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

[Revmitchell]

that's a completely invalid comparison. Facts are facts. You're ignoring what I said. Plants produce most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By far. And the infinitesimal amounts of CO2 we add are no where near the amounts necessary to dangerously raise the Earth's temperature.

Vitamin C as a comparison to CO2 emissions? Seriously? :tonofbricks:

As far as research articles go, you might want to start with these: [3 URL links]You'll have to do the rest of your own homework as I have to go to work but I suggest you quit with the Flat Earth quackery and cod-science as it does your credibility no good. Yeah, accuse me of being medieval in my concept of science, physics and mathematics. That'll win me over to your side in a heartbeat.

The fact is, brother, if you were unbiased and open-minded in your "research" you would see that these articles are based on quackery. The real science proves "global warming" is a fraud, deliberately designed and fomented for political, not environmental, ends. And you've been duped for their purposes.

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

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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

Oh, you'll love the revisions I made after I actually read his "proof" -- I wasn't going to do that at all. Read 'em before. Know they're hogwash. But thought occurred to me. :laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh, you'll love the revisions I made after I actually read his "proof" -- I wasn't going to do that at all. Read 'em before. Know they're hogwash. But thought occurred to me. :laugh:

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

 

[Matt Black]

I see well....you wish to use extremist language in calling me a "denier".

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

You say you are a conservative but your posts, and especially this one, show otherwise.

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.

No one is concerned with what you "duly note" especially me.

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

You can also "duly note" that I believe those who promote this extremist agenda are not honest people.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

Vitamin C as a comparison to CO2 emissions? Seriously? :tonofbricks:

That's a completely invalid comparison. Facts are facts. What's proven is that those levels of Vitamin C are sufficient to provide benefits to the human body. What is also proven is the amount of anthropogenic-added CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is insufficient to do anything near what is being claimed. You're ignoring what I said. Plants produce most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By far. Perhaps you'd like to kill off plants instead of returning to the Stone Age in order to bring Earth's mean temperature back down below that "dangerous" half-degree increase over the last 100 years? Yeah, that's a stupid suggestion. So is everything suggested under the "global warming" agenda.

"Global warming" computer modeling is a farce, lies created to "prove" a political agenda. None of the modeling predictions have come anywhere close to actual events. "Warmists" ignore historical context, that the polar caps have been observed alternatingly shrinking and expanding over 100 year periods in the past. "Warmists" ignore the fact that the Sun is getting hotter. But I've actually misspoken. "Warmists" don't ignore these facts, they set out on elaborate misleading and often deliberately false "proofs" as to why those facts are inconsequential and that we must reduce our one-ten-thousandth of one percent contribution to the amount of CO2 in the amtmosphere in order to back off a half-degree mean temperature increase over the last 100 years.

In short, "warmists" are liars. They have no environmental agenda. They have a political agenda by which they hope to turn the economy on its ear and make themselves, the "have-nots," the "haves" by virtue of robbing the people they hate -- i.e., industrialists, corporations, the rich -- of their wealth by essentially bankrupting them and putting them out of business with over-regulation that accomplishes nothing -- nothing, that is, other than their political and economic agenda to put themselves in power and give themselves the riches.

And you ignore the fact they've been caught in those lies, having massive numbers of worldwide emails exposed that proved they were deliberately manipulating the numbers in order to "prove" their junk science. And knowing that, you continue, nonetheless, in your cooperation with them, promoting their lies without even realizing they are lies. And the saddest fact is, you most likely are not going to benefit from any of it, because you aren't truly "one of them." You're some poor schmuck willing to be duped for an agenda that isn't even yours.Yeah, accuse me of being medieval in my concept of science, physics and mathematics. That'll win me over to your side in a heartbeat.

The fact is, brother, if you were unbiased and open-minded in your "research" you would see that these articles are based on quackery. The real science proves "global warming" is a fraud, deliberately designed and fomented for political, not environmental, ends. And you've been duped for their purposes.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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/

 

[Revmitchell]

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/

 

[Revmitchell]

"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/

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Not at all. The chart shows what everyone knows, except for those who refuse to see, that when pollution goes up the incidence of asthma attacks go up and when pollution is reduced the number of attacks goes down. So, it is only rational to realize that if pollution is reduced further that the incidence of asthma attacks will also go down. Additionally the increase in traffic also has increased the incidence of asthma attacks. Well know fact. Do a little research and you will find this information on your own. Maybe you will believe if you do your own research.

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.

 

[InTheLight]

Not at all. The chart shows what everyone knows, except for those who refuse to see, that when pollution goes up the incidence of asthma attacks go up and when pollution is reduced the number of attacks goes down. So, it is only rational to realize that if pollution is reduced further that the incidence of asthma attacks will also go down. Additionally the increase in traffic also has increased the incidence of asthma attacks. Well know fact. Do a little research and you will find this information on your own. Maybe you will believe if you do your own research.

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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.