EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Threaten Health and Environment

Environment • Views: 2,766

In a press release obviously timed to coincide with the opening of the Copenhagen climate change summit, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people: 12/07/2009: EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity.

EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world.

Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.

President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.

This is a welcome change from the obstructionist policies of the Bush administration: Survey Finds Bush Administration Interfering with EPA Scientists.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2008 (ENS) - The Bush administration has frequently meddled with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a survey released today by a scientific advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that nearly two-thirds of the 1,586 staff EPA scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained of recent political interference with their work.

The reported interference is greatest in offices where scientists write regulations and conduct risk assessments.

“Our investigation found an agency in crisis,” said Francesca Grifo, director of Union of Concerned Scientists’s Scientific Integrity Program, who contends the report reflects an effort by the administration to distort science to “accommodate a narrow political agenda.”

The investigation shows that researchers “are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations,” said Grifo.

The report is the latest addition to a long list of complaints by scientists across the federal government who say the Bush administration has inappropriately interfered with their work and frequently manipulated science for the benefit of industry.

Jump to bottom

389 comments
1 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:48:48pm

OMG! Bush lied! Carbon offsets died!//

2 koedo  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:50:45pm

Not only does the announcement coincide with Copenhagen it also gives the EPA new and unprecedented powers which the EPA will now wield via nothing more than fiat, if I understand correctly. That shouldn't make anyone nervous, no.

You know what they say about good intentions.

3 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:51:27pm

Of course...every time the MSM reminds us how horrible we had it under the evil, lying manipulative Bush administration, I can't help but wonder what amazing colossal cowpie Obama is getting ready to step into.

I'm guessing it'll be some sort of Danish cowpie this month.

4 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:52:15pm

re: #3 Fenway_Nation

You wouldn't happen to be planning a flounce-off, would you?

5 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:52:57pm

re: #2 koedo

You know what they say about good intentions.

Isn't that what Copenhagen is all about?

6 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:53:51pm

re: #4 Charles

Not really, but that's your call.

7 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:54:22pm

So, what? Wipe out the coal industry? Electricity is overrated.

8 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:57:34pm

re: #7 Cannadian Club Akbar

So, what? Wipe out the coal industry? Electricity is overrated.

At least we can hold ourselves to a high standard. We will hold others responsible, eventually.

9 Hector1980  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:58:26pm

I bet this is going to cause a right-wing sh*tstorm. Maybe even a Tea Party or two.

10 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:59:00pm

Good deal - if they can't legislate what they want, regulate it. A victory for anyone that thinks this whole 2 party system is overrated.

11 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:59:18pm

Let's just hope that Hopenhagen doesn't wind up looking more like Mopenhagen.

12 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:59:59pm

After watching Ghostbusters, I no longer trust the EPA.

13 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:27pm

re: #10 brent

Good deal - if they can't legislate what they want, regulate it. A victory for anyone that thinks this whole 2 party system is overrated.

I think this whole "goony anti-science snake-handlers representing large swaths of the country" is overrated, myself.

14 ryannon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:40pm

re: #7 Cannadian Club Akbar

So, what? Wipe out the coal industry? Electricity is overrated.

Shocka!

15 allegro  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:45pm

Since industry seems unwilling to regulate itself in the interest of short-term profits, it would seem that external regulation may be called for.

16 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:58pm

re: #12 Racer X

After watching Ghostbusters, I no longer trust the EPA.

"...until dickless here shut off the power grid..."

17 brookly red  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:04pm

re: #10 brent

Good deal - if they can't legislate what they want, regulate it. A victory for anyone that thinks this whole 2 party system is overrated.

/very inefficient, let's just get right to the taxing it part.

18 Big Steve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:06pm

AWG is real and needs to be dealt with but blaming George W. Bush is just...well...unmanly.

19 haole  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:09pm

Oh good lord

20 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:20pm

I just think having the epa come out with this in concert with legislation in the works smacks of blackmail. A regulatory agency that's running ahead of the debates in congress does not fill me with joy, regardless of what they regulate. It did wonders for say the trucking industy in the 70s.

21 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:28pm

By the way, it's not "the mainstream media" who were complaining of Bush administration suppression of scientific evidence -- it's a large group of scientists.

I know it's not very fashionable with some people to say so, but the Bush administration record on science is absolutely horrible. If you doubt this, please read this book, which has numerous well-documented examples of this suppression:

The Republican War on Science.

It was a real eye-opener for me. I knew some of this stuff, but I was a bit shocked to find out how deep the Bush administration's antipathy for scientific research really was.

22 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:50pm

But, but, we've done good!!
[Link: www.reuters.com...]

23 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:03:18pm

re: #16 WindUpBird

"...until dickless here shut off the power grid..."

"Is that true?"

24 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:03:42pm

re: #12 Racer X

After watching Ghostbusters, I no longer trust the EPA.

Are you honestly using a science-fiction comedy movie to speak to the credibility of the EPA... I saw that movie, i saw how the EPA was portrayed in that movie... ok, there's a problem :)

25 Big Steve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:03:49pm

re: #23 Racer X

"Is that true?"

Yes its true...he has no dick.

26 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:03:57pm

re: #23 Racer X

"Is that true?"

Yes, this man has no dick.
/

27 haole  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:04:28pm

>>>nudge___cliff

28 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:04:45pm
29 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:05:38pm

Carbon dioxide is bad? Really? Try telling that to a plant.

30 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:06:04pm
31 solomonpanting  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:06:16pm

re: #2 koedo

Not only does the announcement coincide with Copenhagen it also gives the EPA new and unprecedented powers which the EPA will now wield via nothing more than fiat, if I understand correctly. That shouldn't make anyone nervous, no.

You know what they say about good intentions.

From the link:

However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

So it would appear the EPA is acting within their Supreme-Court-given- rights to fix the problem.

Also:

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.
Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise, too — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.

32 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:06:45pm

re: #28 IanMc

Humor me.

Would humans be able to alter earth's climate with say, 1000 nuclear bombs?

33 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:06:56pm

No, it's hydrogen dioxide that's bad...

34 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:07:37pm

re: #28 IanMc

Please don't confuse carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and then pretend to know what you are talking about.

35 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:08:02pm

I'll grant you the fact that greenhouse gases are damaging to the environment as long as you recognize that torpedoing the US economy by requiring caps on emissions would do precisely nothing, nada, zilch to stem the warming so long as countries like Russia, China, Brazil and India refuse to cooperate.

36 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:08:34pm

re: #30 Big Steve

I think you are thinking of Carbon Monoxide...

CO2 in a confined space can be lethal. It displaces the oxygen in the air and you suffocate. Beer and soft drink systems use CO2 canisters.

37 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:08:57pm

re: #28 IanMc

Really... name one email that debunks climate change.

38 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:09:08pm

re: #34 Thanos

Please don't confuse carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and then pretend to know what you are talking about.

I have a nice stash of carbon trioxide!...stuff is priceless!...bwahahahaha!

39 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:09:29pm

re: #29 brent

Yes, it is bad in sufficient quantities. Overabundant CO2 causes large insect infestations in crops.

40 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:09:29pm

re: #28 IanMc

You should have been banned when you defended circulating a picture of Barack Obama with a bone through his nose. Why am I not surprised to find that you're also an irrational, ignorant climate change denier?

And after that ridiculous spew, now you are banned. Get off my website.

41 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:09:45pm

re: #36 Racer X

CO2 in a confined space can be lethal. It displaces the oxygen in the air and you suffocate. Beer and soft drink systems use CO2 canisters.

Don't blame the beer, please.
/

42 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:10:22pm

re: #40 Charles

You should have been banned when you defended circulating a picture of Barack Obama with a bone through his nose. Why am I not surprised to find that you're also an irrational, ignorant climate change denier?

And now you are. Get off my website.

Charles... I didn't get my question answered from him :)

43 Cathypop  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:10:50pm

re: #42 Walter L. Newton
Oh just make one up!

44 ryannon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:11:25pm

He's dead, Jim.

45 Cato the Elder  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:11:34pm

Go, EPA!

Now let them figure out how to stop the "avalanche of hot meat that eats everything in sight, makes love, and doubles in size" that is humanity (Kurt Vonnegut) and maybe I'll start to cheer instead of despair.

46 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:11:39pm

re: #13 WindUpBird

I think this whole "goony anti-science snake-handlers representing large swaths of the country" is overrated, myself.

Disenfranchise the idiots, that'll solve everything. They may even thank us for it, in the end.
/

47 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:12:00pm

re: #42 Walter L. Newton

Charles... I didn't get my question answered from him :)

re: #44 ryannon

He's dead, Jim.

LOL!

48 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:12:42pm

Supper... bbiab...

49 The Curmudgeon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:12:46pm

re: #30 Big Steve

I think you are thinking of Carbon Monoxide...

Iceberg, Goldberg ...

50 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:14:09pm

As far as the lethality of CO2, people who use kerosene, wood, and coal heaters that are improperly fueled and maintained die from it every year.

51 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:14:34pm

re: #15 allegro

Since industry seems unwilling to regulate itself in the interest of short-term profits, it would seem that external regulation may be called for.

There are actually sound, responsible, well-run utility companies in this country. My pet peeve is that they take a collateral beating whenever Enron goes flooey, or the California NIMBYs disrupt the power supplies.

52 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:14:54pm

re: #48 Walter L. Newton

Supper... bbiab...

Mangez bien.

53 rurality  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:15:06pm

re: #21 Charles

I know people prefer to lump all issues with Bush as BDS, it's easier to be dismissive and it makes ODS seem more of the same, less insane. However, articles like those you sighted, Bush's 'absolutely horrible" record on science, are why I don't think a lot of Bush criticism is not derangement.

54 swamprat  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:15:32pm

Free at last!
Free at last!
Thanks to Obama:
the EPA is free at last!

55 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:16:11pm

and they couldn't have told us this sooner...?

/

56 allegro  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:16:36pm

re: #51 The Sanity Inspector

No argument. It's the industry that will not self-regulate, and much more than the utility industry (I suspect they are the most responsible overall in many ways), that result in needed regulation.

57 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:17:23pm

re: #50 Thanos

but...but... Michelle Bachman told me that because it was a natural product of God's earth that it was harmless...

58 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:17:41pm

For anyone who cares about accountability from our government, it is absolutely terrifying that the EPA will be able to do via fiat what Congress was unable to do democratically.

Also, the Supreme Court case that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from cars was passed by a 5-4 majority - not necessarily the broadest mandate out there and I would not be surprised in the least to see these regulations challenged and sent to the Supreme Court again.

59 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:18:57pm

re: #18 Big Steve

AWG is real and needs to be dealt with but blaming George W. Bush is just...well...unmanly.

A blunt and honest comparison is not "blame." Bush had evidence of climate change classified, but now somehow it's bad sport to praise this administration's approach in comparison to that kind of ridiculous dishonesty?

60 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:18:58pm

re: #54 swamprat

Free at last!
Free at last!
Thanks to Obama:
the EPA is free at last!

Actually it's due to the Supreme Court decision back in Spring 2007 which I wrote about back in 2007 -- back then I was more skeptical of AGW's immediancy (I've been convinced of the fact of AGW since the early 80's however,) and wrote this
[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

61 jdog29  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:19:17pm

re: #58 mwalke5

For anyone who cares about accountability from our government, it is absolutely terrifying that the EPA will be able to do via fiat what Congress was unable to do democratically.

Also, the Supreme Court case that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from cars was passed by a 5-4 majority - not necessarily the broadest mandate out there and I would not be surprised in the least to see these regulations challenged and sent to the Supreme Court again.

Not to worry, Big Brother will take care of us all. *staring and smiling hypnotically into space*

62 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:19:41pm

Nitrous Oxide is a prime culprit in the photochemical smog that envelops LA from time to time.

I grew up there in the 1950s and it was much worse then than it is in LA today.

Progress was made, much progress, by persistence, technology, and laws that were enforced, and made fun of, and bitched about.

But all that did save a lot of people's lungs, including children's lungs.

So these kinds of problems can be met.

Let's meet this climate problem.

63 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:19:54pm

re: #57 wozzablog

but...but... Michelle Bachman told me that because it was a natural product of God's earth that it was harmless...

right...so are opiates, arsenic, cyanides etc...no harm, no foul!

64 allegro  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:19:56pm

re: #58 mwalke5

From what I've been seeing, Congress can't do sh*t democratically any more. To me that's more "terrifying" when there are urgent issues that must be dealt with.

65 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:20:32pm

re: #58 mwalke5

Why is it terrifying? Should the EPA not be able to regulate pollutants?

66 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:20:56pm

It gives Obama leverage when going to Copenhagen. That way when other countries balk at a proposal with the excuse that the US legislature will never pass meaningful legislation, he can say that it doesn't matter. That the EPA has the power to regulate CO2 without them. So that excuse is off the table for other countries.

67 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:21:39pm

re: #64 allegro

Congress has devolved into a society for holding shouting matches.

68 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:22:20pm

re: #58 mwalke5

The person who warned Republicans in Congress that unless they acted the EPA would step in was Lindsey Graham. They didn't listen to him, and now the EPA has stepped in. They (Congress) punted on their responsibility.

69 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:22:27pm

re: #64 allegro

From what I've been seeing, Congress can't do sh*t democratically any more.


Heh.

re: #58 mwalke5

For anyone who cares about accountability from our government, it is absolutely terrifying that the EPA will be able to do via fiat what Congress was unable to do democratically.

Also, the Supreme Court case that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from cars was passed by a 5-4 majority


Lol

Do you guys realize that you are complaining about the balance of power and democracy that our founding fathers established? Just because it's not doing what you want doesn't mean it's not democratic or Constitutional.

70 allegro  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:22:39pm

re: #67 Ojoe

They do that rather entertainingly. I'll give them that.

71 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:08pm

re: #64 allegro

From what I've been seeing, Congress can't do sh*t democratically any more. To me that's more "terrifying" when there are urgent issues that must be dealt with.

Still, be careful...

72 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:18pm

re: #70 allegro

They do that rather entertainingly. I'll give them that.

Not as good as the House of Commons.

73 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:22pm

/pimf I probably should have said "urgency" instead of immediacy with the misspelling..

74 Digital Display  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:22pm

re: #62 Ojoe

I remember flying into LAX once years ago.. My eyes started burning from the smog...I like your comment..Let's met this Climate problem

75 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:38pm

re: #62 Ojoe

Very well said.

And Lake Erie doesn't catch on fire anymore, either.

76 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:23:50pm

re: #65 Obdicut

The EPA should not be able to legislate in areas where Congress has made it clear that identical legislation would not be passed. The constitutionality of the EPA aside (please find in the Constitution where it provides for executive agencies with a lawmaking function), such a regulation would not pass constitutional muster.

77 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:09pm

re: #53 rurality

I know people prefer to lump all issues with Bush as BDS, it's easier to be dismissive and it makes ODS seem more of the same, less insane. However, articles like those you sighted, Bush's 'absolutely horrible" record on science, are why I don't think a lot of Bush criticism is not derangement.

There was plenty of deranged commentary about Bush from the left while he was president - that's a fact.

But the criticism from scientists whose research was suppressed, shelved, ignored, and classified without good reason -- that's not derangement. It's true. The Bush administration worked very hard to obstruct scientific research, and in many cases it was done to either: 1) pander to special interests such as energy groups, or 2) pander to the religious right, as in their obstructionist regulations on stem cell research.

78 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:11pm

#58 fiat. #69 democratically.

That's my complaint - an impersonal agency with the power and inclination to put itself in front of legislation like this really flies the face of democracy. It's a very not so subtle way of saying pass legislation or expect us to be the hammer you wont be. Again, if that's a comforting thought to you, I'm scared of you.

79 ulmsey123  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:14pm

What surprises me is how far the "left" has gone from what it used to be. When I was young, the left questioned authority.

But now, the left has gone the other direction. Lot's of government is good. Government has the right answers. Government can tell us what to do and that's fine because it's for our own good. And to question the government is bad form.

Is money involved with the Climate skeptics? Yes.
Is money involved with the IPCC? You bet. They are funded by the very governments that are making the new taxes and rules and further empowering themselves.
Both skeptics and believers need to be wary of being brainwashed.
I am suspicious of the Federal government, especially since it is already expanding so rapidly. That doesn't mean I am against it. I am just worried that too much power is becoming centralized. I am suspicious of the UN's intentions. I am not saying the science is wrong. I am just dubious of the intentions. Money and power are incentives to lie and betray.

It's a possibility. And it wouldn't be the first time in history a big lie brought big problems.
Consider the possibility.

80 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:28pm

re: #70 allegro

They do that rather entertainingly. I'll give them that.

OK, but these guys were much better.

81 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:36pm

re: #76 mwalke5

The EPA should not be able to legislate...

Well I have good news! They don't.

82 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:37pm

Really...you guys think there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is caused by man? Sort of closed minded isn't it?

83 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:37pm

re: #69 Killgore Trout

Lol

Do you guys realize that you are complaining about the balance of power and democracy that our founding fathers established? Just because it's not doing what you want doesn't mean it's not democratic or Constitutional.

Our founding fathers did not provide for the creation of executive agencies with law making functions that circumvent the legislative process. So I stand by my comment.

84 Big Steve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:24:45pm

re: #59 goddamnedfrank

A blunt and honest comparison is not "blame." Bush had evidence of climate change classified, but now somehow it's bad sport to praise this administration's approach in comparison to that kind of ridiculous dishonesty?

It is a year into the next administration. Why not just make the changes and move on rather than adding a towel whip towards Bush.

85 solomonpanting  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:07pm

re: #62 Ojoe

"Think Locally, Act Globally"

86 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:13pm

22.2 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of JP8 (jet fuel).

1 gallon of JP8 = 6.8 pounds

On a typical trainer, I burn roughly 6000 pounds of JP8 or 882 gallons.

So on every trainer, I pump roughly 19,588 pounds of carbon dioxide into the environment. Generally speaking, I'll do this 3 to 4 times per week.

We use a lot of simulators in the military but I think it's high time we started using more if we want to cut our greenhouse gas emmisions.

Oh and by the way, my aircraft sips fuel at roughly 1000 pounds per hour as opposed to other aircraft I have flown that gulp it down ad 2 or 3 times the rate.

Just some perspective when you go to an airshow.

87 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:18pm

re: #58 mwalke5

For anyone who cares about accountability from our government, it is absolutely terrifying that the EPA will be able to do via fiat what Congress was unable to do democratically.

I'm not terrified. And I care about accountability in government. This ruling was long overdue.

88 jdog29  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:22pm

If we cut our CO2 emissions by 50% by the year 2020, then China's economy will have grown enough to replace what we haven't released into atmosphere and then...and then...

and then along came Jones, slow walking Jones, slow talking Jones...

89 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:32pm

re: #74 HoosierHoops

re: #75 Obdicut

Thank you.

90 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:34pm

re: #81 Obdicut

Passing a "regulation" that is identical in function and purpose as a failed legislation is, in effect, legislation by a different name. Calling the sky orange does not change the fact that it is blue.

91 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:44pm

re: #76 mwalke5

The EPA was granted the power to regulate air pollution by congress, and in 2007 the Supes said that "air pollution" includes Greenhouse gases. Have another false argument about the constitutionality?

92 Big Steve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:46pm

re: #75 Obdicut

Very well said.

And Lake Erie doesn't catch on fire anymore, either.

It was the Cuyahoga river that caught fire back in the 70's, not Lake Erie.

93 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:52pm

re: #82 Thor-Zone

Really...you guys think there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is caused by man? Sort of closed minded isn't it?

Not if you've take a look at the evidence and followed it to its conclusion.

94 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:25:57pm

re: #83 mwalke5

Did they create the Supreme Court?

95 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:26:14pm

re: #62 Ojoe

Nitrous Oxide is a prime culprit in the photochemical smog that envelops LA from time to time.

I grew up there in the 1950s and it was much worse then than it is in LA today.

Progress was made, much progress, by persistence, technology, and laws that were enforced, and made fun of, and bitched about.

But all that did save a lot of people's lungs, including children's lungs.

So these kinds of problems can be met.

Let's meet this climate problem.

I remember playing outdoors when I was a kid, and my eyes would sting and my lungs would burn from the smog. Kids today don't know how lucky they got it.

96 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:26:23pm

re: #50 Thanos


Actually that would be CO, not CO2. Carbon monoxide is deadly to humans. Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas at the current levels in the atmosphere.

97 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:26:53pm

re: #36 Racer X

CO2 in a confined space can be lethal. It displaces the oxygen in the air and you suffocate. Beer and soft drink systems use CO2 canisters.

That's why bottle conditioning rules. Natural fermentation right there!

98 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:26:54pm

re: #87 Charles

I'm not terrified. And I care about accountability in government. This ruling was long overdue.

Fine. But this decision aside, what constitutional limits are left on the power of executive agencies to circumvent the legislative process? I fear more for the door that these regulations open than the substance of the regulations themselves.

99 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:06pm

re: #85 solomonpanting

The atmosphere, with its free circulation, makes every local action (involving gasses) also a global action.

We are all in this together.

100 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:20pm

re: #29 brent

Carbon dioxide is bad? Really? Try telling that to a plant.

Really? Try telling that to these plants.

"...trees began to die in the area north of the lake. The cause? High concentrations of carbon dioxide."

I get tired of seeing bumper-sticker idiocy passed off as an intelligent argument.

101 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:21pm

re: #76 mwalke5

The EPA should not be able to legislate in areas where Congress has made it clear that identical legislation would not be passed. The constitutionality of the EPA aside (please find in the Constitution where it provides for executive agencies with a lawmaking function), such a regulation would not pass constitutional muster.

To appreciate the EPA, you have to have grown up in Pittsburgh in the '40s and '50s. Dickens called it "Hell with the lid raised" a century earlier, and it only got worse.

102 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:27pm

re: #96 Thor-Zone

It's not harmless. CO2 traps and radiates heat, and we've contributed significant amounts of it to the atmosphere.

103 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:35pm

re: #74 HoosierHoops

I remember flying into LAX once years ago.. My eyes started burning from the smog...I like your comment..Let's met this Climate problem

Are you sure it was the smog and not the wildfires?

104 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:00pm

re: #99 Ojoe

The atmosphere, with its free circulation, makes every local action (involving gasses) also a global action.

We are all in this together.

The world is like an elevator in that respect. If you had chili the night before, it's not just going to affect you.

105 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:03pm

re: #82 Thor-Zone

Really...you guys think there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is caused by man? Sort of closed minded isn't it?

"Convinced by overwhelming evidence" is not the same thing as "close-minded."

"Close-minded" is refusing to educate yourself about the serious issue of global warming, while repeating talking points supplied by dishonest people and groups.

106 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:11pm

re: #32 Racer X

Humor me.

Would humans be able to alter earth's climate with say, 1000 nuclear bombs?

Yes, for a few months or years with dust in the atmosphere. (nuclear winter)

107 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:21pm

re: #94 Obdicut

Did they create the Supreme Court?

And the Supreme Court has never made a poor decision before, has it? Remember Plessy v. Ferguson?

108 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:23pm

re: #98 mwalke5


You appear to fear quite a lot.

109 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:28:39pm

re: #58 mwalke5

For anyone who cares about accountability from our government, it is absolutely terrifying that the EPA will be able to do via fiat what Congress was unable to do democratically. democrats will do something responsible.

FTFY. You want to be terrified of government doing the right thing, go right ahead and shiver in your jammies and hide under your covers.

110 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:29:23pm

re: #96 Thor-Zone

Actually that would be CO, not CO2. Carbon monoxide is deadly to humans. Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas at the current levels in the atmosphere.

Cars make CO, some coal and kerosene heaters make CO2 in combination with CO. There have been carbon dioxide deaths from heaters. There have even been deaths from naturally occurring eruptions of CO2.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]

111 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:29:35pm

re: #72 Cannadian Club Akbar

99% of the time the House of Commons is a placid, docile and anaemic place where a lot of very boring revision and passing of legislation gets done - Prime Ministers Questions is just a bit of fun to allow people to blow of steam.

When it was 2 seperate 15 minute slots a week it was a little better as no one really had time to get too many needles in - with a big half hour slot, more can be covered but at the price of much civillity.

Trust me - the commons is dull as dishwater.

Big set piece debates where anything is accomplished or where anyone shouts loud enough to wake someone in the public gallery are rare.

The shameful behaviour of the GOP caucus recently in shouting down repeatedly and rudely female members of the Democratic caucus was much worse than anything that has happened my side of the pond in quite some time.

Also - if a British member of Parliament had shouted "Liar" at the sitting head of State (HM The Queen) or the sitting PM - the apology would not have been milquetoast.

112 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:29:40pm

re: #107 mwalke5

That wasn't the question. You're accusing the government now of not being what the Founding Fathers intended. But the Supreme Court was set up by the founding fathers, and this decision stems from that.

The government was still the government when the Supreme Court held slavery to be okay. I'm not sure what bad decisions have to do with the form of the government.

113 brent  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:29:58pm

#100 CO2 /plants

Sure, almost everything taken to its extreme is bad. Too much water can kill you, if you get into a confined space with C02 or beer you'll suffocate. I was making the point that poster X didn't know the difference between carbons dioxide and monoxide. But thanks for explaining about plants - do they die if they get no C02, also?

114 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:16pm

re: #50 Thanos

As far as the lethality of CO2, people who use kerosene, wood, and coal heaters that are improperly fueled and maintained die from it every year.

But.. but.. but Alex Jones says carbon dioxide is actually good for you.

I'm so confused, I don't know who to believe anymore.
/

115 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:23pm

re: #112 Obdicut

That wasn't the question. You're accusing the government now of not being what the Founding Fathers intended. But the Supreme Court was set up by the founding fathers, and this decision stems from that.

The government was still the government when the Supreme Court held slavery to be okay. I'm not sure what bad decisions have to do with the form of the government.

Wearing the founding fathers on your sleeve for your argument is one of the red flags.

116 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:26pm

re: #66 recusancy

It gives Obama leverage when going to Copenhagen. That way when other countries balk at a proposal with the excuse that the US legislature will never pass meaningful legislation, he can say that it doesn't matter. That the EPA has the power to regulate CO2 without them. So that excuse is off the table for other countries.

That it does.

It's also important to not that this announcement today is largely a compromise in many respects. Here are two important features:

Providing a legal foundation for the new Clean Cars program, which is the nation’s first-ever limit on greenhouse gases from US vehicles.

This was done in cooperation with the auto industry. This will only impact new car production and it will be sufficient in providing a single point solution to meet the goal of greenhouse gas reductions.

Requiring that, by spring 2010, large greenhouse-gas emitting facilities use the best available technologies for controlling those emissions when they plan to construct or expand operations.

This too will only impact new production. Only new or expanded facilities will be required to meet the new requirement. There is no impact on existing facilities and no requirements for retro-fitting these facilities.

As you can see if you listened to or heard the comments to day a good majority of today's announcement revolves around monitoring of said gases. Monitoring and submitting information on emission is by no means an undue burden on the operators.

I'm sure a great deal of misinformation either based on ignorance or cynical political reasoning will be heard for the next few months.

117 Digital Display  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:31pm

re: #103 Alouette

Are you sure it was the smog and not the wildfires?

Well my friend..Growing up in Northern California.. I know what wild fires are..
I can tell the difference between burning wood and stinky air that burns my eyes...

118 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:36pm

re: #98 mwalke5

There's no circumvention. It's in the EPA mandate to regulate air pollution, and it's been taken to court and determined by the Supreme Court that the EPA must regulate GG's. Note the "MUST".

119 Soap_Man  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:30:37pm

re: #107 mwalke5

And the Supreme Court has never made a poor decision before, has it? Remember Plessy v. Ferguson?

Wow, you really had to go into the way-back machine for that one.

120 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:31:18pm

re: #98 mwalke5

Fine. But this decision aside, what constitutional limits are left on the power of executive agencies to circumvent the legislative process? I fear more for the door that these regulations open than the substance of the regulations themselves.

The EPA was created legislatively for the purposes of regulating harm done to the environment. Seems like their doing there job to me.

121 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:31:20pm

re: #87 Charles

I'm not terrified. And I care about accountability in government. This ruling was long overdue.

Agreed, this ruling was overdue.

122 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:31:48pm

re: #109 WindUpBird

The precedent that such a regulation would set is astounding. Why bother going through the entire committe process, legislative hearings, public debate and votes if an executive agency can just make a rule? Sure, its certainly more expedient but Constitutional safeguards were intentionally designed to slow the wheels of government to encourage vigorous debate - executive mandates do the opposite.

123 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:32:25pm

re: #97 WindUpBird

That's why bottle conditioning rules. Natural fermentation right there!

Yes, but there are times when I want to try the homebrew NOW! So I make two batches - one that I condition in the bottles, and the other I siphon into an old 5 gallon 7-Up container and hit it with about 15 psi of CO2 for a day or two.

Nectar.

124 The Curmudgeon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:32:53pm

A lot of my curmudgeonly skepticism would vanish if the environmentalists would actively support building new nuclear power plants. It works for France. It'll reduce an enormous amount of coal, oil, etc. currently used for generating electrical power. It's the most obvious next step, and if it's blocked, even if it's true that global warming is real and man-caused (and I don't question that) I can't have any confidence in the solutions these people are trying to sell.

125 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:32:53pm

re: #86 Jetpilot1101

22.2 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of JP8 (jet fuel).

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

126 Jaerik  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:32:57pm

I'm curious if there's any statistical correlation between anthropogenic climate-change deniers, and folks who are still "skeptical" about evolution.

A few quick Google searches show that the US population believes in both far less compared to the rest of the world. Eyeballing it, it seems to be roughly the same ratio, but I'd be interested to see if it really is mostly all the same people.

127 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:33:47pm

re: #122 mwalke5

The precedent that such a regulation would set is astounding. Why bother going through the entire committe process, legislative hearings, public debate and votes if an executive agency can just make a rule? Sure, its certainly more expedient but Constitutional safeguards were intentionally designed to slow the wheels of government to encourage vigorous debate - executive mandates do the opposite.

The EPA rulemaking process makes congress look swift and streamlined. It can take a decade to get a rule in place in the face of opposition.

128 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:03pm

re: #75 Obdicut

Very well said.

And Lake Erie doesn't catch on fire anymore, either.

the Cuyahoga river, not Lake erie

129 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:17pm

re: #100 Slumbering Behemoth

Really? Try telling that to these plants.

"...trees began to die in the area north of the lake. The cause? High concentrations of carbon dioxide."

I get tired of seeing bumper-sticker idiocy passed off as an intelligent argument.

Hey I've been there! Really eerie place.

130 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:28pm

re: #124 The Curmudgeon

A lot of my curmudgeonly skepticism would vanish if the environmentalists would actively support building new nuclear power plants. It works for France. It'll reduce an enormous amount of coal, oil, etc. currently used for generating electrical power. It's the most obvious next step, and if it's blocked, even if it's true that global warming is real and man-caused (and I don't question that) I can't have any confidence in the solutions these people are trying to sell.

Seconded

131 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:37pm

re: #126 Jaerik

I'm curious if there's any statistical correlation between anthropogenic climate-change deniers, and folks who are still "skeptical" about evolution.

A few quick Google searches show that the US population believes in both far less compared to the rest of the world. Eyeballing it, it seems to be roughly the same ratio, but I'd be interested to see if it really is mostly all the same people.

There's anecdotal correlation just from reading the few deniers who show up here and give links. I'm sure if someone wanted to go through and come up with some stats it would hold true.

132 brookly red  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:40pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

/hush, I just want him to do my taxes...

133 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:54pm

CO2 deaths at McDonald's
[Link: www.clickorlando.com...]

134 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:34:57pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

From the EPA website:

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

135 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:35:13pm

re: #122 mwalke5

The precedent that such a regulation would set is astounding. Why bother going through the entire committe process, legislative hearings, public debate and votes if an executive agency can just make a rule? Sure, its certainly more expedient but Constitutional safeguards were intentionally designed to slow the wheels of government to encourage vigorous debate - executive mandates do the opposite.

It's astounding to you because you're a denier, yes. We're all aware. We all got the memo. And executive mandates have been around far before this. Awfully convenient that your panties are in a wad about it now, because it has something to do with AGW and a Democratic administration. On a blog which is pro-science.

I side with science and the EPA. if you would like to side with loons, that's between you and your God.

136 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:35:19pm

re: #124 The Curmudgeon

A lot of my curmudgeonly skepticism would vanish if the environmentalists would actively support building new nuclear power plants. It works for France. It'll reduce an enormous amount of coal, oil, etc. currently used for generating electrical power. It's the most obvious next step, and if it's blocked, even if it's true that global warming is real and man-caused (and I don't question that) I can't have any confidence in the solutions these people are trying to sell.

Ah- but isn't that a bit backwards? The solutions to the problem shouldn't reflect on the evidence for the problem. Not that I or many here disagree- I think most of us would like to see nuclear on the table, but if they are or not doesn't change the scientific data that supports AGW.

137 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:35:21pm

All of the talking points commonly raised by "skeptics" (a label I'm finding increasingly laughable) are addressed here: How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

138 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:35:38pm

re: #110 Thanos

Cars make CO, some coal and kerosene heaters make CO2 in combination with CO. There have been carbon dioxide deaths from heaters. There have even been deaths from naturally occurring eruptions of CO2.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]

Cars make CO, and CO2 of course.

139 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:35:42pm

re: #122 mwalke5

If every single decision by every single QUANGO had to go through full congressional oversight... you would need to increase the number of congressmen a thousand fold to cope with the work load.

140 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:36:06pm

This is just a necessary action that the EPA are taking at what turns out to be a very convenient time. If, as the Supremes have established, CO2 and such-like are pollutants, then the regulation of their emission IS the EPA's business.

This doesn't short-circuit or circumvent anything. Now, if they were going to start talking about new mandates on existing equipment, retro-fitting and such, I might squawk at the expense of it, but here, there's nothing to wig out about.

And I'm a notorious wig-outter.

141 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:36:45pm

re: #117 HoosierHoops

Well my friend..Growing up in Northern California.. I know what wild fires are..
I can tell the difference between burning wood and stinky air that burns my eyes...

I've flown into LAX very often and the only time that the air burned my eyes was during the wildfires.

142 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:36:46pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

Ugh, you guys never stop with the know-nothing crap. Call me once the sun starts rotating around the earth.

143 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:37:13pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

Oxidation is factored in.

144 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:37:34pm

re: #93 Sharmuta

Not if you've take a look at the evidence and followed it to its conclusion.


I believe there is enough data out there to justify being very skeptiical about the human caused part. Here in Alaska the glaciers have been retreating for over 300 years. It is documented. There wasn't exactly a large industrial base in the 1700's and the early 1800's, but the glaciers were melting here faster than they have during the industrial era. Stubborn facts like this one lead me to be a skepptiic about the human caused part.

It is clear the planet is warming. It is not clear as to why.

145 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:37:50pm

re: #143 recusancy

Oxidation is factored in.

Don't bother - it's not worth the trouble.

146 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:38:01pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

I got 22.2 pounds of CO2 not C. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide, C is carbon.

147 The Curmudgeon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:38:16pm

re: #136 Sharmuta

I think most of us would like to see nuclear on the table, but if they are or not doesn't change the scientific data that supports AGW.

True, but what kind of government says: "We've got a big problem, and we have an obvious solution, but we won't allow that solution"?

148 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:38:27pm

re: #133 Thanos

CO2 deaths at McDonald's
[Link: www.clickorlando.com...]

I remember that. Very sad. Every McDonald's now has CO2 detectors.

149 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:38:33pm

re: #90 mwalke5

Passing a "regulation" that is identical in function and purpose as a failed legislation is, in effect, legislation by a different name. Calling the sky orange does not change the fact that it is blue.

A regulation can actually be changed more quickly than legislation in the event circumstance change - I would actually prefer to see broad laws with regulations enacted to enforce those laws, than see a lot of narrower laws legislated.

150 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:38:42pm

re: #82 Thor-Zone

Really...you guys think there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is caused by man? Sort of closed minded isn't it?

Here's another shocker: Humans evolved from primitive hominids.

Scientific facts are a bitch. It's too bad that accepting the truth of things makes one sort of closed minded.
/

151 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:13pm

re: #127 Decatur Deb

The EPA rulemaking process makes congress look swift and streamlined. It can take a decade to get a rule in place in the face of opposition.

True. That is the purpose for the agencies.

Let me posit this question: If Congress passes cap-n-trade before the EPA regulations go into effect, does the EPA rule preempt the Congressional law?

The easy answer is "no" since Congress has spoken.

If Congress decides to legislate in an area that is within the purview of an agency's power, it has effectively taken that power back. Hence when Congress attempted, but failed, to pass cap-n-trade it expressed its desire to retain authority over the regulation of greenhouse gases. Thus the new EPA regulation is an unconstitutional intrusion into the Congressional mandate.

152 Digital Display  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:24pm

re: #141 Alouette

I've flown into LAX very often and the only time that the air burned my eyes was during the wildfires.

I haven't been to LAX for 20 years.. The air stunk...and a brown haze hung over the city...I'm not saying you are wrong..Just my experience

153 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:27pm

re: #147 The Curmudgeon

True, but what kind of government says: "We've got a big problem, and we have an obvious solution, but we won't allow that solution"?

A government that actually understands political realities?

(And I want nuclear on the table too)

154 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:49pm

re: #150 Slumbering Behemoth

take it back - take it all back - you brute - you brute - you utter utter brute...

155 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:50pm

re: #147 The Curmudgeon

True, but what kind of government says: "We've got a big problem, and we have an obvious solution, but we won't allow that solution"?

A government that's allowed too many special interests to have a say?

156 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:40:02pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

How do you get 22.2 pounds of carbon out of a gallon of fuel that weighs approximately 8 pounds?

Google is your friend.

/or not.

157 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:40:15pm

re: #105 Charles


"Close-minded" is refusing to educate yourself about the serious issue of global warming, while repeating talking points supplied by dishonest people and groups.

I agree, and that is why I do not believe there is human caused global warming.

158 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:40:20pm

re: #134 Jetpilot1101

From the EPA website:

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

IIRC each carbon atom picks up 2 oxygens from the air in combustion.

159 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:40:55pm

re: #151 mwalke5

Hence when Congress attempted, but failed, to pass cap-n-trade it expressed its desire to retain authority over the regulation of greenhouse gases. Thus the new EPA regulation is an unconstitutional intrusion into the Congressional mandate.

But because Congress did not pass the legislation in question, the will of those Congressmembers who supported it cannot be presumed to be statement of Congressional intent.

160 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:41:00pm

re: #151 mwalke5

True. That is the purpose for the agencies.

Let me posit this question: If Congress passes cap-n-trade before the EPA regulations go into effect, does the EPA rule preempt the Congressional law?

The easy answer is "no" since Congress has spoken.

If Congress decides to legislate in an area that is within the purview of an agency's power, it has effectively taken that power back. Hence when Congress attempted, but failed, to pass cap-n-trade it expressed its desire to retain authority over the regulation of greenhouse gases. Thus the new EPA regulation is an unconstitutional intrusion into the Congressional mandate.

If it is unconstitutional, maybe you had better tell that to those black robed people in the big pretty white building who already made a decision on it.

Oh wait, they're the SCOTUS, you're just another parrot denier on a blog.

161 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:41:11pm

re: #95 Racer X

I remember playing outdoors when I was a kid, and my eyes would sting and my lungs would burn from the smog. Kids today don't know how lucky they got it.

I recall the auto makers saying it would kill the industry to meet fuel efficiency, safety and emission standards. Now Ford makes a 365HP SHO that gets 26 MPG and has more air bags than cup holders. Would they have got there on there own, or would we still have 1960's technology without regulation ? I bet the same will happen with the energy industry.

162 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:41:12pm

re: #157 Thor-Zone

I agree, and that is why I do not believe there is human caused global warming.

It must be the smokestacks.

163 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:42:09pm

re: #151 mwalke5

True. That is the purpose for the agencies.

Let me posit this question: If Congress passes cap-n-trade before the EPA regulations go into effect, does the EPA rule preempt the Congressional law?

The easy answer is "no" since Congress has spoken.

If Congress decides to legislate in an area that is within the purview of an agency's power, it has effectively taken that power back. Hence when Congress attempted, but failed, to pass cap-n-trade it expressed its desire to retain authority over the regulation of greenhouse gases. Thus the new EPA regulation is an unconstitutional intrusion into the Congressional mandate.

Not good enough. Congress would have to vote to change the mandate it has already given to EPA.

164 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:42:11pm

re: #152 HoosierHoops

I haven't been to LAX for 20 years.. The air stunk...and a brown haze hung over the city...I'm not saying you are wrong..Just my experience

There is a natural brown haze that hangs over L.A. and the S.F. Valley, but 20-30 years ago when there were far more industrial plants the smog was really bad. The EPA did a great job of fixing that.

165 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:42:11pm

re: #150 Slumbering Behemoth

Here's another shocker: Humans evolved from primitive hominids.

Scientific facts are a bitch. It's too bad that accepting the truth of things makes one sort of closed minded.
/

If I ever have a Mastodon cover band, it will be called Primitive Hominid :D

166 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:42:52pm

re: #157 Thor-Zone

They have looked into other warming factors and found there was no evidence to suggest these factors are playing a part in the current warming. However, there is a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last century. CO2 emissions from humans is the main factor.

167 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:43:29pm

re: #159 Guanxi88

But because Congress did not pass the legislation in question, the will of those Congressmembers who supported it cannot be presumed to be statement of Congressional intent.

It passed the House. It will certainly be a novel Supreme Court case but if legislation passes in the House, but fails in the Senate, I think the proper conclusion to draw is that Congress decided the issue was within their power/desire to regulate but they refused to apply that specific piece of legislation.

168 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:43:52pm

re: #165 WindUpBird

If I ever have a Mastodon cover band, it will be called Primitive Hominid :D

Always liked Homo Habilis--Handy Man.

169 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:43:53pm

re: #126 Jaerik

I'm curious if there's any statistical correlation between anthropogenic climate-change deniers, and folks who are still "skeptical" about evolution.

A few quick Google searches show that the US population believes in both far less compared to the rest of the world. Eyeballing it, it seems to be roughly the same ratio, but I'd be interested to see if it really is mostly all the same people.

There's very little doubt that almost all creationists are also climate change deniers. See the Discovery Institute's latest articles for proof of this. They're getting all giggly over the Climategate nontroversy because they think it destroys all of modern science, which is exactly what they want to see happen.

It's very telling to note that one of the main deniers in the business, Dr. Roy Spencer, IS a creationist. And the denial industry uses many of the same tactics as creationists.

I'd like to see a survey of this correlation, because I strongly suspect that the majority of right wing climate change deniers are also creationists.

170 solomonpanting  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:43:58pm

re: #165 WindUpBird

If I ever have a Mastodon cover band, it will be called Primitive Hominid :D

Lead singer: Dinah Soaur

171 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:44:06pm

OT -
this probably belongs in a different thread, and maybe it's been covered today at some point but I didn't see it - but it appears the Tea Party "movement" is fracturing from within as the several smaller movements that tacked onto the bigger "Tea Party" theme jockey for control.

172 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:44:06pm

re: #163 Decatur Deb

Not good enough. Congress would have to vote to change the mandate it has already given to EPA.

I know liberals love this, but what about "Congressional intent." Ever heard that phrase?

173 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:44:23pm

re: #157 Thor-Zone

I agree, and that is why I do not believe there is human caused global warming.

Fine. Be that as it may, let us say for the sake of argument that the warming's cause is irrelevant.

It's happening, and it will have potential consequences for us. What shall we do about it? The answer is the same regardless of the causes at work behind the phenomenon.

174 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:01pm

That dirty leftist hippie, Nixon, was the one who signed the legislation to create the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act.

175 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:21pm

re: #172 mwalke5

I know liberals love this, but what about "Congressional intent." Ever heard that phrase?

Congress expresses its intent by passing interpretable laws.

176 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:24pm

re: #167 mwalke5

It passed the House. It will certainly be a novel Supreme Court case but if legislation passes in the House, but fails in the Senate, I think the proper conclusion to draw is that Congress decided the issue was within their power/desire to regulate but they refused to apply that specific piece of legislation.

Following that line of reasoning, though, a bill that was vetoed by the POTUS would still be presumptively applicable in at least some cases, if only to establish authority.

Nope, too novel.

177 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:29pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

It's that "new math" they keep talking about.

cd /pub && more beer

178 Digital Display  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:50pm

re: #174 recusancy

That dirty leftist hippie, Nixon, was the one who signed the legislation to create the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act.

THAT BASTARD!
/

179 captdiggs  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:51pm

re: #53 rurality

There's still a lot of irrational BDS.


Bush probably saved a few million people in Africa, through science.

Obama, Blair laud Bush's AIDS work in Africa

... Under the Bush administration, more than 2 million people infected with HIV -- most of them in Africa -- have received lifesaving anti-retroviral treatment as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

In July, Bush signed legislation re-authorizing the program and authorizing up to $48 billion to expand it. ...
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

180 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:52pm

re: #174 recusancy

That dirty leftist hippie, Nixon, was the one who signed the legislation to create the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act.

Nixon was a clean hippy.

181 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:45:59pm

re: #161 avanti

I recall the auto makers saying it would kill the industry to meet fuel efficiency, safety and emission standards. Now Ford makes a 365HP SHO that gets 26 MPG and has more air bags than cup holders. Would they have got there on there own, or would we still have 1960's technology without regulation ? I bet the same will happen with the energy industry.

The Taurus SHO is pretty nice. But I'd rather have an Elise. 29 MPG!

/okay, so it's a 2000 pound roadster

182 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:08pm

re: #170 solomonpanting

Lead singer: Dinah Soaur

On drums - Terry Dactile.

183 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:18pm

re: #134 Jetpilot1101

From the EPA website:

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

184 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:31pm

re: #174 recusancy

That dirty leftist hippie, Nixon, was the one who signed the legislation to create the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act.

It's almost as if this should be a bipartisan issue!

185 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:42pm

Bagua:

I've had friends in Alaska who died from Kerosene space heaters in enclosed spaces (these are commonly used during construction when building in winter.) They died on their autopsy from CO2, not CO, it wasn't a mis-diagnosis.

186 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:45pm

re: #179 captdiggs


That bastard!

187 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:46:57pm

re: #113 brent

I was making the point that poster X didn't know the difference between carbons dioxide and monoxide.

You were not making any such point, you were simply regurgitating an idiotic, bumper-sticker talking point that only fools consider to be a reasoned argument.

Your silly quote in full, that you claim was making the above point:

re: #29 brent

Carbon dioxide is bad? Really? Try telling that to a plant.

I see no mention of CO, nor any attempt to distinguish between CO2 and CO. Just illogical snark.

188 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:06pm

re: #174 recusancy

That dirty leftist hippie, Nixon, was the one who signed the legislation to create the EPA. He also signed the Clean Air Act.

And made Father's Day a national holiday.

189 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:07pm

re: #171 reine.de.tout

Theres atleast one legal case in the works - Tea Party Express/Tea Party Patriots and someone called Amy Kremer trying to straddle the both and being sued frivilously...

But - fortunately for the sitting PResident - the "tea Party" is now the second most popular politcal party if it were to appear on ballots :-p

190 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:15pm

re: #180 Guanxi88

Nixon was a clean hippy.

Oxymoron.

191 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:41pm

re: #179 captdiggs

I applaud Bush for his Africa AIDS programs.

That doesn't change the fact that his administration was the most anti-science presidency we've ever had.

192 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:41pm

re: #173 Guanxi88

Fine. Be that as it may, let us say for the sake of argument that the warming's cause is irrelevant.

It's happening, and it will have potential consequences for us. What shall we do about it? The answer is the same regardless of the causes at work behind the phenomenon.

I'm one of those tweeners that believes the planet is warming and don't really give a shit as to why, or if humans are the cause...it does not effect the solutions to try and relieve the problem...it simply cannot be a good thing to continue to dump more CO2 in the air on top of whatever else may be happening

193 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:41pm

re: #134 Jetpilot1101

2,778 grams is approximately 6.12 pounds of carbon, the added weight is the oxygen, or the oxidation. This occurs through combustion, otherwise, one gallon weighs 6.12 pounds of carbon plus the other compounds.

194 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:47:49pm

re: #142 WindUpBird

Ugh, you guys never stop with the know-nothing crap. Call me once the sun starts rotating around the earth.

Huh?

195 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:03pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

22 pounds of carbon dioxide. Carbon in the gas fuses with oxygen from the air during combustion. Not sure how else to explain it.

196 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:06pm

re: #176 Guanxi88

Following that line of reasoning, though, a bill that was vetoed by the POTUS would still be presumptively applicable in at least some cases, if only to establish authority.

Nope, too novel.

How is a presidential veto relevant to this discussion?

197 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:19pm

re: #125 Thor-Zone

see my reply #193, it is called oxidation.

198 brookly red  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:25pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

I think #158 explained it... I didn't get it either.

199 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:29pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

You are really cracking me up.

Tell us more.

200 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:42pm
Question: Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

During combustion, each carbon atom in the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms in the air to make carbon dioxide. The addition of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom forms carbon dioxide, which has an atomic weight of 44 — roughly 3.6667 times the atomic weight of the carbon (12).

For example, subbituminous coal is 51% carbon or 1,013 pounds per short ton. The carbon dioxide emissions from a short ton of subbituminous coal are approximately 3,716 pounds or about 3.67 times the weight of the coal’s carbon and 86% more than the original coal.


[Link: ton...] oe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#CO2_weight

201 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:45pm

re: #191 Charles

Even Chester A Arthur?

202 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:49:24pm

re: #177 saik0max0r

It's that "new math" they keep talking about.

cd /pub && more beer

Trying to refute scientific facts with stupid jokes, good move.

203 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:49:32pm

I have far more faith in AGW science than I do the EPA's ability to address it. I have been an EPA skeptic as long as I have had to address their idea or properly regulating emissions.

204 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:06pm

Nixon would be a liberal today. Granted a racist anti-semite liberal. But he'd be on the left.

205 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:10pm

re: #200 jaunte

There you go linking facts.

206 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:15pm

re: #203 Rightwingconspirator

PIMF OF properly regulating emissions

207 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:15pm

re: #158 Decatur Deb

IIRC each carbon atom picks up 2 oxygens from the air in combustion.


Excellent!! An answere to my question. Thank you!

208 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:37pm

re: #150 Slumbering Behemoth

This Public Service Announcement is Directed at Whomever Slumbering Behemoth was talking at:

CLIMATE "CHANGE" CAN BE CAUSED BY MAN. GO LOOK AT ANY DEFORESTED AREA TO SEE THAT IT'S TRUE.

I'M YELLING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT'S STUPID TO THINK OTHERWISE.

It's the hypothesis that "man made" "carbon emissions" are responsible recent increased temperatures that is lacking in proper scientific rigor.

The truth is both "camps" are simultaneously wrong and right at the same time that seems to be hard for people to grasp.

209 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:06pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

Do you have the slightest clue how a jet engine or an internal combustion engine works?

210 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:18pm

re: #185 Thanos

Bagua:

I've had friends in Alaska who died from Kerosene space heaters in enclosed spaces (these are commonly used during construction when building in winter.) They died on their autopsy from CO2, not CO, it wasn't a mis-diagnosis.

Agreed, I did not dispute that. I simply added CO2 to your list of emissions from Automobiles, you had left that out and only mentioned the CO.

211 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:35pm

re: #166 Sharmuta

They have looked into other warming factors and found there was no evidence to suggest these factors are playing a part in the current warming. However, there is a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last century. CO2 emissions from humans is the main factor.


Why in the past when there was more CO2 in the air than now was the earth cooler?

212 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:42pm

re: #124 The Curmudgeon

I agree. The problem is that if the GOP and the right continue pretending there is nothing to this, the only solutions we will hear will be those that come from the left.

213 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:44pm

re: #204 recusancy

Granted a racist anti-semite liberal. But he'd be on the left.

Are you sure? I thought the conservatives had the monopoly on racism and anti-semitism.
/

214 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:51:59pm

re: #207 Thor-Zone

Excellent!! An answere to my question. Thank you!

Just curious. Are you incapable of looking for answers for yourself?

215 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:52:21pm

re: #211 Thor-Zone

Why in the past when there was more CO2 in the air than now was the earth cooler?

OMG YOU ARE TEH SCIENTIST


So where were your undergrad studies? What was your thesis on?

216 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:52:22pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

here it is for gasoline, same deal:

"How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.

When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).

CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).

We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2! "

217 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:52:29pm

re: #205 Sharmuta

It's that monkey curiosity.

218 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:52:30pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

For the slow of thinking:

When diesel, jet fuel, kerosene and other benzene ring compounds burn their main byproduct is usually CO2 (Gasoline burns different than diesel and Kersosene, and thus produces more CO than CO2) This is formed by combining the weight of each of their carbon atoms with two atoms of oxygen from the environment. This is why diesels, jets, and space heaters all require air intakes.
Those air intakes you know, suck in the air, and combine it with the carbon by means of combustion. Got it yet?

219 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:53:22pm

Nixon was a RINO!

220 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:53:43pm

re: #211 Thor-Zone

If I link you to a science site, will you click the link and read it?

221 captdiggs  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:53:44pm

re: #191 Charles

All presidents do good and bad. Sometimes those are subjective judgments depending on the political prism those actions are viewed through.
The final judgment is history.

222 The Curmudgeon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:53:57pm

re: #212 Slumbering Behemoth

I agree. The problem is that if the GOP and the right continue pretending there is nothing to this, the only solutions we will hear will be those that come from the left.

Even if some people deny AGW, so what? Nuclear power is still a good idea. The GOP isn't (or shouldn't be) opposed to it. It's the enviros who keep blocking it.

223 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:54:04pm

re: #191 Charles

I applaud Bush for his Africa AIDS programs.

That doesn't change the fact that his administration was the most anti-science presidency we've ever had.

And it doesn't change the fact that many in his administration tried to convert it to an abstinence program instead of a "use a condom" program.

224 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:54:22pm

re: #185 Thanos

You can also die from being exposed to concentrated amounts of oxygen.

225 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:54:32pm

re: #169 Charles

There's very little doubt that almost all creationists are also climate change deniers. See the Discovery Institute's latest articles for proof of this. They're getting all giggly over the Climategate nontroversy because they think it destroys all of modern science, which is exactly what they want to see happen.

It's very telling to note that one of the main deniers in the business, Dr. Roy Spencer, IS a creationist. And the denial industry uses many of the same tactics as creationists.

I'd like to see a survey of this correlation, because I strongly suspect that the majority of right wing climate change deniers are also creationists.

And YECs have to be continental drift deniers.

226 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:54:49pm

re: #195 recusancy

22 pounds of carbon dioxide. Carbon in the gas fuses with oxygen from the air during combustion. Not sure how else to explain it.

Awesome...got it now!

227 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:55:50pm

re: #29 brent

Carbon dioxide is bad? Really? Try telling that to a plant.

brent -

Thought that was covered by of all People - Steveland Morris/Stevie Wonder in his Double Album - "The Secret Life of Plants."
CO2 is a potential problem for Animal Life - IF - There is NOT enough Vegetable Life. Wiping out forests without vegetation replacements IS a problem for Animal Life, besides being a Crime against Nature. I take the Old Testament Biblical/Talmudical view of this. The Talmud teaches us - When one is Planting a Tree and is advised that the Messiah has come - What should One do?
The Talmud advises - First - Plant the Tree, then Meet the Messiah. That is all. -S-

228 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:55:53pm

re: #224 saik0max0r

You can also die from being exposed to concentrated amounts of oxygen.

Exactly how high of a concentration? Maybe it's news to you but fighter pilots routinely breath 100% O2 on missions and to my knowledge, not many of them are keeling over in the cockpit.

229 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:55:55pm

re: #218 Thanos

I suddenly feel so much more masculine that I took it as totally obvious that air is part of the fuel for an engine. *sigh*

230 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:56:25pm

re: #224 saik0max0r

You can also die from being exposed to concentrated amounts of oxygen.

Which is why we shouldn't artificially inflate the percent of Oxygen in the air too much through man made means either. Raising oxygen too much would create world wide fires.

231 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:56:32pm

re: #209 Jetpilot1101

Do you have the slightest clue how a jet engine or an internal combustion engine works?

internal combustion: suck, squeeze, pop, phooey. (4 cycle)

232 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:56:44pm

re: #222 The Curmudgeon

Even if some people deny AGW, so what? Nuclear power is still a good idea. The GOP isn't (or shouldn't be) opposed to it. It's the enviros who keep blocking it.

Obama is not against it.

Some enviros are. But they aren't in power. Nor do they speak for the left as a whole.

233 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:57:10pm

re: #231 avanti

internal combustion: suck, squeeze, pop, phooey. (4 cycle)

Jet engine: suck, squeeze, bang blow.

234 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:57:12pm

re: #228 Jetpilot1101

Exactly how high of a concentration? Maybe it's news to you but fighter pilots routinely breath 100% O2 on missions and to my knowledge, not many of them are keeling over in the cockpit.

He might be thinking of high partial pressures of O2 in diving.

235 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:57:16pm

re: #223 Thanos

And it doesn't change the fact that many in his administration tried to convert it to an abstinence program instead of a "use a condom" program.

$300 million to those psychos during Bush for their abstinence mumbo-jumbo. And people are talking about Pelosi's flower expenditures.

236 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:57:39pm

re: #209 Jetpilot1101

Do you have the slightest clue how a jet engine or an internal combustion engine works?


Actually, I am a licensed aircraft engine mechanic. I have studied the molecular structure of both fuels and oils, as well as not only how aircraft engines work, but how they are built and how to repair them.

237 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:58:19pm

re: #233 Jetpilot1101

Jet engine: suck, squeeze, bang blow.

Yugo: Crank, pop,pop, nothing.

238 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:58:37pm

re: #223 Thanos

And it doesn't change the fact that many in his administration tried to convert it to an abstinence program instead of a "use a condom" program.

That's very true -- and it was another manifestation of the anti-science religious right's influence on the Bush administration.

239 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:58:46pm

re: #214 Sharmuta

Just curious. Are you incapable of looking for answers for yourself?

Yes I am, that is why I asked the question.

240 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:58:57pm

re: #212 Slumbering Behemoth

I question the reason for requiring a political component to solve the problem. Engineering is what will provide "solutions" Not politics.

Frankly, if politicians truly had as much power as we think we'd still be sitting in caves throwing feces at each other.

The King of the Danes couldn't keep the tides at bay, and the U.N. is making shit up when it says that by reducing carbon emissions by xx we'll be able to keep the warming down to a mere 2 degrees centigrade.

241 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:59:14pm

re: #236 Thor-Zone

Actually, I am a licensed aircraft engine mechanic. I have studied the molecular structure of both fuels and oils, as well as not only how aircraft engines work, but how they are built and how to repair them.

Then I am a complete loss as to why you were asking all those questions about carbon dioxide content in a gallon of fuel.

242 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:06pm

re: #220 Sharmuta

If I link you to a science site, will you click the link and read it?

Sure

243 Digital Display  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:11pm

re: #228 Jetpilot1101

Exactly how high of a concentration? Maybe it's news to you but fighter pilots routinely breath 100% O2 on missions and to my knowledge, not many of them are keeling over in the cockpit.

You rock dude...I think those old people that drag around oxygen bottles should just drop dead also from to much Oxygen..oh wait..guess not...
/

244 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:13pm

re: #239 Thor-Zone

Yes I am, that is why I asked the question.

seems nobody has an answer...gotta hit the books I guess...I thought it was a reasonable question myself

245 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:13pm

re: #228 Jetpilot1101

Classic Oxygen Poisoning is one cause. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]


Rapid Oxidization is another. (Fire.)

246 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:19pm

On the Internet, everyone is a rocket scientist.

247 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:33pm

re: #239 Thor-Zone

Yes I am, that is why I asked the question.

So you would be interested to learn of a great educational tool known as "google"?

248 swamprat  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:35pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.


Here we go. Pay attention. 8 pounds of (long-chain) hydro-CARBONS. Those carbons combine with OXYGEN from the AIR. CARBON PLUS OXYGEN. See? ONE CARBON ATOM COMBINES WITH TWO OXYGEN ATOMS. The oxygen is in the air and it conbines with the carbon. Now three atoms are joined together. The extra weight is from the air.

249 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:00:57pm

CO2 has a Threshold Limit Value--the poison is in the dose.
[Link: inspectapedia.com...]

250 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:01:15pm

re: #219 Charles

Nixon was a RINO!

Charles -

You ARE Correct here. Nixon was a strange Bird. Nixon believed in Race Equality from his days at Duke as an "Orthogonian." Ahead of his time on that one. With bit more luck and better timing he would have been the "Orange Juice King" of the USA.

-S-

251 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:01:29pm

re: #231 avanti

thats how i used to be accused of making love...

tsk.

252 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:01:59pm

re: #248 swamprat

I wouldn't bother, he's just being an obtuse ass because he got caught pants down.

253 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:02:12pm

re: #243 HoosierHoops

You rock dude...I think those old people that drag around oxygen bottles should just drop dead also from to much Oxygen..oh wait..guess not...
/

they say that about me and me Stoli...to hell with 'em...I yam what I yam

254 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:02:19pm

re: #250 Dr. Shalit

Nixon also instituted most of the stupid economic policies we mistakenly blame Jimmy Carter for.

255 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:02:29pm

re: #251 wozzablog

/Information brought to you courtesey of the Freedom of Too Much Information Act.

256 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:02:49pm

LGF = It'll make you smarter™

Guaranteed or your money back!

257 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:02:50pm

re: #254 saik0max0r

Nixon also instituted most of the stupid economic policies we mistakenly blame Jimmy Carter for.

That is very true.

258 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:03:57pm

re: #255 Fenway_Nation

thought some levitation was required.

it's quite the trick.

259 Four More Tears  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:04:01pm

re: #219 Charles

Nixon was a RINO!

Hell, by today's standards Reagan probably would've been one, too...

260 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:04:02pm

re: #202 Jetpilot1101

Trying to refute scientific facts with stupid jokes, good move.

What do you expect from those whose political/scientific intelligence can be summed up in a bumper-sticker. I used to think it was only those on the left that were afflicted with that disease. :sigh:

261 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:04:17pm

Of course one heroic theoretical technology would separate the H from the carbon before combustion. Get the captured Co2 carbon solid, go for the straight Hydrogen Oxygen combustion, which makes heat and water only. Much as technology exists to make methane from oil, hydrogen can be made from methane. You must grab the c02 for this to pan out. Then you get heat and water. Only.

262 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:04:53pm

Got to run lizards. Didn't mean to fuel the CO2 debate but those are the breaks. Have a great evening!

263 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:05:02pm

Yeah sure, I'm going to spend $499 for a bronze bust of Obama, and the money goes to some huckster in Kenya!

But I hope you get $0.0499 because I clicked on it Charles.

264 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:05:05pm

re: #259 JasonA

he did have all them Dem-o-crats a'jawin about how good he was...

265 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:06:04pm

re: #263 Naso Tang

Yeah sure, I'm going to spend $499 for a bronze bust of Obama, and the money goes to some huckster in Kenya!

But...it's made from 100% melted down Winston Churchill busts!

266 Four More Tears  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:06:17pm

re: #264 wozzablog

And we all know that whatever Dems like must be bad for America.///

267 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:06:26pm

re: #259 JasonA

Hell, by today's standards Reagan probably would've been one, too...

Not by my standards. The standards being used to scream "RINO!" were erected by loons seeking purity, which is not a viable concept in politics.

268 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:06:36pm

Well they showed us the stick, now where is the carrot hiding at?

269 steelerjoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:06:42pm

re: #238 Charles

That's very true -- and it was another manifestation of the anti-science religious right's influence on the Bush administration.

What was wrong with Mrs. Bush and here "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and the Correct and Consistent Use of Condoms." approach?

270 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:07:14pm

re: #222 The Curmudgeon

Even if some people deny AGW, so what? Nuclear power is still a good idea. The GOP isn't (or shouldn't be) opposed to it. It's the enviros who keep blocking it.

And the NIMBYs. Can't forget them.

271 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:07:17pm

re: #261 Rightwingconspirator

Of course one heroic theoretical technology would separate the H from the carbon before combustion. Get the captured Co2 carbon solid, go for the straight Hydrogen Oxygen combustion, which makes heat and water only. Much as technology exists to make methane from oil, hydrogen can be made from methane. You must grab the c02 for this to pan out. Then you get heat and water. Only.

You would need a high pressure or an extremely cold vessel to contain the CO2. But a good idea.

272 Four More Tears  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:07:33pm

re: #267 Dark_Falcon

Not by my standards. The standards being used to scream "RINO!" were erected by loons seeking purity, which is not a viable concept in politics.

I'm referring to the standards of what's seen as "the Right" nowadays. Not the standards of most posters here, just to clarify.

273 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:07:41pm

re: #135 WindUpBird

It's astounding to you because you're a denier, yes. We're all aware. We all got the memo. And executive mandates have been around far before this. Awfully convenient that your panties are in a wad about it now, because it has something to do with AGW and a Democratic administration. On a blog which is pro-science.

I side with science and the EPA. if you would like to side with loons, that's between you and your God.

Wow. We were having a very lively discussion on constitutional safeguards and agency powers and then you go and accuse me of (a) being a climate "denier" and (b) siding "with loons". I am disagreeing with the method of regulating green house gases, not AGW itself.

But to turn around your analysis of my point of view back to you, I am assuming you are a liberal, likely read Daily Kos daily, have referred to Bush as "chimpy mchaliburton" in the past, and think anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, a racist or an evangelical religious psycho.

Am I close?

274 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:08:00pm

re: #269 steelerjoe

Mrs Bush was not in charcge of deciding who got foreign aid money.

275 Guanxi88  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:10:19pm

re: #196 mwalke5

How is a presidential veto relevant to this discussion?

It's not a law unless it's signed by the POTUS, or Congress can over-ride a veto.

276 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:10:45pm

re: #271 Racer X

Or a green house to use it at low pressure. Then the plants are your capture tech. Or flip it from a gas to solid, carbon black. You could just bury that.

277 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:11:14pm

I have certainly learned a lot in my recent "study" of climate change issues. The article in NEWSWEEK about the melting glaciers in the Himalayas and the implications for 3 billion people was sobering. But as a person who prides myself on having common sense, there are still political aspects of this debate that trouble me. And my issues tend to be with the environmentalists of the left. I can boil it down pretty simply.

If greenhouse gas and the burning of fossil fuels is the mortal danger that we are told, why don't the people who oppose the building of nuclear power plants change THEIR minds on that issue? Generating electricity through nuclear power is very widespread in Europe, especially in France. As far as I can gather, nuclear power creates little or no greenhouse gas. And while I understand therer are safety issues, and other forms of energy may be preferable, those other technologies are not as available as nuclear power. And if the crisis is as severe as we are told, why are we not taking advantage of a technology that can not only help the planet, but also deny funds to oil producers who have bad intentions?

I wish someone could explain why this is not hypocrisy from the environmentalists.

278 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:11:25pm

re: #273 mwalke5

Wow. We were having a very lively discussion on constitutional safeguards and agency powers and then you go and accuse me of (a) being a climate "denier" and (b) siding "with loons". I am disagreeing with the method of regulating green house gases, not AGW itself.

But to turn around your analysis of my point of view back to you, I am assuming you are a liberal, likely read Daily Kos daily, have referred to Bush as "chimpy mchaliburton" in the past, and think anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, a racist or an evangelical religious psycho.

Am I close?

it's typical around here...resort to snark and name calling...cheap points

279 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:12:04pm

re: #240 saik0max0r

I question the reason for requiring a political component to solve the problem.

How about those dams? Or the national inter-state system of highways? How's that working out for ya?

280 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:12:55pm

re: #277 _RememberTonyC

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

The seal of approval for nuclear power – a cause embraced by Republican senators – came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues.

Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.

281 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:13:07pm

re: #84 Big Steve

It is a year into the next administration. Why not just make the changes and move on rather than adding a towel whip towards Bush.

You know what, after seven plus years of the "liberal media" discussing Bill Clinton's share of blame for the 9/11 attacks that happened under Bush, you'll have to forgive me if calling out Bush for things that actually happened on his watch doesn't strike me as being all that objectionable.

282 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:13:45pm

re: #277 _RememberTonyC

I have certainly learned a lot in my recent "study" of climate change issues. The article in NEWSWEEK about the melting glaciers in the Himalayas and the implications for 3 billion people was sobering. But as a person who prides myself on having common sense, there are still political aspects of this debate that trouble me. And my issues tend to be with the environmentalists of the left. I can boil it down pretty simply.

If greenhouse gas and the burning of fossil fuels is the mortal danger that we are told, why don't the people who oppose the building of nuclear power plants change THEIR minds on that issue? Generating electricity through nuclear power is very widespread in Europe, especially in France. As far as I can gather, nuclear power creates little or no greenhouse gas. And while I understand therer are safety issues, and other forms of energy may be preferable, those other technologies are not as available as nuclear power. And if the crisis is as severe as we are told, why are we not taking advantage of a technology that can not only help the planet, but also deny funds to oil producers who have bad intentions?

I wish someone could explain why this is not hypocrisy from the environmentalists.

the envirocrats want our economy shut down...so far the BO admin is supporting this maneuver with the debt and taxation issue...can it be explained away otherwise?...

283 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:14:43pm

re: #222 The Curmudgeon

Even if some people deny AGW, so what? Nuclear power is still a good idea. The GOP isn't (or shouldn't be) opposed to it. It's the enviros who keep blocking it.

Why not look through the NRC for new applications.

It's a long process but there are many new application filtering their way through the NRC.

284 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:05pm

re: #259 JasonA

He did the illegal alien amnesty that was going to make sure we had none now. Hah. Very liberal in application and result. FAIL.

285 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:17pm

8-Year-Old Guitar Prodigy Stuns Audiences



What does a ten year old know about blues?

Mama wont let me ride my skateboard
Said I need to do my homework instead
When I told her I aint gonna
That mean ol' woman sent me off to bed

286 mwalke5  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:32pm

re: #281 goddamnedfrank

You know what, after seven plus years of the "liberal media" discussing Bill Clinton's share of blame for the 9/11 attacks that happened under Bush, you'll have to forgive me if calling out Bush for things that actually happened on his watch doesn't strike me as being all that objectionable.

Simply put, Clinton's gutting of our intelligence service certainly contributed to 9/11 (there is NO doubt on that point). So yes, Clinton should share some blame. The present day economy? Slightly different situation.

287 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:34pm

re: #282 albusteve

the envirocrats want our economy shut down...so far the BO admin is supporting this maneuver with the debt and taxation issue...can it be explained away otherwise?...

Yes, it could be that the "envirocrats" want clean air and worry about AGW.

288 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:44pm

re: #279 Slumbering Behemoth

How about those dams? Or the national inter-state system of highways? How's that working out for ya?

we need the interstates to ship nuke waste to Nevada...first things first

289 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:48pm

re: #269 steelerjoe

What was wrong with Mrs. Bush and here "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and the Correct and Consistent Use of Condoms." approach?

It did not meet the demands for "purity" generated by the Religious Right. Its worth pointing out that in Africa Uganda is the most successful practitioner of that strategy. That's another reason I don't want that nation to pass that odious anti-gay law. The passage of such a law would herald further RR-type laws that would suffocate AIDS prevention and replace its with reality denial in the name of "purity".

290 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:15:53pm

re: #282 albusteve

Seriously. Is that from the John Birch Society? Have you looked through the portfolios of most Democrats in congress recently?

291 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:16:11pm

re: #277 _RememberTonyC

I blame the hippies.

292 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:16:27pm

Guys, don't you get it? This Gorebul Warming nonsense is just a big conspiracy concocted by those evil, commie environmentalists so they can destroy our country and steal our penises.

Geez, get with the program.
/

293 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:16:32pm

re: #277 _RememberTonyC

Don't forget the Kennedy brood objecting to windmills being built off of the coast of Nantucket because it would obstruct their view.

294 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:16:53pm
295 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:17:12pm

re: #287 avanti

Yes, it could be that the "envirocrats" want clean air and worry about AGW.

Clean Air is important, but lets get it without crippling our economy, shall we?

296 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:18:41pm

re: #295 Dark_Falcon

Clean Air is important, but lets get it without crippling our economy, shall we?

Design flaw or feature?

297 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:18:50pm

re: #292 Slumbering Behemoth

Guys, don't you get it? This Gorebul Warming nonsense is just a big conspiracy concocted by those evil, commie environmentalists so they can destroy our country and steal our penises.

Geez, get with the program.
/

You can have my penis when you pry it from my cold dead. . . . never mind.

298 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:19:02pm

Creationism: Still Crazy after all these years:

299 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:19:33pm

re: #287 avanti

Yes, it could be that the "envirocrats" want clean air and worry about AGW.

luddites...can you explain it then?...our air and water is relatively clean, via the EPA we have done a remarkable job there...what are their solutions to the AGW dilemma?...can you spell them out for me or are you gonna tell me to go google it?

300 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:19:54pm

re: #294 recusancy

Obama and most of the left are NOT against nuclear!

I know, but its like what we've been saying about the Right: Sane people like Mitt Romney and John McCain need to take an unambiguous stand against the Far-Right Crazies, Barack Obama needs to tell the anti-nuclear Far Left to kiss off.

301 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:20:39pm

re: #294 recusancy

Obama and most of the left are NOT against nuclear!

he makes one statement about it and nothing since July? That is a halfhearted effort on his part if you ask me. he should be pounding that point home in his speeches and he has NOT. He needs to do more ... MUCH more.

302 allegro  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:20:42pm

re: #299 albusteve

luddites...can you explain it then?...our air and water is relatively clean, via the EPA we have done a remarkable job there...what are their solutions to the AGW dilemma?..

With no sense of irony detected...

303 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:21:14pm

re: #230 Thanos


Ok, as the guy who proudly can say he built one of the best tools for measuring the nasty effects of air pollution (If you still live in L.A., you owe me bitchez) I mostly agree with you, but the list of caveats is about 10,000 pages long.

We simply don't know enough about what we're talking about to start "limiting" production of things we can't accurately measure over the entire history of the universe (we can measure it now, but not 500 or even 100 years ago), because we simply have no idea what the "proper amount" should be. Any regulatory system established by modern governments will be grossly abused by everyone to perpetuate the most banal evils.

Some people compare the science of GW to Eugenics or other slurs against the legitimate findings. I don't think it's that bad, rather I compare it to the highly biased research used to keep certain drugs "illegal" or other social experimentation that ends in fail: Like Prohibition.

The axiom goes something like this: Yes, booze is bad for you. Government is worse.

304 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:21:23pm

re: #290 Gus 802

Seriously. Is that from the John Birch Society? Have you looked through the portfolios of most Democrats in congress recently?

I know nothing about the JBS...as for portfolios, I don't know what you are referring to

305 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:21:59pm

re: #293 Fenway_Nation

Don't forget the Kennedy brood objecting to windmills being built off of the coast of Nantucket because it would obstruct their view.


that is true ...

306 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:22:31pm

re: #285 Racer X

<
What does a ten year old know about blues?

If you played the hottest dives in town, and you were too young to smoke, drink, gamble, or screw would you be blue?

307 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:23:36pm

re: #241 Jetpilot1101

Then I am a complete loss as to why you were asking all those questions about carbon dioxide content in a gallon of fuel.

That is because the way JetPilot worded his post. He said opne gallon of fuel makes 22 pounds of by product. He was not clear that the additional weight was a by product of combustion. I was trying to figuire out what he was talking about.

The point being that one gallon of fuel does not "contain" 22 pounds of carbon dixoide. That was created as a by-product of combustion.

Now the next question is how much carbon dioxide is too much. Right now the atmosphere is approximately 21% Oxygen (O2), 78% Nitrogen (N2), 0.04% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and ~0.9% Argon (Ar). Who should decide how much of one of these gases is too much or too little? What should these decisions be based on? How much are we willing to invest in managing these numbers?

These are the more interesting questions. I do not believe giving the government carte blanche to tax the economy to its knees is the answer at this point. This whole global warming issue seems like a lot of people shouting at each other, and nobody answering serious questions.

308 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:23:58pm

re: #279 Slumbering Behemoth

People were unable to travel or build dams without the government? News to me.

Can you explain why you neglected to mention organized genocide of the American Indians, or Codified (and backed by the latest science of the time!) Racial Discrimination against Blacks and Chinese in your list of government wonders?

309 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:24:00pm

re: #299 albusteve

luddites...can you explain it then?...our air and water is relatively clean, via the EPA we have done a remarkable job there...what are their solutions to the AGW dilemma?...can you spell them out for me or are you gonna tell me to go google it?

Perhaps the EPA could limit C02 emissions, oh wait...

310 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:24:20pm

re: #305 _RememberTonyC

More to the point, if government was the answer to stopping AGW, how come owning a hybrid car in the country that's hosting the Climate Conference is cost-prohibitive?

311 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:25:11pm

re: #309 avanti

Perhaps the EPA could limit C02 emissions, oh wait...

nice informed answer...I expected more for some reason

312 Cineaste  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:26:09pm

re: #98 mwalke5

Fine. But this decision aside, what constitutional limits are left on the power of executive agencies to circumvent the legislative process? I fear more for the door that these regulations open than the substance of the regulations themselves.

I know! What next? They'll be regulating the level of arsenic in water and lead in children's toys...

the horror, the horror!

[run around screaming]

///

313 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:26:26pm

re: #310 Fenway_Nation

More to the point, if government was the answer to stopping AGW, how come owning a hybrid car in the country that's hosting the Climate Conference is cost-prohibitive?

ha!...there are two kinds of people...

314 swamprat  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:27:10pm

re: #252 Thanos

I wouldn't bother, he's just being an obtuse ass because he got caught pants down.

Staring to doubt my own reasoning. Carbon molecule should be much heavier than oxygen. Any chem students want to weigh in?

315 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:27:28pm

re: #300 Dark_Falcon

What's really funny is the two major groups of Scientific Illiterates are going to go head to head:

The Anti Nuclear Left, and the Head in Sand Denier Right.

We need to throw in the Contrails people, Truthers and Birthers in and then it will resemble either a Bill Hicks or George Carlin Joke.. (I forget which)

316 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:28:05pm

re: #308 saik0max0r

The inter-state system, a gov't program.

Many, if not most dams, gov't programs.

Bringing up the rest of that crap in your post is fucking stupid. You sound like some kind of anti-gov't reactionary. I am done with you, moron.

317 ear-to-hear  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:28:36pm

re: #45 Cato the Elder

Go, EPA!

Now let them figure out how to stop the "avalanche of hot meat that eats everything in sight, makes love, and doubles in size" that is humanity (Kurt Vonnegut) and maybe I'll start to cheer instead of despair.

Well. I think you can cheer up then.
If there is one thing that socialist/marxist/communist states excel at, it's producing mounds and mounds of dead citizens.

318 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:28:40pm

re: #311 albusteve

nice informed answer...I expected more for some reason

re: #311 albusteve

nice informed answer...I expected more for some reason

It's pretty simple really. High Co2 levels cause warming, reduce it. How to get there is the issue. I agree nuclear power is a no brainer, weather proofing is another. Reducing fossil fuel use as much as possible.

319 lawhawk  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:29:30pm

re: #232 recusancy

Obama can be for it, but until Harry Reid steps aside and moves forward with Yucca Mt, nuclear waste will continue to pile up at locations around the country.

Meanwhile, the EPA's current chief - Lisa Jackson (who previously ran things in NJ under Corzine), is blaming the prior Administration for not administering the safe water drinking act.

Hundreds of municipalities have water tainted by contaminants that exceed EPA requirements, but only a handful have been fined.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

The EPA lacks the money to go after the municipalities.

The municipalities lack the money to make the changes, and foot dragging goes on all around the country.

NYC was mandated to build a filtration plant b/c of suspended particulates from one of their reservoirs. That would cost $1 billion+ to build, and the City fought it for years on end. They're finally building it, and it's ended up costing far more than ever anticipated. Those costs got passed on to everyone.

And EPA regs are now looking at additional filtration on NYC water for other reservoirs. Watershed protection costs have gone through the roof, but what is the alternative? The money has to be spent to keep the quality up, but what about those municipalities who lack the resources to make it happen...

320 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:31:17pm

re: #318 avanti

It's pretty simple really. High Co2 levels cause warming, reduce it. How to get there is the issue. I agree nuclear power is a no brainer, weather proofing is another. Reducing fossil fuel use as much as possible.

I suspect a good way to start would be to remove all the antique junkers off the road and restrict ownership of multiple cars in that class...you in?...get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

321 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:31:23pm

re: #124 The Curmudgeon

(caution devils advocate ahead...)

The "Greens" take a longer longer term view - yes - it would prevent some warming, but, you still end up with hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste with a massive half life and no eternal storage solution.

They are looking ahead to what comes after.

The moderate Green agenda is - save wasted energy (switch to energey saving bulbs, turn appliances off standby etc), use innovation to reduce the consumption of future generations of products, widen "micro generation" through roof top wind turbines and solar panels, massive Government investment in building tidal/hydro, solar and wind... seeking to close the gap that way and maintain standard of living.

There are those who go further - but the mainstream pragmatists out number them - even if they don't out shout them.

322 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:32:37pm

re: #273 mwalke5

Wow. We were having a very lively discussion on constitutional safeguards and agency powers and then you go and accuse me of (a) being a climate "denier" and (b) siding "with loons". I am disagreeing with the method of regulating green house gases, not AGW itself.

But to turn around your analysis of my point of view back to you, I am assuming you are a liberal, likely read Daily Kos daily, have referred to Bush as "chimpy mchaliburton" in the past, and think anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, a racist or an evangelical religious psycho.

Am I close?

Yep, Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope. I was the liberals calling out liberals for going all truther and "Bush stole the election!!1" walnuts. A while ago, I was the guy who lost friends over arguments over how insane third-wave feminism became.

And now I'm the guy saying you're siding with loons. Because you are. That is a checkable fact. You are siding with kooks, young-earth-creationists and anti-science wackos. You aren't just disagreeing with the methods of regulating greenhouse gases, you were disagreeing WITH regulation. Big difference. You are pretending the EPA doesn't have a mandate, which it obviously does. Your ideology trumps reason, history, science and logic. You are a AGW denier and a concern troll.

323 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:32:42pm

re: #315 saik0max0r

What's really funny is the two major groups of Scientific Illiterates are going to go head to head:

The Anti Nuclear Left, and the Head in Sand Denier Right.

We need to throw in the Contrails people, Truthers and Birthers in and then it will resemble either a Bill Hicks or George Carlin Joke.. (I forget which)

It's the Carlin joke. An argument like that is a freak show, with Glen Beck as the star attraction.

324 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:33:11pm

re: #319 lawhawk

stockpiling nuke waste all over the country is a huge cost...a few people holding up the will of the many...maximum elitists and the feds are behind them

325 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:34:42pm

re: #316 Slumbering Behemoth

Look dude, if you can't do a Cost Benefit Analysis without factoring the negatives, you're the moron.

The Government built highways, awesome. Doesn't mean I should think they couldn't have done it better/ cheaper / faster.

The Government builds dams, which disrupt the salmon population. Again, you can't highlight the good without also pointing out the bad. You need to understand both to get an idea of what you're getting into, and which policies make sense and which are dangerous wishful thinking.

326 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:35:26pm

re: #291 Racer X

I blame the hippies.


I blame the French. They made Nuclear look so easy with their nationalizing of the electrical producers and distributors, and their socializing the risks and rewards. Fucking commies.

327 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:35:51pm

re: #322 WindUpBird

Yep, Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope. I was the liberals calling out liberals for going all truther and "Bush stole the election!!1" walnuts. A while ago, I was the guy who lost friends over arguments over how insane third-wave feminism became.

And now I'm the guy saying you're siding with loons. Because you are. That is a checkable fact. You are siding with kooks, young-earth-creationists and anti-science wackos. You aren't just disagreeing with the methods of regulating greenhouse gases, you were disagreeing WITH regulation. Big difference. You are pretending the EPA doesn't have a mandate, which it obviously does. Your ideology trumps reason, history, science and logic. You are a AGW denier and a concern troll.

and you are a bonafied ass hole...think about it...you degrade the blog with your namecalling

328 The Curmudgeon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:37:02pm

re: #321 wozzablog

(caution devils advocate ahead...)

The "Greens" take a longer longer term view - yes - it would prevent some warming, but, you still end up with hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste with a massive half life and no eternal storage solution.

There are lots of solutions to nuclear waste. We can safely drop it into ocean trenches, where it will get recycled into the earth. We can build a Great Pyramid in New Mexico. Doesn't matter. If the planet is at risk from AGW, then all problems like waste disposal are minor by comparison.

329 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:37:03pm

re: #320 albusteve

I suspect a good way to start would be to remove all the antique junkers off the road and restrict ownership of multiple cars in that class...you in?...get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

I assume you are talking about collector cars, and they are so few, and driven so occasionally that they are not a major factor. Like NASCAR, and other auto races, not a big factor. If I drive my Studebaker 500 miles a year, I'd be surprised.

330 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:37:07pm

re: #310 Fenway_Nation

More to the point, if government was the answer to stopping AGW, how come owning a hybrid car in the country that's hosting the Climate Conference is cost-prohibitive?

What? What in the hell are you talking about? Denmark has one of the most advances systems of transit in the world.

"Nearly one-fifth of all trips in Copenhagen are by bicycle, and for home-to-work commutes, 36 % of all trips are by bicycle."


It's as if someone gave you five thousand dollars, and you complained because it was fewer physical bills than five hundred one dollar bills.

Seriously dude. There are not enough facepalms.

331 steelerjoe  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:37:23pm

Should I believe anything in this EPA study? The timing of this press release is very convenient...?

332 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:38:26pm

re: #323 Dark_Falcon

Can we get Jerry Springer to be the ring master?

333 swamprat  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:39:20pm

re: #331 steelerjoe

2008

334 ED 209  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:39:22pm

re: #183 Thor-Zone

There is not 22 pounds of anything in something that weighs 8 pounds. I don't care who says it. There may be stuff added to the gallon of fuel during the combustion process, but there is no way there is 22 pounds of carbon comes from a gallon of fuel.

You're not too bright, are you?

335 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:39:40pm

re: #330 WindUpBird

hey asshole...TonyC is up at the next thread...why don't you go up there and square your troll problem with him...all juiced up bigshot?

336 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:40:37pm

re: #334 ED 209

He's right. No matter was created or destroyed, so no net carbon atoms were created.

If he said "carbon dioxide" he'd be wrong.

337 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:40:43pm

re: #329 avanti

I assume you are talking about collector cars, and they are so few, and driven so occasionally that they are not a major factor. Like NASCAR, and other auto races, not a big factor. If I drive my Studebaker 500 miles a year, I'd be surprised.

good answer...your're still okay with me...but I need to pull your chain here and there

338 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:40:58pm

re: #332 saik0max0r

Can we get Jerry Springer to be the ring master?

Works for me. He'd be just fine in that role.

339 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:40:59pm

re: #335 albusteve

hey asshole...TonyC is up at the next thread...why don't you go up there and square your troll problem with him...all juiced up bigshot?

Buh? What does TonyC have to do with anything?

340 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:41:37pm
341 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:41:46pm

re: #29 brent

Carbon dioxide is bad? Really? Try telling that to a plant.

Try telling it to my coworker, who had the HVAC vent it into her room for a period of weeks, until she ended up in the hospital. The kids were complaining of headaches, but the kids weren't in there for nine hours a day.

This isn't a matter of 'good' or 'bad'.

342 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:41:54pm

re: #324 albusteve

stockpiling nuke waste all over the country is a huge cost...a few people holding up the will of the many...maximum elitists and the feds are behind them

"The Feds" are not one mind. Dept of Defence went ape when the Barnwell site restricted acceptance of low-level waste. It's better to think of waste as "energy sources we don't know how to use yet".

343 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:43:00pm

re: #320 albusteve

get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

That might work out well for places that don't need 4 WD. In Alaska we need our SUVs just to get through our winters here. In LA or or Washington DC, not so much.

344 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:44:25pm

re: #330 WindUpBird

What? What in the hell are you talking about? Denmark has one of the most advances systems of transit in the world.

"Nearly one-fifth of all trips in Copenhagen are by bicycle, and for home-to-work commutes, 36 % of all trips are by bicycle."

It's as if someone gave you five thousand dollars, and you complained because it was fewer physical bills than five hundred one dollar bills.

Seriously dude. There are not enough facepalms.

Have you ever been to Copenhagen, or Denmark? Have you ever been to the USA? If you were documenting the difference by bicycle, do you think you would notice the difference?

345 albusteve  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:45:19pm

re: #343 Thor-Zone

That might work out well for places that don't need 4 WD. In Alaska we need our SUVs just to get through our winters here. In LA or or Washington DC, not so much.

I was referring to Avanti's hobby...inside slam

346 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:46:01pm

re: #343 Thor-Zone

That might work out well for places that don't need 4 WD. In Alaska we need our SUVs just to get through our winters here. In LA or or Washington DC, not so much.

4WD, huh?

* 2009 Acura TL (25 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A3 (28 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A4 (30 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A5 (27 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 328 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 335 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 528 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 535 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW X5 diesel (26 mpg)
* 2009 Cadillac CTS (25 mpg)
* 2009 Cadillac STS (26 mpg)
* 2009 Ford Escape (25 mpg)
* 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2010 Ford Fusion (25 mpg)
* 2009 Honda CR-V (26 mpg)
* 2009 Jeep Compass (28 mpg)
* 2009 Jeep Patriot (28 mpg)
* 2009 Lexus GS 350 (25 mpg)
* 2009 Lexus IS 250 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Mazda Tribute (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mazda Tribute Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mercury Mariner (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mercury Mariner Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2010 Mercury Milan (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander (25 mpg)
* 2009 Nissan Rouge (26 mpg)
* 2010 Pontiac Vibe (26 mpg)
* 2009 Saab 9-3 (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Forester (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Impreza (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Legacy (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Outback (27 mpg)
* 2009 Suzuki Grand Vitara (25 mpg)
* 2009 Suzuki SX4 (28 mpg)
* 2010 Toyota Matrix (26 mpg)
* 2009 Toyota RAV4 (27 mpg)
* 2009 Toyota Venza (28 mpg)
* 2009 Volkswagen CC (25 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo S40 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo S60 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo V50 (26 mpg)

There ya go! All AWD vehicles with good mileage.

/google is very useful

347 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:49:05pm

re: #337 albusteve

good answer...your're still okay with me...but I need to pull your chain here and there

The old car hobby will die a natural death in a few decades. A small company can reproduce a tail light lens for a 57 Chevy, try that with say a 87 Corvette computer. Heck, in 20 years, you might need to go to a chemical company to buy a few gallons of gasoline.

348 KingKenrod  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:49:09pm

The EPA isn't going to do a damned thing. There's no way Congress is going to let the executive branch steal this kind of power from them. The Clean Air Act was never meant to be this far reaching.

But I'd love to see what kinds of things the EPA would do if Congress calls
their bluff and can't get an energy bill passed next year.

349 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:50:29pm

re: #344 Naso Tang

Have you ever been to Copenhagen, or Denmark? Have you ever been to the USA? If you were documenting the difference by bicycle, do you think you would notice the difference?

You're saying you wouldn't notice the difference between a city where a third of all work commutes are by bicycle and a city like LA which relies on cars?

I live in Portland, Oregon, the most bike friendly city in the US. I notice a SHOCKING difference compared with less bike friendly cities. Full disclosure, I have not been to Denmark, but I have been to France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, England, Scotland, and Amsterdam. And I noticed a massive difference in bike traffic (and walkable pedestrian friendly areas) in Amsterdam versus the US.

350 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:50:29pm

re: #254 saik0max0r

Nixon also instituted most of the stupid economic policies we mistakenly blame Jimmy Carter for.

saik0max0r -

You are NEW here. In the day - I was as "Anti-Nixon" as anybody except Hillary Rodham. Met her back then briefly and thought she was unbalanced in trying to deny Richard Nixon the right to Counsel on the Basis that Impeachment was - "like being fired."
If you are a Paulian, OK, he took us OFF the de-facto "Gold Standard" in and about 1971 when the rest of the world would have cleaned us out of OUR gold at +/- $40 per troy ounce. For what it is worth, Richard Nixon ASSERTED American Power on that one. The RUN on the US Gold Window was stopped DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.
As for Former President Carter, who I HELPED ELECT in 1976 - Enough to have gotten Tickets and Attended His Inauguration I am ambivalent. Former President Carter was able to accentuate the US goal of Universal Human Rights. He was successful in the Israel/Egypt Treaty, the Panama Canal Treaty, wanted to Normalize Relations with Cuba, and knew when to retreat from that position when Castro, Inc. started to arrest dissidents in the plain view of ABC-TV. Castro,Inc.'s BAD - Not Former President Carter's.
Former President Carter also wanted us to adopt the Metric System, not a bad idea actually, Industry has quietly done that - as has the Military - notice that a lot of "Customary Measurement" specifications you see are decimalized. Also the "Reagan Military Buildup" also started under Former President Carter after the April, 1980 failure of the Hostage Rescue Effort, much as the "New Deal" actually started under HOOVER and was extended and enlarged by FDR, and YES "Obamanomics" similarly starting in the last 4 - 5 months of the GWB Presidency.
FWIW - the weakness of the Former Carter Administration, and the current Obama Administration is in my mind the expectation of both that an Accommodating, Apologetic USA will be more respected than a FEARED USA.
A reading of old Nicolo Machiavelli with a bit of maturity and experience will disabuse you of the Carter/Obama notion quickly. As for myself, back then, I Plead Guilty to Being Young and Ignorant. That is all, for tonight.

-S-

351 Thor-Zone  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:50:41pm

re: #346 WindUpBird

4WD, huh?

* 2009 Acura TL (25 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A3 (28 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A4 (30 mpg)
* 2009 Audi A5 (27 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 328 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 335 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 528 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW 535 (25 mpg)
* 2009 BMW X5 diesel (26 mpg)
* 2009 Cadillac CTS (25 mpg)
* 2009 Cadillac STS (26 mpg)
* 2009 Ford Escape (25 mpg)
* 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2010 Ford Fusion (25 mpg)
* 2009 Honda CR-V (26 mpg)
* 2009 Jeep Compass (28 mpg)
* 2009 Jeep Patriot (28 mpg)
* 2009 Lexus GS 350 (25 mpg)
* 2009 Lexus IS 250 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Mazda Tribute (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mazda Tribute Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mercury Mariner (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mercury Mariner Hybrid (27 mpg)
* 2010 Mercury Milan (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer (25 mpg)
* 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander (25 mpg)
* 2009 Nissan Rouge (26 mpg)
* 2010 Pontiac Vibe (26 mpg)
* 2009 Saab 9-3 (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Forester (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Impreza (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Legacy (27 mpg)
* 2009 Subaru Outback (27 mpg)
* 2009 Suzuki Grand Vitara (25 mpg)
* 2009 Suzuki SX4 (28 mpg)
* 2010 Toyota Matrix (26 mpg)
* 2009 Toyota RAV4 (27 mpg)
* 2009 Toyota Venza (28 mpg)
* 2009 Volkswagen CC (25 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo S40 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo S60 (26 mpg)
* 2009 Volvo V50 (26 mpg)

There ya go! All AWD vehicles with good mileage.

/google is very useful

They might be fine for Anchorage or Fairbanks, but most of those cars suck here...they don't have enough ground clearance. Our roads are bad because the people in Washington DC won't let us build any and we get 2 feet of snow at a time at least a few times a year. Under our statehood agreement, we are not allowed to build Interstate highways here. The best road we have is only 2 lanes each direction.

I wish there was a better way to go...

352 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:53:32pm

re: #321 wozzablog

(caution devils advocate ahead...)

The "Greens" take a longer longer term view - yes - it would prevent some warming, but, you still end up with hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste with a massive half life and no eternal storage solution.

We don't need to store it. There are breeder reactor designs that would leave us with much less waste, at a shorter half life. The only problem is it costs money, and why spend money now that our kids can take care of later./

(note, sarc noticeably included)

353 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:56:54pm

re: #351 Thor-Zone

All of those cars have poor ground clearance?

354 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:58:21pm

re: #351 Thor-Zone

How did I become the car guy? You've never heard of a lift kit? No matter WHAT your ground clearance is, you can find a solution that gets good mileage that is not a Suburban or a F350. It might take a lift kit, but I've seen smaller AWD cars in deep snow (yes, even 2 feet) do fine, if they have the right tires and decent ground clearance.

355 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:58:44pm

re: #353 Obdicut

All of those cars have poor ground clearance?

Dude just wants to complain about THE GOVERNMENT

356 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:58:50pm

re: #349 WindUpBird

You're saying you wouldn't notice the difference between a city where a third of all work commutes are by bicycle and a city like LA which relies on cars?

I live in Portland, Oregon, the most bike friendly city in the US. I notice a SHOCKING difference compared with less bike friendly cities. Full disclosure, I have not been to Denmark, but I have been to France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, England, Scotland, and Amsterdam. And I noticed a massive difference in bike traffic (and walkable pedestrian friendly areas) in Amsterdam versus the US.

The difference is, of course partly in attitude, but mainly in size, which seems to escape you. US cities also have, by my observation, far less people living in the cities than do those in Europe. How many US cities can you name where it it is practical to cycle to a downtown office from the suburbs, or where people live downtown within a few miles of their place of work, not to mention their grocery store?

357 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:01:21pm

re: #353 Obdicut

All of those cars have poor ground clearance?

The Jeep Rubicon has 10.5 inches of ground clearance. if he claims he needs more than that, then he needs a snowmobile.

358 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:06:30pm

re: #326 Jeff In Ohio

I blame the French. They made Nuclear look so easy with their nationalizing of the electrical producers and distributors, and their socializing the risks and rewards. Fucking commies.

Cute use of the omitted sarc tag, but you are playing it close given that they are laughing at all the free market enthusiasts now dependent on the Saudis and Iraqis.

359 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:09:08pm

re: #347 avanti

The old car hobby will die a natural death in a few decades

Jay Leno had some interesting thoughts on that - he disagrees.

When Hydrogen becomes mainstream he reckons it will save classic cars as playthings, just as the combustion engine saved horses from the collieries and put them on the race track and trekking trails.

360 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:10:41pm

re: #310 Fenway_Nation

More to the point, if government was the answer to stopping AGW, how come owning a hybrid car in the country that's hosting the Climate Conference is cost-prohibitive?

By US standards, owning any car in Denmark has been cost prohibitive for at least 30 years, as far as I can remember.

361 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:10:50pm

re: #356 Naso Tang

The difference is, of course partly in attitude, but mainly in size, which seems to escape you. US cities also have, by my observation, far less people living in the cities than do those in Europe. How many US cities can you name where it it is practical to cycle to a downtown office from the suburbs, or where people live downtown within a few miles of their place of work, not to mention their grocery store?

I know we sprawl more. Which is a problem. And I can name several. Mine (Portland), Seattle (I know people who cycle from inner suburbs) obviously San Francisco.

I live within easily cycling distance of my work (under 5 miles) I can also take light rail, I can walk to a grocery store. Most of my interweb friends around the country and Canada (Boston, Austin, New York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia the bay, Vancouver BC) you can say the same about. Because we live in dense areas, on the coasts. I'm not saying everything is equitable, but one of the reasons it's not equitable is because we overall have shitty land-use planning which encourages exurbs and car-centric lifestyles, discourages walkable shopping and basically functioning without cars as all. And now that we have a recession, we're finding these exurbs are not sustainable. Portland's strong land-use planning has infuriated local conservatives who want us to just open the floodgates and allow sprawl like LA. Our landuse planning, bike lanes, and light rail are also what makes Portland awesome.

I'm a car guy. I'm not saying anyone should give up their cars. But it's ridiculous to not give Copehangen the props for being green. They are, and Fenway's crack was ludicrous snark.

362 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:11:19pm

re: #360 Naso Tang

By US standards, owning any car in Denmark has been cost prohibitive for at least 30 years, as far as I can remember.

I was also going to mention that. Buying a car in Europe, not at all like buying one here!

363 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:12:43pm

re: #351 Thor-Zone

the scooby forrester, mitsubishi outlander and Grand Vitara are fab offroaders. The X5 from beemer works ok, but is flummoxed by tanktraps...(thats real world testing for you)..

364 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:13:25pm

re: #347 avanti

The old car hobby will die a natural death in a few decades. A small company can reproduce a tail light lens for a 57 Chevy, try that with say a 87 Corvette computer. Heck, in 20 years, you might need to go to a chemical company to buy a few gallons of gasoline.

You need to read Jalopnik. 8-)

If LeMons racers can get a JUNKED Porsche 928 that has an electrical system more byzantine than the minotaur's labyrinth running for a 24 hour road race, then anything is possible.

365 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:14:16pm

re: #361 WindUpBird

Did you go riding out in the blustery global warming today? :-)

366 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:14:38pm

re: #363 wozzablog

the scooby forrester, mitsubishi outlander and Grand Vitara are fab offroaders. The X5 from beemer works ok, but is flummoxed by tanktraps...(thats real world testing for you)..

If I needed an offroad car, I'd go with a Subie, yep. Maybe a WRX STI with the suspension from an Outback sport!

367 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:17:05pm

re: #365 saik0max0r

Did you go riding out in the blustery global warming today? :-)

I am not a good enough rider to cope with ice, that's what the light rail is for. I did take the Max downtown in the frigid weather to drink myself stupid at the Holiday Ale fest!

368 saik0max0r  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:20:05pm

re: #367 WindUpBird

Beerfest this year was awesome during the Civil War game, not as crowded as usual.

I'm just hoping no snow this year..

369 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:22:47pm

re: #361 WindUpBird

Walk down any downtown city street in Europe and any building, or at least the site, is older than the USA. This is a matter that architects and town planners understand but we here have trouble appreciating.

I learned a new word recently (thanks Cato). It was Presentist. It means in essence superimposing the present on the past. There should be a word that means superimposing the present society on the one next door. Actually there are such words, but none are the ones I am looking for in this context.

Anyone want to invent one, or teach me one?

370 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:26:05pm

re: #366 WindUpBird

the world rally car is a standard saloon body with raised ground clearence and a formula one engine - it's ostentacious.

But - relative to the Audi RS4 rocket ship, which is a similar size - it costs about 2cents to buy.

Servicing on them is hell though.

The Legacy Wagon with the Impreza engine gives you abou 85% of the thrills with proper practicallity and greater servicing intervals.

371 punditra  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:33:35pm

What do you say about this: [Link: online.wsj.com...]

372 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:34:39pm

re: #320 albusteve

I suspect a good way to start would be to remove all the antique junkers off the road and restrict ownership of multiple cars in that class...you in?...get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

Albusteve -

I to a large extent agree with your outcomes if NOT your methods regarding our Vehicle fleet. Just remember this - through 1992 and somewhat into the 1993/4 MODEL YEAR, the US Vehicle Fleet kept getting MORE EFFICIENT. Being in the Automobile industry at the time gave me a perspective not everybody has.
From what I could see, after close to 20 years of buying more practical transportation, Americans got tired of automotive "hair shirts" and were becoming prosperous enough to indulge "wants" as ell as "needs."
The Winter of 1993/4 - at least here on the East Coast - capped it. 16 Snowstorms, to the best of my recollection, proved one thing. Folks with 4x4 Trucks and Utility Vehicles were mobile - those without them - Not So Much! Beyond that was the subliminal - Guys driving such vehicles were "macho" - Girls driving them were young again and had escaped driving "Mom-Mobiles" even though in both cases they were driving, effectively, less efficient Mini-Vans.
And THAT, my friends, aided by inexpensive fuel, was THE STORY.

-S-

373 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:39:03pm

re: #320 albusteve

I suspect a good way to start would be to remove all the antique junkers off the road and restrict ownership of multiple cars in that class...you in?...get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

Why bother restricting ownership when all you have to do is pay them thousands to trade them in (for ones that get 2 mpg better)?

374 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:40:23pm
375 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:43:12pm

Saw that one coming. Buh bye.

376 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:45:05pm

re: #320 albusteve

I suspect a good way to start would be to remove all the antique junkers off the road and restrict ownership of multiple cars in that class...you in?...get rid of these rolling, overweight steel guzzlers first

Just because of you I'm going to start driving my 68 Cougar more frequently. And I'm going to rev the engine loudly at every stop too.

377 Cato the Elder  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 8:11:29pm

re: #369 Naso Tang

Walk down any downtown city street in Europe and any building, or at least the site, is older than the USA. This is a matter that architects and town planners understand but we here have trouble appreciating.

I learned a new word recently (thanks Cato). It was Presentist. It means in essence superimposing the present on the past. There should be a word that means superimposing the present society on the one next door. Actually there are such words, but none are the ones I am looking for in this context.

Anyone want to invent one, or teach me one?

It actually means discriminating against the future in favor of what's happening right now.

It is la condition humaine.

378 abolitionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:08:10pm

re: #33 brent

No, it's hydrogen dioxide that's bad...

Link, please? Or did you mean di-hydrogen monoxide?

379 abolitionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:12:52pm
380 abolitionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:33:14pm

re: #96 Thor-Zone

Actually that would be CO, not CO2. Carbon monoxide is deadly to humans. Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas at the current levels in the atmosphere.

First sentence is quite correct. Second is politically incorrect, apparently.

381 ryannon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:40:05pm

re: #211 Thor-Zone

Why in the past when there was more CO2 in the air than now was the earth cooler?

Electricity was much cheaper back then and no one ever turned off their air-conditioning units.

382 ryannon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:41:55pm

re: #270 Slumbering Behemoth

And the NIMBYs. Can't forget them.

And the stinkin' hippies!

383 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:42:25pm

re: #377 Cato the Elder

It actually means discriminating against the future in favor of what's happening right now.

It is la condition humaine.

Like ignoring AGW? (*OUCH*)

384 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:43:10pm

Nite

385 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:53:12pm

re: #102 Sharmuta

It's not harmless. CO2 traps and radiates heat, and we've contributed significant amounts of it to the atmosphere.

CO2 does not trap heat that is physically impossible. It does not radiate heat either. Nothing can trap heat. It radiates a photon of IR.

386 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:22:24pm

re: #235 WindUpBird

$300 million to those psychos during Bush for their abstinence mumbo-jumbo. And people are talking about Pelosi's flower expenditures.

If you really want to talk science then abstinence is 100% effective and condoms 80% effective so your best safest bet is abstinence. But most people add in social science and say that abstinence is not pratical. However, just on numbers abstinence wins hands down.

387 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:31:11pm

re: #314 swamprat

Staring to doubt my own reasoning. Carbon molecule should be much heavier than oxygen. Any chem students want to weigh in?

Carbon is a six and oxygen is eight on the periodic table.

388 revGDright  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:12:23pm

We have real pollution problems in this country: Water quality and availability issues, air pollution (not CO2, but real nasty stuff), all kinds of persistent pesticides and herbicides we throw all over our lawns and down our storm drains. If the EPA wastes any more than 5% of its budget on tracking CO2, the American people will be getting ripped off.

389 HillJack  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:29:55pm

re: #91 Thanos

The EPA was granted the power to regulate air pollution by congress, and in 2007 the Supes said that "air pollution" includes Greenhouse gases. Have another false argument about the constitutionality?

And of course we all know that the SCOTUS follows the constitution word for word right?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 104 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 270 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1