Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"The Carbon Confederacy"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "The Carbon Confederacy"

    This might be one of the dumbest articles ever written...
    Terry Tamminen | @terrytamminen
    19 Hours Ago
    CNBC.com

    While there has been a lot of talk recently about removing the Confederate battle flag from public property, there has been a little-watched secessionist movement of a different stripe.

    A number of leaders are calling on states to secede from the union once again — at least as it applies to the national environmental laws that are designed to protect public health and save money. Let's call them the Carbon Confederacy.

    The Jefferson Davis of the Carbon Confederacy is the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. In March, he fired the equivalent of the Fort Sumter "first shot" with a letter to all fifty U.S. state governors that called on them to openly defy the federal government's rules to curb carbon pollution.

    In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases (generally called "carbon" pollution) are air pollutants as defined by the federal Clean Air Act. It is worth noting that the majority of the justices on that court were appointed by presidents of the same political party as Mr. McConnell — a good indicator that this legal decision, and the rules in question, are the result of sound law, policy, and science, not politics.

    [...]

    Commentary by Terry Tamminen, former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. He is also the president of Seventh Generation Advisors and co-founder of the R20 Regions of Climate Action.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/28/carbo...ommentary.html

    SCOTUS did not rule that greenhouse gases were pollutants. Nor did they rule on the science. The ruled that the Clean Air Act empowered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as they saw fit. The fact that John Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford doesn't alter the fact that he was just as far left as any of the Democrat-nominated justices and Anthony Kennedy is as predictable as a coin-toss.

    The EPA doesn't even categorize greenhouse gases as "pollutants."

    More idiocy...
    Just as a few states in the 1800s wanted their citizens to maintain the right to own slaves and formed a Confederacy that seceded from the United States, several governors are proclaiming their intent to defy the EPA...

    There isn't even a remote semblance of analogy here.

    Escape velocity idiocy...
    One state among the rebels, Texas, leads the nation in clean wind power.

    It's worth noting that Denmark today gets more energy than it needs from wind, meaning it has economic certainty (which fossil fuels can't provide) and a good source of export revenue.

    This idiot makes The Guardian appear smart in comparison...



    This is so idiotic that only Tim Allen could reply to it...
    That uncertainty around fossil fuels is highlighted further by the recent news that BP now estimates it will end up paying some $54 billion for its 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, just one example of the true cost of our carbon dependency and another reason the secessionists should be wary of Mr. McConnell's myopic suggestion.



    At least the $54 billion paid by BP for its accident was measured in real money, as opposed to the mentally greent*rded metrics used by Mr. Tamminen and his ilk.
    25
    Efforts to lawfully nullify the EPA's unlawful rules are analogous to slavery and secession.
    8.00%
    2
    Efforts to lawfully nullify the EPA's unlawful rules are not analogous to slavery and secession.
    40.00%
    10
    Greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, are air pollutants.
    16.00%
    4
    Greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, are air not pollutants.
    36.00%
    9
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    The Left regularly engages in logical fallacies, hyperbole, and outright lying to support their positions on things. They aim to get people to react emotionally rather than logically to things. It's the only way their cockamamie, reckless, and often dangerous ideas and agenda can get advanced.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ooooohhhh....ANOTHER climatology conspiracy!

      But wait...doesn't big Oil produce and sell the CAUSE of all of this carbon? Why YES, IT DOES!!


      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Ooooohhhh....ANOTHER climatology conspiracy!

        But wait...doesn't big Oil produce and sell the CAUSE of all of this carbon? Why YES, IT DOES!!


        A "climatology conspiracy" from the source of "climatology hoaxes", our friends of the ACC/AGW gaggle.

        Not "all" 'carbon' is from "Big Oil(Petroleum)"! "Big Coal" does the coal part, "Big Timber" does the wood part, etc.

        Point here, when exobiology looks for carbon as a sign a distant planet could sustain life, seems odd that here on a planet that has life, some of it wants to declare "evil" and "pollution" the very ingredient that is essential.

        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          None of the above. I would say we don't know enough to say what level of pollution is sustainable in most cases.

          Health and ecosystems are tried together in such an intricate web that it is nearly impossible to sort out the true cost of pollution.

          That pollution is a human rights issue makes it somewhat equivalent to the slavery issue. The right of people to a reasonable clean environment conflicts with the rights of corporations and individual to engage in industry. Just as with slavery property rights do not supersede more basic human rights.

          On the other hand most environmentalist fail to take note of the connection between health and economic development. Historically living the "natural" life meant a very short life. The average life expectancy of a mountain man for example was two years. The benefits of a civilized economy cannot be underestimated.

          The fact that the "green" movement has been hijacked by Marxist does not mean that we have no need for agencies such as the EPA. In the end to be well regulated is the foundation of civilization. The question is not if we need to regulate but how to regulate.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            None of the above. I would say we don't know enough to say what level of pollution is sustainable in most cases.

            Health and ecosystems are tried together in such an intricate web that it is nearly impossible to sort out the true cost of pollution.

            That pollution is a human rights issue makes it somewhat equivalent to the slavery issue. The right of people to a reasonable clean environment conflicts with the rights of corporations and individual to engage in industry. Just as with slavery property rights do not supersede more basic human rights.

            On the other hand most environmentalist fail to take note of the connection between health and economic development. Historically living the "natural" life meant a very short life. The average life expectancy of a mountain man for example was two years. The benefits of a civilized economy cannot be underestimated.

            The fact that the "green" movement has been hijacked by Marxist does not mean that we have no need for agencies such as the EPA. In the end to be well regulated is the foundation of civilization. The question is not if we need to regulate but how to regulate.
            The focus is upon one substance only, carbon dioxide~CO2, which EPA and the whole human-caused/anthropogenic "climate change" crowd is calling "pollution".

            Anyone whom paid attention in basic science classes at middle school/junior high school level and above, better yet passed such courses, should know that carbon dioxide/CO2 is an essential-critical element for 99%+ of life on this planet, that being the flora/green plants.

            1) There is a logic disconnect in tagging a natural component and one critical to life as "pollution".

            2) There is a science (and semantics) disconnect to claim carbon dioxide/CO2 is a "pollution".

            3) There is an anti-life agenda if one continues to make the above two disconnects despite all efforts and resources to learn and know better.

            Bottom-line, anyone advancing that CO2 is a "pollution" that needs to be restrained or reduced is an active enemy of life and humanity, should be "dispatched" accordingly.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #7
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                The focus is upon one substance only, carbon dioxide~CO2, which EPA and the whole human-caused/anthropogenic "climate change" crowd is calling "pollution".

                Anyone whom paid attention in basic science classes at middle school/junior high school level and above, better yet passed such courses, should know that carbon dioxide/CO2 is an essential-critical element for 99%+ of life on this planet, that being the flora/green plants.

                1) There is a logic disconnect in tagging a natural component and one critical to life as "pollution".

                2) There is a science (and semantics) disconnect to claim carbon dioxide/CO2 is a "pollution".

                3) There is an anti-life agenda if one continues to make the above two disconnects despite all efforts and resources to learn and know better.

                Bottom-line, anyone advancing that CO2 is a "pollution" that needs to be restrained or reduced is an active enemy of life and humanity, should be "dispatched" accordingly.
                I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here. What I have always maintained is that it would be easier for someone at junior high school level to master relativity than the complexities of biology and earth science at the level required to definitively determine the influence of co2 in the atmosphere. Complexity is the enemy here and discounting it gives neither side in the debate credibility.

                The increase in co2 in the atmosphere is likely to have both beneficial and harmful effects. If you add the short term and long term influences the problem is even less amenable to easy answers.

                We need to understand the climate that is what is clear. The current debate seems to serve little toward that end and it is likely to be a very long time before climate predictions are accurate enough for policy decisions. In this vacuum the need for policy does not simply disappear.

                For me in the short run the possibility of global cooling remains the greatest threat to humanity. The climate models however cannot hope to deal with predictions on the scale of seasons. Policies that deal with possible events that influence water and food security should therefor be our highest priority and take into account uncertainty.

                The long term goals of policy on co2 have proved to be a failure as witnessed by the limited impact any of the proposed IPCC changes are likely to have. With that in mind serious attention needs to be given to other better understood possibilities than Global Warming.

                What distinguish my position from the other debaters is my willingness to admit that I just don't know what the temperature will be in 50 years and I doubt if either side in the debate does either.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9


                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here. What I have always maintained is that it would be easier for someone at junior high school level to master relativity than the complexities of biology and earth science at the level required to definitively determine the influence of co2 in the atmosphere. Complexity is the enemy here and discounting it gives neither side in the debate credibility.

                    The increase in co2 in the atmosphere is likely to have both beneficial and harmful effects. If you add the short term and long term influences the problem is even less amenable to easy answers.

                    We need to understand the climate that is what is clear. The current debate seems to serve little toward that end and it is likely to be a very long time before climate predictions are accurate enough for policy decisions. In this vacuum the need for policy does not simply disappear.

                    For me in the short run the possibility of global cooling remains the greatest threat to humanity. The climate models however cannot hope to deal with predictions on the scale of seasons. Policies that deal with possible events that influence water and food security should therefor be our highest priority and take into account uncertainty.

                    The long term goals of policy on co2 have proved to be a failure as witnessed by the limited impact any of the proposed IPCC changes are likely to have. With that in mind serious attention needs to be given to other better understood possibilities than Global Warming.

                    What distinguish my position from the other debaters is my willingness to admit that I just don't know what the temperature will be in 50 years and I doubt if either side in the debate does either.
                    QUOTE:

                    Now it's ACC/AGW and the culprit is carbon dioxide, especially the human caused increase. The "case" claimed is that it's the slight increase from 300 ppm to nearly 400 ppm over the past century that is causing Earth to "have a fever".

                    400ppm works out to a ratio of 1 part CO2 for every 2500 parts of the total, dry atmosphere. Supposedly the heat retained by this "one part" causes the other 2499 parts to also get warmer = Global (atmospheric) Warming.

                    Here's an at home experiment one can do to illustrate this concept.

                    Take an empty two liter plastic soda bottle and fill it with two liters of water (distilled would be best). This will represent that 2500 parts of the atmosphere mentioned above. Get the two liters warmed to 70 degrees F.

                    Now remove 0.8ml (milliliters), this equals about 1/4 teaspoon (tsp), USA. (Actually a bit closer to 1/3 tsp, but more likely one has the 1/4 in their measuring spoon selection and gives us some extra for evaporation).

                    Heat the 1/4 teaspoon to 75 degrees F. (real temperature increase is more like two degrees, but we're setting a cushion here.) You can use a kitchen thermometer for these temp. readings.

                    Now quickly add that 1/4 teaspoon back into the two liter of water and mix thoroughly.

                    Notice how much the two liters has increased in temperature. ()

                    Okay, you may have to do this often to get a measurable temperature increase ().

                    Once (if) you do, please record and document to show the world.

                    ()
                    borrowed from http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=148996

                    It's a Bill Nye Science Guy sort of home experiment but guess you can see why Nye won't be doing it.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here. What I have always maintained is that it would be easier for someone at junior high school level to master relativity than the complexities of biology and earth science at the level required to definitively determine the influence of co2 in the atmosphere. Complexity is the enemy here and discounting it gives neither side in the debate credibility.

                      The increase in co2 in the atmosphere is likely to have both beneficial and harmful effects. If you add the short term and long term influences the problem is even less amenable to easy answers.

                      We need to understand the climate that is what is clear. The current debate seems to serve little toward that end and it is likely to be a very long time before climate predictions are accurate enough for policy decisions. In this vacuum the need for policy does not simply disappear.

                      For me in the short run the possibility of global cooling remains the greatest threat to humanity. The climate models however cannot hope to deal with predictions on the scale of seasons. Policies that deal with possible events that influence water and food security should therefor be our highest priority and take into account uncertainty.

                      The long term goals of policy on co2 have proved to be a failure as witnessed by the limited impact any of the proposed IPCC changes are likely to have. With that in mind serious attention needs to be given to other better understood possibilities than Global Warming.

                      What distinguish my position from the other debaters is my willingness to admit that I just don't know what the temperature will be in 50 years and I doubt if either side in the debate does either.
                      Or try this;

                      CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests

                      EXCERPTS:

                      If you talk to the global warming crowd, carbon dioxide -- CO2 -- is the enemy of mankind. Any and all creation of CO2 is bad for the planet, we're told, and its production must be strictly limited in order to save the world.

                      But what if that wasn't true? What if CO2 were actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants?

                      CO2 is a vital nutrient for food crops

                      As it turns out, CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

                      The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

                      CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

                      If you want to understand why CO2 is an essential nutrient for food crop growth, check out this informative slide show. It explains that "CO2 may be repidly depleted during crop production" daylight hours, because the plants pull all the CO2 out of the air and use it in photosynthesis.

                      The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a "CO2 depletion" to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the "Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses" fact sheet explains:

                      Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.

                      Thus, greenhouse plants are "running out" of CO2. They are starving for it. And when you add it to food crops, you get higher yields, improved taste, shorter flowering times, enhanced pest resistance and other benefits.
                      ....
                      This brings up an obvious answer for what to do with all the CO2 produced by power plants, office buildings and even fitness centers where people exhale vast quantities of CO2. The answer is to build adjacent greenhouses and pump the CO2 into the greenhouses.

                      Every coal-fired power plant, in other words, should have a vast array of greenhouses surrounding it. Most of what you see emitted from power plant smokestacks is water vapor and CO2, both essential nutrients for rapid growth of food crops. By diverting carbon dioxide and water into greenhouses, the problem of emissions is instantly solved because the plants update the CO2 and use it for photosynthesis, thus "sequestering" the CO2 while rapidly growing food crops. It also happens to produce oxygen as a "waste product" which can be released into the atmosphere, (slightly) upping the oxygen level of the air we breathe.
                      ...
                      The U.S. government's solution to power plant emissions, however, is to just shut down coal-fired power plants, causing rolling blackouts across the USA, especially during hot summer days. The EPA has forced hundreds of power plants to shut down across the USA, achieving a loss of power infrastructure that vastly exceeds what would even be possible by an enemy invasion of high-altitude warplanes dropping bombs.

                      The EPA, under the excuse of "saving the planet," is destroying America's power infrastructure and leading our nation into a third-world scenario where power availability is dicey and unsustained. It seems to be just one part of the overall plan to gut America's economy, offshore millions of jobs, put everybody on welfare and destroy small businesses.

                      But what if we harnessed coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down? ...
                      ...
                      See, the solutions to all our problems already exist. The only reason we are suffering as a nation is because political puppets try to brainwash us into believing complete falsehoods like, "carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant" or "the people don't need healthy foods; they need medications and vaccines." When societies believe falsehoods, they crumble and collapse.

                      That's where America is headed, of course. And it's all being accelerated by deceptive bureaucrats who want to convince you that growing real food is bad and we should all be punished for exhaling carbon dioxide, an essential nutrient for food crops. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy it's been made out to be. It's actually plant nutrition that helps regrow rainforests, food crops and wetlands. In fact, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would make the planet more lush and abundant in terms of plant life, forests, trees and food crops.
                      http://www.naturalnews.com/039720_ca...nutrition.html

                      Borrowed from http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=148996
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just wait until the price of anything having to be welded together using steel and MiG welding jumps too. CO2 is the primary shield gas for such welding.

                        The price of carbonated beverages will jump. So will the cost of many other foods. Even water treatment will increase in cost.

                        http://www.praxair.com/gases/buy-liq...b=applications

                        There are lots and lots of uses for CO2. Once it is declared a "pollutant" it becomes regulated and each and every user can be likewise regulated.
                        Of course, our moron fiends in the Enviromarxist movement won't recognize this until disaster strikes. They they'll be trying to fix what they f***ed up in the first place because of their lack of ability to think.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Just wait until the price of anything having to be welded together using steel and MiG welding jumps too. CO2 is the primary shield gas for such welding.

                          The price of carbonated beverages will jump. So will the cost of many other foods. Even water treatment will increase in cost.

                          http://www.praxair.com/gases/buy-liq...b=applications

                          There are lots and lots of uses for CO2. Once it is declared a "pollutant" it becomes regulated and each and every user can be likewise regulated.
                          Of course, our moron fiends in the Enviromarxist movement won't recognize this until disaster strikes. They they'll be trying to fix what they f***ed up in the first place because of their lack of ability to think.
                          I would be careful assuming they are unable to think as clearly as the opposition. For both the left and the right the masses may appear shallow and incompetent but the leaders of both sides would be more accurately describe as cynical.

                          What you have to remember is that the Marxist do not considered the destruction of society as a bad thing but as a necessary step toward utopia.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty

                            In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.


                            The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure

                            “In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”
                            http://www.theguardian.com/environme...overty-rejects

                            The people at the World Bank know how silly these statements are. The leaders of India and China have largely rejected calls for them to reduce green house gas emissions because they understand the economic impact and it would be absurd to think they are less well informed than the World Bank.

                            It is a matter of faith for many well informed individuals that national interests and economic development must take second place to global interests. What is happening could be considered a conspiracy but since it is happening with a very public face it would better be described as a movement toward globalization. The influence of Marxist philosophy however means that the interest of individuals is always secondary to the interest of the groups. In the end everyone is expendable in seeking the objective of world peace and harmony.

                            The fact that the rich and powerful are silent partners in this "conspiracy" can be explained the same way they provided little opposition in Germany to Hitler and that is they think they can control it. Just as the landed aristocrats of the South mourned the downfall of their society after the civil war I suspect the rich and powerful will be mourning their failure to see the desigration of society if the primacy of individual rights is not restored.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This bimbo is a moron...
                              In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal...

                              Oil and gas companies are direct competitors to the coal industry. Whatever hurts the coal industry, helps the oil and gas industry... However, whatever hurts the coal industry, harms consumers of electricity.

                              The mythical social costs of carbon do not outweigh the real costs of poverty in the Third World. Denying the Third World access to affordable, reliable energy (coal, oil and natural gas) is tantamount to a crime against humanity.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X