant, if by making more fuel efficient cars we use less of it then overall we win.
I am not thrilled that the route towards seeing less pollutants in our air, soil and food is through a pop culture laced phrenology like science. My only hope is that the next step is not reducing the amount of Carbon Dioxide animals produce. I can only hold my breath for so long! =)
You know, if you think the IPCC reports are that far off base, why not make a name for yourself by pointing out all their obvious errors? If you're going to claim that the vast majority of those who devote their careers to studying this topic are wrong to the point of being charlatans, surely you must have some substance to back that up.
Here is a even handed assessment of Global Warming. Presents both sides, sites references.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html
Anthropogenic global warming is the hoax of the ages. The hucksters are out to separate us from our money - Al Gore has made millions - and the people in power just want to bring us further under their thumb.
The fact is: everytime there's sun spot activity on the sun, the weather is warmer. When the sun spot activity diminishes or, as is the current state of affairs, ceases, the temperature gets colder. However, that bit of fact never seems to make into the reports.
This old Earth has been around a long time. It's beyond ridiculous to take data from only the last 150 years and claim that the sky is falling.
Remember, it was only 30 years ago that the "experts" were predicting another ice age. The weatherman can't tell us the weather the next day, yet people seem willing to believe that somebody can predict what's going to happen years from now.
The polar bear population, as measured by people who are actually around them, has gone up, not down. Arctic ice has regained its 1979 levels. Antarctice ice has, I believe, doubled.
The planet is not warming. The sky is not falling. And if you don't like the current economic state of affairs, wait until we have to start paying to "fix" global warming.
Remember, Obama promised that (1) we could not eat whatever we wanted; (2) could not drive the kind of car we wanted; (3) could not keep our thermostats ad 70; and(4) that electricity rates will skyrocket.
Now, that's change.
John, I'm not sure how "even-handed" I would call that article, or how helpful it is. Mostly it's the musings of a journalist expressing his doubts in reasonable-sounding words. I'm not at all persuaded by his preference for the minority scientific opinion. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not ascribe the headline question "proven fact or conventional wisdom?" to him, as that demonstrates a very basic, profound lack of understanding of the way science works. Probably it was a nameless headline writer who wrote that.
Aside from that, there was nothing in that piece that supports your depiction of the majority scientific view of global warming as being akin to phrenology. Where did you come up with that? You seem like a pretty intelligent, reasonable fellow, so I am a bit suprised to see that coming from you. And also a bit troubled, as I fear our nation's acceptance and understanding of science as a whole is receding to pre-Sputnik levels.
****
Roxanna, I appreciate your comments. They make mine look all the more reasonable in comparison.
Mike I am not sure where you come by this idea that because more people think something is so that automatically means it is a fact.
At many points in our human history the majority of intelligent minds have thought that the Sun revolved around the earth. That Phrenology was a sound science and that Eugenics was the only way to go.
I point to all of those because much like Global Warming each and every one was considered the only possible interpretation of the information at hand. By the majority of scientific minds.
Roxanna is correct in many of her statements.
The reality is Global Warming sells. Fear always has.
Mike I am not sure where you come by this idea that because more people think something is so that automatically means it is a fact.
I'm not sure why you believe that's what I think. Notice that I didn't refer to any popular opinion polls. I'm talking about the (vast) majority of those who have devoted their careers to studying this subject. I'm not egotistical enough to believe that my layman's opinion is of equal value to a scientist who has spent countless hours on the topic. If you're going to reject scientific consensus, fine - there's always room for an iconoclast. But you should have a rational basis for it. I'm not seeing that coming from you.
"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history."
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html