Featured EPA issues new coal-fired power plant regulations capping carbon emission reductions

You, you....denier, you! :laugh:

 

Oh well, someone on this board who calls himself a conservative has "duly noted" that I am a "denier". :laugh:

 

Nothing 'extremist' about that at all; just common sense.

The definition is a bit different on this side of The Pond; for instance, it doesn't give me a free pass to ignore scientific evidence.

Evidently you are, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

Funny how you have to stoop to throwing the dishonesty accusation out at me every time. I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and it does your posting no credit, especially coming from a pastor. Very sad.

 

If you're going to persist in wilful ignorance, there's no point in engaging with you. You haven't even engaged with the evidence.

 

Uh, the whole thing has been debunked, it has shown to be an agenda, it has been shown to flawed science, and it has shown to have hidden information that questions the science. The only people that support it are those who wish the true underlying agenda to go forward. The whole thing is about world wide wealth redistribution. I know it, you know it, most everyone knows it.

 

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

 

Here is evidence that the so called science is dishonest:

"Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

 

"A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

 

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz33gFrZaV4

 

I've done my research, and that's why I'm calling B.S. on your numbers. Show me where your claims are backed up by science, if you can.

 

Actually, the chart shows pollution on the decline starting about 1989 and shows asthma attacks spiking through 1993. So after pollution has been decreased 90%, asthma attacks have gone up about 150%. Then as pollution continues decreasing asthma attacks decrease until about 1997 where asthma attacks inexplicably start trending upward.

News flash: Pollution is not the only trigger for asthma attacks.

 

That would be expected as there is always a lag time in situations like this.

 

I have a child with asthma. I would like to know more about this so-called "lag" that occurs with asthma triggering. Also it does not explain why the incidence of asthma spiked so much in the early 90's nor why it started trending upwards in 1997 after years of declining pollution. There is more here than a 1:1 relationship between pollution and asthma.