Blowing the lid off the global warmists plans (Political? Moi?)

[Roxanne Appleby]

The Lawnmower Men
WSJ, July 19, 2008

Al Gore blew into Washington on Thursday, warning that "our very way of life" is imperiled if the U.S. doesn't end "the carbon age" within 10 years. No one seriously believes such a goal is even remotely plausible. But if you want to know what he and his acolytes think this means in practice, the Environmental Protection Agency has just published the instruction manual. Get ready for the lawnmower inspector near you.

In a huge document released last Friday, the EPA lays out the thousands of carbon controls with which they'd like to shackle the whole economy. Central planning is too artful a term for the EPA's nanomanagement. Thankfully none of it has the force of law -- yet. However, the Bush Administration has done a public service by opening this window on new-wave green thinking like Mr. Gore's, and previewing what Democrats have in mind for next year.

The mess began in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Mass. v. EPA that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under current environmental laws, despite the fact that the laws were written decades before the climate-change panic. The EPA was ordered to regulate if it decides that carbon emissions are a danger to the public. The 588-page "advance notice of proposed rulemaking" lays out how the EPA would like it to work in practice.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent that under the Court's "pollutant" standard "everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies," which the EPA appears to have taken literally. It is alarmed by "enteric fermentation in domestic livestock" -- that is, er, their "emissions." A farm with over 25 cows would exceed the EPA's proposed carbon limits. So would 500 acres of crops, due to harvesting and processing machinery.

But never fear. The EPA would regulate "farm tractors" too, plus "lawn and garden equipment." For example, it "could require a different unit of measure [for carbon emissions] tied to the machine's mission or output -- such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a 'standard' lawn for lawnmowers."

In fact, the EPA has new mandates for everything with an engine. There's a slew of auto regulations, especially jacking up fuel-efficiency standards well beyond their current levels, and even controlling the weight and performance of cars and trucks. Carbon rules are offered for "dirt bikes and snowmobiles." Next up: Nascar.

The EPA didn't neglect planes and trains either, down to rules for how aircraft can taxi on the runway. Guidelines are proposed for boat design such as hulls and propellers. "Innovative strategies for reducing hull friction include coatings with textures similar to marine animals," the authors chirp. They also suggest "crew education campaigns" on energy use at sea. Fishermen will love their eco-sensitivity training.

New or modified buildings that went over the emissions limits would have to obtain EPA permits. This would cover power plants, manufacturers, etc. But it would also include "large office and residential buildings, hotels, large retail establishments and similar facilities" -- like schools and hospitals. The limits are so low that they would apply to "hundreds of thousands" of sources, as the EPA itself notes. "We expect that the entire country would be in nonattainment."

If this power grab wasn't enough, "EPA also believes that . . . it might be possible for the Agency to consider deeper reductions through a cap-and-trade program." The EPA thinks it can levy a carbon tax too, as long as it's called a "fee." In other words, the EPA wants to impose via regulatory ukase what Congress hasn't been able to enact via democratic debate.

. . . At least getting the EPA on the record will help clarify the costs of carbon restrictions. Democrats complaining about "censorship" at the EPA are welcome to defend fiats about lawnmowers and flatulent cows.

more

 

[neonlyte]

At a brief reading, Rox, I can't think of many on the Green Left of Center who wouldn't find the proposals laughable. can you please point out where this proposal appears on the Democratic Agenda, should they win the Presidential election?

 

[3113]

Not gonna read propaganda, Rox. Especially when it uses "Straw Men" tactics of creating a cartoon foe instead of a real one, because a real one would be hard to defeat and the cartoon is so much easier.

We evil global warmists. We're gonna make you bring cloth bags to the supermarket and create stuff out of recycled goods so that we don't run out of things like forests and such--which when they get low in demand start to cost more...hm, so that should save you money, we're gonna make it so that your cars get better gas milage so you save money, we're gonna even switch cities over to wind power which will be cheaper and save you lots of money! Ohmygosh! Where will it end!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

At a brief reading, Rox, I can't think of many on the Green Left of Center who wouldn't find the proposals laughable. can you please point out where this proposal appears on the Democratic Agenda, should they win the Presidential election?

Not laughable, because it's part of a formal administrative law rulemaking process, and absent political intervention will become the law of the land in the near future. The EPA has done the nation a huge service here, by making explicit what the GW alarmists have been too dishonest, cynical or cowardly to admit about their command-and-control ambitions. Maybe we can have an honest national discussion and debate about the real cost/benefit consequences of "carbon limitations" now.

Politics is perhaps one area where it's appropriate to pose "still beating your wife?" questions related to policy matters, especially when a particular pol has consistently sought the approval and support of notorious "wife beaters," or in this case, radical environmentalist orgs like the Sierra Club, NWF, etc.

So, I invite any Dem who has played patti-cake with those interests, and the many Repubs who have done the same, to repudiate this document and proposal, and if they fail to, they shouldn't complain when they find themselves charged with economic "wife beating."

In short, Neon, most Dems and many Repubs (including McCain) are considered guilty until they at least plead innocent on this, and at that point the presumption of innocence returns.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not gonna read propaganda, Rox. Especially when it uses "Straw Men" tactics of creating a cartoon foe instead of a real one, because a real one would be hard to defeat and the cartoon is so much easier.

We evil global warmists. We're gonna make you bring cloth bags to the supermarket and create stuff out of recycled goods so that we don't run out of things like forests and such--which when they get low in demand start to cost more...hm, so that should save you money, we're gonna make it so that your cars get better gas milage so you save money, we're gonna even switch cities over to wind power which will be cheaper and save you lots of money! Ohmygosh! Where will it end!

Strawman? As I said to Neon this is part of a formal EPA administrative law rulemaking process, and absent political intervention will become the law of the land in the near future. Sorry, 3, but given that the burden of proof is on the other side in this debate to explain how this is not what it appears.

 

[neonlyte]

Not laughable, because it's part of a formal administrative law rulemaking process, and absent political intervention will become the law of the land in the near future.

In short, Neon, most Dems and many Repubs (including McCain) are considered guilty until they at least plead innocent on this, and at that point the presumption of innocence returns.

I believe the first part to be speculation (just - it might help to use simpler language, like Environmental law will be made by bureaucrats and not elected officials). As speculation, it's not worth challenging.

As for the second part - couldn't agree more - but the definition extends beyond environmental matters.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

wiki:
U.S. federal agencies have the power to adjudicate, legislate, and enforce laws within their specific areas of delegated power. Agencies "legislate" through rulemaking - the power to promulgate (or issue) regulations administrative law is codified as the Code of Federal Regulations.

In administrative law, rulemaking refers to the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing laws, then agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking.

Rulemaking processes are generally designed to ensure that:

the public is informed of proposed rules before they take effect;
the public can comment on the proposed rules and provide additional data to the agency;
the public can access the rulemaking record and analyze the data and analysis behind a proposed rule;
the agency analyzes and responds to the public's comments;
the agency creates a permanent record of its analysis and the process;
the agency's actions can be reviewed by a judge or others to ensure the correct process was followed.

For example, a typical U.S. federal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 26 U.S.C.§551, et seq. [1] would contain these steps:

Proposed Rule. In this step, the agency publishes the actual proposed regulatory language in the Federal Register; in which a discussion of the justification and analysis behind the rule is printed, as well as the agency's response to any public comment on the advance notice.

Public comment. Once a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a public comment period begins, allowing the public to submit written comments to the agency. Most agencies are required to respond to every issue raised in the comments. Depending on the complexity of the rule, comment periods may last for 30 to even 180 days.

Final Rule. Usually, the proposed rule becomes the final rule with some minor modifications. In this step, the agency publishes a full response to issues raised by public comments and an updated analysis and justification for the rule, including an analysis of any new data submitted by the public. In some cases, the agency may publish a second draft proposed rule, especially if the new draft is so different from the proposed rule that it raises new issues that have not been submitted to public comment. This again appears in the Federal Register, and if no further steps are taken by the public or interested parties, is codified into the Code of Federal Regulations.

Judicial review. In some cases, members of the public or regulated parties file a lawsuit alleging that the rulemaking is improper. While courts generally offer significant deference to the agency's technical expertise, they do review closely whether the regulation exceeds the rulemaking authority granted by the authorizing legislation and whether the agency properly followed the process for public notice and comment.

Effective date. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the rule does not become effective for some time after its initial publication to allow regulated parties to come into compliance. Some rules provide several years for compliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law

 

[DeeZire]

Looking at the big picture through the eyes of a faux conservative, I think economic viability is much more important than ecological viability, because we won't live long enough to suffer the consequences of the latter, while the former has the potential to reap fantastic short-term profits for private investors, making their lives and ours much easier - carefree - if you will. Isn't that the American dream: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

If they had only included 'environmental sustainability' in the constitution, (perhaps by consulting the Native Americans?) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Or if we were including 'personal responsibility' in our deliberations on how to proceed with public policy, we would embrace environmental concerns without a second thought. It is laughable to me that my conservative friends embrace the idea of being responsible for their actions, but turn a blind eye to the actions of the free market.

There was a thread about rules yesterday, with the conclusion that rules are made for idiots. This thread is a perfect example of that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

deleted. This is just silly.

 

[cloudy]

Not gonna read propaganda, Rox. Especially when it uses "Straw Men" tactics of creating a cartoon foe instead of a real one, because a real one would be hard to defeat and the cartoon is so much easier.

We evil global warmists. We're gonna make you bring cloth bags to the supermarket and create stuff out of recycled goods so that we don't run out of things like forests and such--which when they get low in demand start to cost more...hm, so that should save you money, we're gonna make it so that your cars get better gas milage so you save money, we're gonna even switch cities over to wind power which will be cheaper and save you lots of money! Ohmygosh! Where will it end!

We're evil, and we must be stopped. *nods*

 

[Stella_Omega]

Roxy, you're such a dork.

Go start a bingo thread and do something constructive with your time

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is hilarious! The EPA has actually released a formal document decribing exactly the command & control regime all the warming alarmists really want but are afraid to be specific about because they realize that the public will flip out. When confronted with the event and the real implications of what they've been promoting for several years now, the warming alarmists on this site go into denial mode, or appear to suddenly reverse course by hinting that, gosh, maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. "Roxy's a dork; Roxy's making up strawmen; yadda yadda." LOL!

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318, July 11 2008

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/anpr.html

Summary, How to Comment, and Preface from Administrator: Pages 1-6 (PDF) (7 pp, 34 KB, About PDF)
Supplemental: Inter-Agency Review Comments Pages 7-71 (PDF) (88 pp, 4 MB, About PDF)
EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Pages 72-564 (PDF) (493 pp, 1.2 MB, About PDF)

To view the five technical supporting documents in the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov. The document titles are:

Technical Support Document - Benefits
Technical Support Document - Stationary Source
Draft Technical Support Document - Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
Technical Support Document - Section 202 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Vehicle Technical Support Document - Mobile Source

The Advance Notice
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

The document summarizes much of EPA's work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies' issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;
How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;
Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,
Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background
In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

How to Comment
Comments should be identified by the following Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
Comments should be submitted by one of the following method
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
Fax: 202-566-9744
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

 

[neonlyte]

Roxy... it's a big step from regulating tailpipe emissions to cow farts.

I suspect you first post is taken from a 'spoiler article' no one could possibly be thinking of fitting methane traps to cows ass's. Bringing it down to the level of lawn mowers and some idea of set off against grass clippings demonstrates the idiocy of the proposals and the idiocy of anyone who takes them seriously. I've know doubt the EPA will introduce tighter tailpipe emissions standards, it is what civilised and wealthy countries do. It is a mistake to confuse this with the concern over Global Warming - whether or not it exists - reducing atmospheric pollution is the aim of most developed countries in consideration long before the GW argument gained strength.

Linking this to Al Gore's recent statement only highlights the 'rat' in rational. Gore, despite all his rhetoric, is yesterday's man... no one is looking to Gore for leadership, not even those who admire his stand on the environment.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxy... it's a big step from regulating tailpipe emissions to cow farts.

I suspect you first post is taken from a 'spoiler article' no one could possibly be thinking of fitting methane traps to cows ass's. Bringing it down to the level of lawn mowers and some idea of set off against grass clippings demonstrates the idiocy of the proposals and the idiocy of anyone who takes them seriously. I've know doubt the EPA will introduce tighter tailpipe emissions standards, it is what civilised and wealthy countries do. It is a mistake to confuse this with the concern over Global Warming - whether or not it exists - reducing atmospheric pollution is the aim of most developed countries in consideration long before the GW argument gained strength.

Linking this to Al Gore's recent statement only highlights the 'rat' in rational. Gore, despite all his rhetoric, is yesterday's man... no one is looking to Gore for leadership, not even those who admire his stand on the environment.

This reminds me a cartoon I saw years ago in a car magazine. A car was driving through an industrial landscape with huge factories belching smoke, the air gray with the results. From its tailpipe came pristine mountain air.

Neon, we've cleaned up our car's emissions. Any further improvements will be on the margin and tiny compared to the distance we've come. There's just one exception: If carbon itself - the stuff we exhale when we breathe, for God's sake! - is declared a "pollutant," then not just our cars, but our entire way of life, the industrial civilization that is the only thing allowing 6.6 billion of us to share this rock all at the same time, becomes "illegal." Heck, we are illegal! You're a "carbon emitter" Neon - what's your carbon dioxide doing in my atmosphere? I'm seeking a court order forcing you to cease-and-desist!

Absurd, eh? But the earnest command-and-control fascists at EPA have merely taken the logic of the argument and crafted rules to "make it so." Al Gore's absurd "end he carbon age within 10 years" is of a piece with it (see my posts in the Energy thread for some useful insights on the that insane prospect). Don't like it? Perhaps the alarmists will have to do some rethinking.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By DAVID STOUT
NYT, July 18, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html


Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.

“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. “The future of human civilization is at stake.”

Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in his remarks at the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

Although Mr. Gore has made global warming and energy conservation his signature issues, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts, his speech on Thursday argued that the reasons for renouncing fossil fuels go far beyond concern for the climate.

In it, he cited military-intelligence studies warning of “dangerous national security implications” tied to climate change, including the possibility of “hundreds of millions of climate refugees” causing instability around the world, and said the United States is dangerously vulnerable because of its reliance on foreign oil.

Doubtless aware that his remarks would be met with skepticism, or even ridicule, in some quarters, Mr. Gore insisted in his speech that the goal of carbon-free power is not only achievable but practical, and that businesses would embrace it once they saw that it made fundamental economic sense.

Mr. Gore said the most important policy change in the transformation would be taxes on carbon dioxide production, with an accompanying reduction in payroll taxes. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.

The former vice president said in his speech that he could not recall a worse confluence of problems facing the country: higher gasoline prices, jobs being “outsourced,” the home mortgage industry in turmoil. “Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse,” he said.

By calling for new political leadership and speaking disdainfully of “defenders of the status quo,” Mr. Gore was hurling a dart at the man who defeated him for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush. Critics of Mr. Bush say that his policies are too often colored by his background in the oil business.

A crucial shortcoming in the country’s political leadership is a failure to view interlocking problems as basically one problem that is “deeply ironic in its simplicity,” Mr. Gore said, namely “our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels.”

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Mr. Gore said. “Every bit of that’s got to change.”

And it can change, he said, citing some scientists’ estimates that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the world’s energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every day could meet the country’s daily electricity needs.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, immediately praised Mr. Gore’s speech. “For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat,” Mr. Obama said.

A shift away from fossil fuels would make the United States a leader instead of a sometime rebel on energy and conservation issues worldwide, Mr. Gore said. Nor, he said, would the hard work of people who toil on oil rigs and deep in the earth be for naught. “We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry,” he said by way of example. “Every single one of them.”

“Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can’t be done,” he conceded. “But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ‘The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.’ ”

The Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens said in a statement that Mr. Gore’s plan would still not address “the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country.” Mr. Pickens has called for a blend of government leadership and private enterprise to harness the full potential of wind power to help break what he calls “our deadly addiction to foreign oil.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Roxanne here: He's completely unhinged. He hasn't a clue of what he's saying. He may be insane. !0 years? It can't be done in less than 50, if not 100. For the western world to try would trigger a worldwide economic holocaust that lierally would kill hundreds of millions. I'm not exagerating or being alarmist. Spend some time in the Energy thread and you'll find it impossible to not agree with me. This is not rocket science, it's just arithmetic.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And "man" is only accountable for 3% of the carbon emissions on the planet. The other 97% coming from the planet itself. EPA stick that in you regulations and stir it.

So I guess I'll have to sue the planet, the trees, the flowers, the cute little bunny hiding in my shrubs, the song bird sing outside my window, the ants, the grasshoppers, the bats and foxes to quit breathing and farting to I can breath clean air.

Of course if you reduce the carbon emissions of the planet to 0% we're all dead anyway.

 

[DeeZire]

And "man" is only accountable for 3% of the carbon emissions on the planet. The other 97% coming from the planet itself.

Cite a quote out of context, and you have an impressive argument. Put it in context, and it means nothing.

Quote from wiki:

"Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

The context of this quote is:

Preindustrial level of carbon dioxide: 280ppm
post industrial revolution level: 384ppm

So it appears wiki lied. Current levels of CO2 are only 96ppm higher due to the influence of man. Happy now?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

I recall when Pittsburg was dark at noon from its industrial smoke.

When John D. Rockefeller created Standard Oil hardwood for barrels was almost impossible to get because most of the eastern United States had no trees. And burning wood and coal was how everyone cooked and warmed their homes.

I recently read a global warming book published by NOAA. Its very Al Gore friendly. Al Gore is the man and the eco-visionary....according to the book. But the authors let the horse escape from the barn with revelations about how astonomical events effect our weather and climate, how warming and cooling happened long before humans evolved, and how it happens that glaciers wither and grow in the same localities at the same time. They cited examples of where this is happening now.

But the bottomline (their predictions, not mine) is: If global warming is real Europe will be cooler but the Arctic Ocean will become navigable and accessible to oil drilling, Greenland will become habitable, Antarctica will become habitable, crops will increase, and the Sahara will become a lot less hostile abd arid. Imagine how much energy can be saved going directly from Europe to China/Japan without going thru canals?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Cite a quote out of context, and you have an impressive argument. Put it in context, and it means nothing.

Quote from wiki:

"Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

The context of this quote is:

Preindustrial level of carbon dioxide: 280ppm
post industrial revolution level: 384ppm

So it appears wiki lied. Current levels of CO2 are only 96ppm higher due to the influence of man. Happy now?

Who says man caused the 96ppm of CO2? The only thing ice cores reveal is that the Co2 levels rose, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Liar]

Cite a quote out of context, and you have an impressive argument. Put it in context, and it means nothing.

Quote from wiki:

"Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

The context of this quote is:

Preindustrial level of carbon dioxide: 280ppm
post industrial revolution level: 384ppm

So it appears wiki lied. Current levels of CO2 are only 96ppm higher due to the influence of man. Happy now?

Uh, how'd ya get 96? Doesn't that subtract to 104?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Uh, how'd ya get 96? Doesn't that subtract to 104?

That's the missing 3%.

 

[DeeZire]

Uh, how'd ya get 96? Doesn't that subtract to 104?

I make these mistakes on purpose, to encourage others to join in the fray. Works every time.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Cite a quote out of context, and you have an impressive argument. Put it in context, and it means nothing.

Quote from wiki:

"Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

The context of this quote is:

Preindustrial level of carbon dioxide: 280ppm
post industrial revolution level: 384ppm

So it appears wiki lied. Current levels of CO2 are only 96ppm higher due to the influence of man. Happy now?

(only know what was in this because was quotes; iggie for duration of incivil "now that I'm conserv" pose)

What's the meaning of 96 ppm? Anything? Everything? Context? Historical context? Connect the dots - right now it's as meaningful as "the meaning of life is 42." Actually, from what I've read I think I know: the meaning is nothing it all. That's the presumption - rebut it if you can.

 

[Stella_Omega]

(only know what was in this because was quotes; iggie for duration of incivil "now that I'm conserv" pose)

Are you going to do kink bingo?
Because if not, Id prefer to put you back on iggie for the duration of your incivil "liberals are the foolish spawn of the devil" pose.

 

[neonlyte]

(only know what was in this because was quotes; iggie for duration of incivil "now that I'm conserv" pose)

What's the meaning of 96 ppm? Anything? Everything? Context? Historical context? Connect the dots - right now it's as meaningful as "the meaning of life is 42." Actually, from what I've read I think I know: the meaning is nothing it all. That's the presumption - rebut it if you can.

Are you smoking something.... ?