Anybody see a problem with this EPA plan?

[Chobham]

Among other things:

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...uations_to_defeat_global_warming_zealots.html

While you're on that subject. The Paleo-Climatologists are having a discussion/debate over what the CO2 concentration was for paleo-Earth. The low estimate, so far, is 10%, or 100,000 ppm. The high estimate is 25%, or 250,000 ppm. It really doesn't matter what the actual number is, what we can say with a great degree of certainty is that the Earth did NOT go into runaway greenhouse mode. Our current CO2 concentration is ~ 400 ppm. One can surmise that we have a LOT of headroom and a considerable amount of time before we have a crisis on our hands.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

It won't happen in my kid's lifetime.

It just always brings me back to that "The Sky is Falling" parable.

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men...
BOC

 

[Chobham]

Quite frankly our politicians seem to be working on an alternate plan, nuclear war. That solves everything, no humans, no problem.

 

[Dribble]

Quite frankly our politicians seem to be working on an alternate plan, nuclear war. That solves everything, no humans, no problem.

Lol...you are afraid of everything. Must suck waking up each day and being afraid. Tell me.
.what are you more afraid of? Drag shows...or nuclear war?

 

[HisArpy]

Lol...you are afraid of everything. Must suck waking up each day and being afraid. Tell me.
.what are you more afraid of? Drag shows...or nuclear war?

Given those choices, I keep wondering why you're so afraid of the truth.

 

[Dribble]

Given those choices, I keep wondering why you're so afraid of the truth.

I am not the one that thinks reading a book makes me gay.

 

[Rightguide]

While you're on that subject. The Paleo-Climatologists are having a discussion/debate over what the CO2 concentration was for paleo-Earth. The low estimate, so far, is 10%, or 100,000 ppm. The high estimate is 25%, or 250,000 ppm. It really doesn't matter what the actual number is, what we can say with a great degree of certainty is that the Earth did NOT go into runaway greenhouse mode. Our current CO2 concentration is ~ 400 ppm. One can surmise that we have a LOT of headroom and a considerable amount of time before we have a crisis on our hands.

Plant more trees.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

We are at a record number of trees...

 

[Lazaran]

“CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today , high enough to drown many of the world's largest modern cities.Jun 3, 2022”

That ^ is what scientists, and other decent, intelligent people are most alarmed about. (That and prolonged extreme weather events like droughts, deluges, etc) - And considering that most ports would also be rendered useless in the sea level rise scenario, the effect would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Hope that ^ helps.

Chobby

 

[HisArpy]

I am not the one that thinks reading a book makes me gay.

Then why do you push so hard to have the contents of these books taught in schools?


Perhaps it's because you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time? Groomer?

 

[Dribble]

“CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today , high enough to drown many of the world's largest modern cities.Jun 3, 2022”

That ^ is what scientists, and other decent, intelligent people are most alarmed about. (That and prolonged extreme weather events like droughts, deluges, etc)- And considering that most ports would also be rendered useless in the sea level rise scenario, the effect would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Hope that ^ helps.

Chobby

All true.

But for the US...because the oceans are warming...the jet stream that brings rain to our breadbasket is shifting north. Good news for Canada. Look at Northern Mexico. In 100 years...that is the majority of the US. Water...is more valuable than oil ever will be

 

[Dribble]

Then why do you push so hard to have the contents of these books taught in schools?


Perhaps it's because you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time? Groomer?

Lol. I promote that no politician should restrict any book. But here is the shit part for Fascists that don't feel like I do...the internet has all the shit they are outlawing and the kids will access it anyway. Why? Cause look at the facts...even a 2nd grader is smarter than a fake lawyer harpy

 

[HisArpy]

Lol. I promote that no politician should restrict any book. But here is the shit part for Fascists that don't feel like I do...the internet has all the shit they are outlawing and the kids will access it anyway. Why? Cause look at the facts...even a 2nd grader is smarter than a fake lawyer harpy

Unfortunately for you, that's not the law. Under the law the State can restrict access to materials and objects which the State deems improper for minors. Things like porn magazines for example...

Or didn't you know this, groomer?

 

[Lazaran]

All true.

But for the US...because the oceans are warming...the jet stream that brings rain to our breadbasket is shifting north. Good news for Canada. Look at Northern Mexico. In 100 years...that is the majority of the US. Water...is more valuable than oil ever will be

Canada will not escape the ravages of sea level rise or extreme weather events.

The jewel of Canada is Vancouver imho. Halifax is a close second imho. Both are coastal cities. And Canada has by far more coastline than any other country in the world.

Just sayin’…….

 

[jaF0]

'Muricun Stinker links equal AJ/Spearcatcher.

But so far, none of you twits have proposed how to LOWER electric rates.

 

[HisArpy]

'Muricun Stinker links equal AJ/Spearcatcher.

But so far, none of you twits have proposed how to LOWER electric rates.

It's been proposed, but the greenies object.

The German government is shutting down their nuclear plants to dig coal.

Natural gas is "clean burning" fuel, it's abundant, and there's already a distribution system for it. But, to get it you have to drill baby drill and the Greenies are against that.

Ditto for fuel oil.


I hate the idea because it uses the destruction of the basic building block of the universe as an energy source, but Hydrogen is available everywhere there's water. The existing distribution network can easily be converted to transport it instead of natural gas.

Transportation can be converted to it. I think it's Toyota which just announced a prototype which runs on it in an internal combustion engine. I think the Wankel engine could be modified to do it better than Toyota's, but Mazda owns the patent rights on those. (My thought would be to split a 3-rotor engine into 3 separate engines connected by electric clutches. Run 1 engine for low power, engage the second engine when med power is required (acceleration) and then engage the 3rd engine when high power is needed (passing).)


The reason none of that is being discussed is that there's no money in it for the Greenies and political division is good for reelection.

 

[Lazaran]

'Muricun Stinker links equal AJ/Spearcatcher.

But so far, none of you twits have proposed how to LOWER electric rates.

I don’t know where you live, but my electricity rates haven’t gone up all that much.

Your angst is not universal.

Sorry.

 

[Chobham]

Lol...you are afraid of everything. Must suck waking up each day and being afraid. Tell me.
.what are you more afraid of? Drag shows...or nuclear war?

You struggle with dark humor I see. Fair to guess you were never in the any of the services.

 

[ll74]

You struggle with dark humor I see. Fair to guess you were never in the any of the services.

Your humor isn't dark....you're just an asshole

 

[Dribble]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Please note the 88,000 and change peer reviewed articles cited here only covers those written in English. There are many other journals out there that cater to very specific cultures...and they are not included in the tally. That folks...is how one can get hundreds of thousands of articles.

Now Chobby...what percentage agrees with "your" view?

 

[Chobham]

You, and the rest of the "climate cult" assume you know what my views are. You don't, not even close. I can read the temperature data as well as anyone else, it's rising. And that is exactly what you'd expect in an inter-glacial period. Further I don't deny that part of that rise can be attributed to human activity. But exactly how much? And that's the rub, isn't it? NO ONE has empirically answered that question.

Addressing your link.

1. The overwhelming majority are either implicit or no opinion. Those are actually going to be the most interesting papers to read. As far as the proponets go I have a healthy skepticism of TV evangelists AND science evangelists.

2. Why so many? That's an easy answer, that's where the money is. ALL researchers are well aware of what research is getting the grants and the rule of "publish or perish" still applies.

3. This whole affair started back in the 1990's along with the dire prognostications. NONE of those prognostications have become fact. So what do the 'evangelists' do? They move the starting line to the most recent summary publication.

Meanwhile some of the worst emmiters of CO2 are busliy cranking up the coal fired generation plants, while we, the West (sans Germany) rape our citizens and cripple ourselves. Why? In some futile hope that we're going to make up the difference? We aren't, we can't, it's a fools errand. That is NOT to say that we shouldn't work towards a goal. But there is NO crisis and draconian measures in the interests of 'appearing' responsible will lead to consequences just as dire as doing nothing.

 

[ll74]

Y

You, and the rest of the "climate cult" assume you know what my views are. You don't, not even close. I can read the temperature data as well as anyone else, it's rising. And that is exactly what you'd expect in an inter-glacial period. Further I don't deny that part of that rise can be attributed to human activity. But exactly how much? And that's the rub, isn't it? NO ONE has empirically answered that question.

Addressing your link.

1. The overwhelming majority are either implicit or no opinion. Those are actually going to be the most interesting papers to read. As far as the proponets go I have a healthy skepticism of TV evangelists AND science evangelists.

2. Why so many? That's an easy answer, that's where the money is. ALL researchers are well aware of what research is getting the grants and the rule of "publish or perish" still applies.

3. This whole affair started back in the 1990's along with the dire prognostications. NONE of those prognostications have become fact. So what do the 'evangelists' do? They move the starting line to the most recent summary publication.

Meanwhile some of the worst emmiters of CO2 are busliy cranking up the coal fired generation plants, while we, the West (sans Germany) rape our citizens and cripple ourselves. Why? In some futile hope that we're going to make up the difference? We aren't, we can't, it's a fools errand. That is NOT to say that we shouldn't work towards a goal. But there is NO crisis and draconian measures in the interests of 'appearing' responsible will lead to consequences just as dire as doing nothing.

Your view is that humans aren't being threatened by changing climates and that this is a natural cycle of the earth which doesn't impact us.

Everyone knows yours views
They are the same as AJs....and neither one of you has recognized that the last time we had a "cycle" with this much CO2, humans didn't exist....it was not hospitable.

But you keep on keeping on

 

[Dribble]

You, and the rest of the "climate cult" assume you know what my views are. You don't, not even close. I can read the temperature data as well as anyone else, it's rising. And that is exactly what you'd expect in an inter-glacial period. Further I don't deny that part of that rise can be attributed to human activity. But exactly how much? And that's the rub, isn't it? NO ONE has empirically answered that question.

Addressing your link.

1. The overwhelming majority are either implicit or no opinion. Those are actually going to be the most interesting papers to read. As far as the proponets go I have a healthy skepticism of TV evangelists AND science evangelists.

2. Why so many? That's an easy answer, that's where the money is. ALL researchers are well aware of what research is getting the grants and the rule of "publish or perish" still applies.

3. This whole affair started back in the 1990's along with the dire prognostications. NONE of those prognostications have become fact. So what do the 'evangelists' do? They move the starting line to the most recent summary publication.

Meanwhile some of the worst emmiters of CO2 are busliy cranking up the coal fired generation plants, while we, the West (sans Germany) rape our citizens and cripple ourselves. Why? In some futile hope that we're going to make up the difference? We aren't, we can't, it's a fools errand. That is NOT to say that we shouldn't work towards a goal. But there is NO crisis and draconian measures in the interests of 'appearing' responsible will lead to consequences just as dire as doing nothing.

In other words...you can't answer the question. Have you ever participated in the peer-review process? Let me explain it to you. You must have evidence to state an opinion. No evidence supporting your statement...no publication. Be a moron. It is fun watching you flounder. Over 99% of the scientific publications think differently from you. Must be lonely being an outlier and HAVING NO EVIDENCE for that opinion of yours

 

[VinnyVeritas]

I like that. You elucidate your views and those who would ascribe a position to you go right ahead as if you were lying.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

If ya'll really thought CO2 emissions were dooming the entire planet, you would be advocating war in order to shut down the countries that don't give a fuck and are willing to kill everyone to achieve global dominance.

But ya'll aren't serious about the issue because deep down, you know it's not the problem that you are presenting politically. It's a power grab on your part because you just think that you are the one(s) who should be controlling how other people live.