Reply
Sat 20 Feb, 2010 10:18 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/19/epa-countering-critics-greenhouse-gas-findings-says-science-settled/
Quote:
EPA, Countering Critics of Greenhouse Gas Findings, Says 'Science Is Settled'
By Molly Henneberg
- FOXNews.com
The EPA says it is going forward with "common sense measures that are helping to protect Americans from this threat" and said its critics are trying to "stall progress."
The Environmental Protection Agency, responding complaints about its December findings about the threat of greenhouse gases, issued a statement Friday saying that the "science is settled" and "greenhouse gases pose a real threat to the American people."
The statement comes after after Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition with the EPA and a challenge in federal appeals court over the EPA's conclusions.
With climate scientists in the hot seat recently over an e-mail scandal and mistakes in a prominent U.N. report, Cuccinelli argues the EPA should "restart the process and this time use rigorous, defensible science."
He says the EPA is expected to announces measures to cap carbon emissions, based on its climate change findings, and that will put a "staggering burden" on Virginia residents and businesses.
The EPA says it is going forward with "common sense measures that are helping to protect Americans from this threat" and said its critics are trying to "stall progress."
Some who support the EPA's efforts to enact carbon caps on vehicle emissions say Cuccinelli is just playing politics.
"It's very clear this is coming from lawyers, not scientists, and there's really no new science that needs to be resolved," said Brendan Bell, Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading nonprofit environmental group.
But the science that climatologists have been using has come under fire. Recently, some parts of the 2007 United Nations Panel Report on Climate Change were found to contain mistakes, including a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.
And one of the lead scientists in the Climate-gate scandal last year, Phil Jones, acknowledged that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. But he also claims most of the climate warning since 1950 is "due to human activity."
Discussion on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2455307/posts
Major lawsuits in the works etc. etc.
@gungasnake,
Your sources as usual aren't worth the used toilet paper their spiritually printed out on.
@gungasnake,
Quote:Major lawsuits in the works etc. etc.
What you gonna do when the courts side with the EPA gunga?
oh... wait.. didn't they already side with the EPA?
Quote:On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.
I made myself so unpopular seven years ago in the first "global warming" thread that i've stayed out of discussions ever since. It's never been a question (for me at least) if climate change were happening, although many of the alleged indicators were of dubious provenance--the question has always been how significant the human contribution has been. I have no reason to doubt the EPA's science with regard to "greenhouse gases," not only is the science settled, but Venus on the one hand and Mars on the other are stark examples of how too much greenhouse gas and not enough respectively have altered otherwise very similar environments. I do have reason to be skeptical, though, about just how significant the human factor might be. I have long suspected, and continue to suspect that the climate fluctuates between extremes as a result of factors beside which human activity is essentially puny. We like to think of ourselves as terribly important--and then hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions come along to remind us (if we're paying attention) of just how insignificant we truly are. One long sustained period of vulcanism (such as occurred from 1812 to 1817), or one or two spectacular volcanic events, such as Mount Tambora (a stratovolcano) in 1815, or Krakatoa in 1883 could really put this all in perspective for us, since so few people pay attention to their history. Tambora, coming as it did in the midst of a long period of sustained, intensive vulcanism, had a frighteningly profound effect on the world. Do a web search sometime on the year 1816--known in Europe at the time as the year without a summer (the latter phrase should be your search criterion). It's the largest famine event in recorded history in Europe. So you'd be hard pressed to convince me that human activity is all that important. That doesn't mean that i don't think it's a good idea to reduce the artificial production of greenhouse gases--just that i recognize that we're not as important as we like to think we are.
None of which, of course, alters the hilarious stupidity of Gunga Dim's remark about law suits. That boy just cracks me up.
@Setanta,
Quote:
None of which, of course, alters the hilarious stupidity of Gunga Dim's remark about law suits. That boy just cracks me up.
It looks like several states have already tried to file lawsuits against the EPA on this issue.
Texas and Virginia are 2.
This could be interesting because for it to go forward it will require the courts to look at the science and I don't know of anyone that really thinks the science will refute the EPA's conclusions. While the critics might be able to nitpick parts of it, the overwhelming majority will give the EPA the power to regulate it. The only recourse will be for Congress to step in and do it's own regulation. Without Congressional action, the EPA has the power and the science on it's side.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace