Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

cjhsa wrote:

maporsche wrote:
He's making **** up again.

Big deal. So are all the global warming conspiracists.

I wouldn't say they're making things up. At worst, they are misinterpreting data (which I don't believe they're doing).

You on the otherhand simply LIED.

Repent or burn in hell.

0 Replies

You must make those signs I see up in northern Michigan. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, today House oversight committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) has released the results of the panel's 16-month investigation into political interference in government climate change science. You can see the 37-page report here. It details how the administration censored climate scientists, edited climate change reports, and involved itself in the Environment Protection Agency's legal opinions.

The takeaway?
Quote:
"The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

My favorite part, from the committee's summary of its report:

Quote:
The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. [Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality] James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of Science conclusion that "the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities," CEQ objected because "the above quotes are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made." The first line of another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion reads: "Vulnerability: science." The final opinion incorporating the White House edits was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.

http://tpmmuckraker.com/

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

http://tpmmuckraker.com/

Hi blatham,
American citizens are eagerly waiting for liberals like Waxman to be in command of CO2 regulations to put the final nails on the coffin of GW... If the experience of more than 10 years with Canadian liberals under Dion (when GHG emissions never ceased to grow) is not enough Twisted Evil

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

blatham wrote:
http://tpmmuckraker.com/
Hi blatham,
American citizens are eagerly waiting for liberals like Waxman to be in command of CO2 regulations to put the final nails on the coffin of GW... If the experience of more than 10 years with Canadian liberals under Dion (when GHG emissions never ceased to grow) is not enough

When lacking substantive rebuttal, there's always useless partisan bickering to go around.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As a critical non-person i
I beg to submit this.
Casting aspersions on other' is an easy job.
Conserving christmas without commercial support is not.
The show business of Christmas should prevail.
And let me count the death of the innocents before i go shopping.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

blatham wrote:
http://tpmmuckraker.com/
Hi blatham,
American citizens are eagerly waiting for liberals like Waxman to be in command of CO2 regulations to put the final nails on the coffin of GW... If the experience of more than 10 years with Canadian liberals under Dion (when GHG emissions never ceased to grow) is not enough

I'm not altogether confident that the US political system, regardless of party in charge, has the wherewithall to conceive the future much past four years.

But, as the above (and much else) indicates, the Bush administration operates as a partner/functionary to business interests and, of course, lies through the teeth regarding it's plans, motives, and the facts.

It seems quite impossible to imagine an administration less concerned about the general welfare of its population (not to mention other nations' peoples) than this one.

And I confess I do look forward to more principles involved in all of this being placed behind bars.

Hence, a part of my motivation in hoping that the dems enlarge their majorities and gain the WH...all of which looks probable at this point.

And hello back at you.

0 Replies

Was that an example of "useless partisan bickering"?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Was that an example of "useless partisan bickering"?

It only tangentially addressed the topic, and primarily involved dislike of the opposite party, so I would say yes.

I believe, as I always have, that the gov't has no place meddling with scientists or their recommendations. It is a pernicious practice and one which does not lead to the bettering of mankind whatsoever.

I'm well aware that from time to time, the conclusions of the scientists will be in opposition to the goals of the politicians. But, I see this as the price of playing the game, not something to be quashed as many here apparently believe. If you don't want to hear the scientists' recommendations, don't task them to look into stuff. Otherwise, live with it Laughing

!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Scientists are not a class apart, immune from the reach of authority - particularly when they voluntarily serve in heirarchical or brueaucratic organizations. Moreover the halls of government are littered with weary paperpushers who eagerly label themselves as scientists, engiineers, etc. when in fact they are merely bureaucratic schleppers - usually all too eager to jump on a popular bandwagon..

The controversy over the EPA regulation of CO2 was in fact grounded in the law which admits only the regulation of toxic substances - and CO2 is not such a substance. If the Congress wishes to pass a law establishing a basis for such regulation they are free to do so - unfortunately they have not. What was at issue was a rather tortured argument to the effect that CO2 was in fact toxic to the earth or something like that. The Administration was right to exclude it from action under legislation that envisioned nothing of the sort.

Frankly the continued overwrought debate stands in stark contrast to the pathetic inaction of the nations that so loudly became signatories of the Kyoto treaty. China, Russia and India flatly refuse any mandated reductions at all, Canada continues to raise its emissions (which incidently are higher per capita than those in the United States), and Al Gore prances around with his Nobel prize. It is a comedy.

Regardless of what one thinks about the spectre of global warming, one can make a case for the economic and environmental benefits of reducing our consumption of increasingly expensive imported petroleum. Domestic U.S. production of petroleum is roughly enough only to supply our chemical and plastics industries - virtually all of our transportation system is run on imported oil. This problem won't be solved by government design of new automobiles. Instead it will take new fuels and new systems.

The only way to significantly change this in the next several decades is to divert our wasteful use of natural gas from electrical power production and as a source of industrial heat to vehicles and to replace it with large scale construction of nuclear power plants which today supply about 20% of our electrical power, but which could easily be increased to 70% - roughly comparable to that of France. (That would also, incidently, meet the Kyoto goals that were formely discussed). Nuclear power happens to be our cheapest source - except for hydroelectric - about 80% the cost of coal power and 30% that of wind or solar.

Why even the Swedes who so loudly and publically swore off nuclear power just a few years ago have very quietly shelved any plans to shut down their nuclear plants and are now even constructing new ones. (Odd that no one comments on that.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Why even the Swedes who so loudly and publically swore off nuclear power just a few years ago have very quietly shelved any plans to shut down their nuclear plants and are now even constructing new ones. (Odd that no one comments on that.)

I guess I will comment on it. I can find no evidence of Sweden building new reactors. The latest paper I can find from Oct of 2007 lists upgrades of generating equipment at 3 different reactor sites to help compensate for the 2 reactors that were closed down in 2005 but nothing about building new ones.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

and Al Gore prances around with his Nobel prize. It is a comedy.

A comedy maybe, but an oscarized one, no less please!

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-02/al-gore-utility-2.gif

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I guess I will comment on it. I can find no evidence of Sweden building new reactors. The latest paper I can find from Oct of 2007 lists upgrades of generating equipment at 3 different reactor sites to help compensate for the 2 reactors that were closed down in 2005 but nothing about building new ones.

The Swedes are upgrading their nuke plants like crazy to extend the plants' lifespan to 60 years (!). It results in new capacities, much like new construction but under the hood (I presume it's easier and cheaper to avoid an army of nimby lawyers). Smart Swedes.

New nuclear power plants construction are planned for only after 2010. The approval process takes time but hey, they have a quite massive ally: gloooobaaaal waaarming. The cynical enviros surpassed by the perfidy of nuclear lobbyists, I like it Laughing

0 Replies

Bali conference, the most important delegation, 440 participants, is not from any one state but from IETA, the association of ... carbon traders.
Bali baba and the 440 thieves... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

The approval process takes time but hey, they have a quite massive ally: gloooobaaaal waaarming. The cynical enviros surpassed by the perfidy of nuclear lobbyists, I like it

you still dont get it mini

0 Replies

Quote:

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
I guess I will comment on it. I can find no evidence of Sweden building new reactors. The latest paper I can find from Oct of 2007 lists upgrades of generating equipment at 3 different reactor sites to help compensate for the 2 reactors that were closed down in 2005 but nothing about building new ones.
The Swedes are upgrading their nuke plants like crazy to extend the plants' lifespan to 60 years (!). It results in new capacities, much like new construction but under the hood (I presume it's easier and cheaper to avoid an army of nimby lawyers). Smart Swedes.

New nuclear power plants construction are planned for only after 2010. The approval process takes time but hey, they have a quite massive ally: gloooobaaaal waaarming. The cynical enviros surpassed by the perfidy of nuclear lobbyists, I like it

And where can I find this info on them building new nuclear plants? The official website of the Swedish nuclear industry doesn't list them.

0 Replies

If you can't attack the science, attack the people.

Good job mini.. It seems you are proving your case. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

gunga, omsig, cjhsa and other gun and hunting fellas consider voting democrat and the moon turns red and lions lie with lambs

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/11hunting.html

0 Replies

It looks rather as if this movement to safeguard our environment from the consequences of population increase and from an economic ideology which, in a nearly absolute way, counts on blind greed to bring about optimum conditions for humans, will simply continue gaining in momentum to the point where it simply rolls over top of those who stand in the way.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know