Skip to comments.EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health
Posted on 12/07/2009 7:27:59 AM PST by janetjanet998
click here to read article
I know a 20-year old boy/man who says he’s a vegetarian to save CO2.
Next time I have the opportunity I’m going to try and tell him that meat is an easily-producable product, meaning that if he doesn’t eat it, someone else, eg. some Chinese person eager to get a nice chunk of beef, will.
If he wants to give up meat so a Chinese person can have it, that’s fine.
Their propensity for random actions with ZERO knowledge about the actual outcome is ASTOUNDING.
The list, ping
Not to mention the Chinese pollutants of heavy metal and sulfides is totally overlooked by the greenpeace idiots.
The #1 global warming gas is water, by a factor of 50:1 to what carbon dioxide does. Ban water for the children!!!
Don’t you mean “Di-Hydrogen Monoxide” it sounds even scarier!!!
I know CEI has lawsuited EPA in the past.
“Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.”
Don’t forget “farm animals” in the list of emitters, since methane is #2 on the “hit list”. The others look to be nitrous oxide (N2O, good riddance) and likely two flourinated gasses.
Yes farmers, they’re coming after you too.
The idea that CO2 and methane are “pollution” is patently absurd, but par for the course for 0 and his merry band.
Indeed. The decision can can be challenged in court once regulations are promulgated. And by then the magnitude of the deception (not just emails, but computer code manipulation to get the result wanted, the hockey stick fraud and evidence of CO2 being a lagging indicator after temperatures have risen, not before) will be more widely understood. I have hope that sanity will prevail.
For any that have not seen it, read the best summary of the expose:
Funny you mention that...
Every government on this earth is the chief threat to the lives and property of its own citizens.
It’s not as if we don’t know what a pack of thieves and scoundrels are assembling in Copenhagen.
They are determined to rule, and that’s a fact.
I'm more worried about God. By declaring CO2 a pollutant , doesn't that mean that by creating us in his image, The EPA is calling God a polluter?
“Meanwhile it needs to be emphasized...CO2 represents only 0.038% of Earth’s atmosphere... On Mars, which is still well below freezing at its tropics...the CO2 composition is 98%....”
Not only that, but it should also be remembered that (including water vapor) humanity’s contribution to total “greenhouse gasses” is less than 0.02%.
Of COURSE the government needs to wreck the economy, intrude into every American’s life, and send billions and billions of dollars overseas!
Personally, I think 0 is about to see “change” that he neither predicted or desired... ;-)
Trying to snow at the lower elevations here in Amador county. Down in Ione and Plymouth it is slushy and just a little higher it is real snow. Yep, a whole lot of global warming in Northern California today!
Yep, the internet is loaded with doom and gloom global warming/carbon poisoning bs articles today.
Sounds good to me.
Everybody stop breathing.
It’ll clear up in a few hundred years.
The FRaud that is all about control, nothing else.
Those who buy into this scam of a hoax leave a far different world for their children than the one today, imperfect as it is, to their children.
We will have to buy our ammo in Nevada shortly!
Anybody out using the skate park in Ione? :o)
Any snow in the Napa valley yet?
I’ve been using an asthma inhaler for a long time, before they switched to the stupid HFA, and I’m still alive.
I truly hate this government with a disturbing passion.
It's probably frozen carbon dioxide. Stay inside or you'll die for sure.
It’d be quite a day for a ‘cool’ concert at Altamont today!
Not in our area, and my wife didn’t see any driving to work.
Thursday may be the snow day.
Not to mention we’re carbon-based entities to start with.
This is de-industrialization, de-population, global slavery.
Read these, consider the sources:
This will blow you away, very slick
“No fan of jurisprudential action, I. However, it is my fond hope that the judiciary in every state be filled to overflowing with suits challenging EPA and the entire global warming scam.”
I have told a few individuals being hammered on their bottom line due to Californiacator’s Green Facists and the Federal Green Facists, they need to start class action suits. Then they need to invite their custormers/clients, people like us to sign up for the class action suits.
I guess the envirowachos think that if they ignore it, the outting of whole global fraud will go away. They’re doing the same with Onada’s citizenship. And they’re desperately trying to pretend the economy is on the rebound. Of course,there is no credible evidence to support these positions. But what the heck, the intention is all that counts.
If just this comes to pass? How about the National Firearms Act? How about Gun Control Act?
You’re in the wrong spot, it is snowing here, or was, it has quit for now, schools closed for a snow day. Amador County.
Propaganda war is being waged and they are racing to sneak it in..
It is criminally stupid but they are both stupid and want to commit economic suicide on our behalf...
I don’t think so, it is pretty nippy out there!
EPA bureaucrats are expanding their power under the guise of saving the planet. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/07/the-epas-war-on-carbon/
“Dont forget farm animals in the list of emitters, since methane is #2 on the hit list. “
That’s part of the plan. Make self-sufficiency so ridiculously painful so as to drive the masses from the Rural country to the City.
0 declares open war on the US economy.
Let ‘em try it. “Regulations” can be litigated, and will be. As with any so called, “climate treaty”, we will never allow them to go into effect. bttt
July 2, 2009
Senate May Pass U.S. Climate Bill, Reject Treaty, Kerry Says
By Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Daniel Whitten
....”Passing domestic climate-change legislation remains the most crucial step, Purvis said.
Ironically, The EPA came out and said There are no findings that Co2 is dangerous to the environment... Funny.... 6
Internal Memo Confirms EPA Regulation of CO2 Will Hurt Economy!
by Patriot-in-Chief on May 12, 2009 ·
ABC News Correspondent Jake Tapper is reporting on an internal Obama administration memo to the EPA. The memo is warning that regulation under the clean air act will damage the economy, especially small business and communities.
That nine-page memo voices a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle.
If the EPA goes forward with a finding of endangerment for all six greenhouse gases, the document warns, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other pollutants for the sake of the precautionary principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise).
This is of course directly the opposite of the Obama administrations message to the public that Cap-and-Trade would be an economic boon to our country. Read the orignial memo here: EPA memo http://patrioticmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/epa.pdf
More information on this whole ongoing scam can be found here. http://patrioticmind.com/2009/04/taxing-the-very-air-we-breathe/
Update: Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) blogs on the Smoking Gun memo at Heritage.org.
Guest Blog: Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) Uncovers EPA Deception
Posted May 12th, 2009 at 3.39pm in Energy and Environment, Ongoing Priorities.
EPA Holds Smoking Gun Memo from the White House
VIDEO at link
Today I exposed a smoking gun White House memo to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The memo warns that regulation of small CO2 emitters will have serious economic consequences for businesses and the overall economy. I was questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee budget hearing.
I received the memo this morning, thats marked Deliberative: Attorney-Client Privilege. In this memo Counsel for the White House repeatedly, repeatedly suggests a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding. This is a smoking gun, saying that the EPA findings were political and not scientific.
The EPA has failed to release the memo and has ignored the advice.
The nine-page White House memo undermines the EPAs reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health.
This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business. This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America.
To quote from the memo to the EPA, making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.
The memo is an amalgamation of findings from government agencies sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA.
This smoking gun memo is in stark contrast to the official position presented by the Administration and the EPA Administrator.
Despite the findings in the memo, the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act.
According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPAs April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare.
The memo - marked as Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege - doesnt have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed to news agencies that it was prepared by Obama administration staff.
BACKGROUND: The White House brief questions the link between the EPAs scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPAs political summary. Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified
The White House memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are not well determined and not well understood.
It warns about the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is no demonstrated direct health effects, and the scientific data on which the agency relies are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.
The memo contends that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.
The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.
Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?
C’mon, this cold spell in CA is all in our imagination. THE PLANET IS BURNING UP. Doing my best Jedi impression, “ that is not snow on Mt Diablo.”
( By the way I passed over the Altamont on Saturday and all the wind turbines were..... OFF. Not a single turbine turning. Green hypocrisy is out of control.)
Wouldn’t want to damage those turbines when the wind is blowing you know!
Wouldn’t want to damage those turbines when the wind is blowing you know!
the serious tragedy in all this is the eco-KOOKS are robbing research funding from REAL science that would improve the human condition (cancer research) in an attempt to fund their carbon-CON fraud. Under the facade of science, the eco-KOOKS are going to foist carbon-CON reulations on our lives and use the EPA to justify it.
State of Knowledge
U.S. Global Research Program
* Product 5.2 - Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking
* Vision for the Program and Highlights of the Scientific Strategic Plan
Whats Known | Whats Very Likely | Whats Not Certain
As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from very likely to uncertain.
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An unequivocal warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
Top of page
What’s Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.
Top of page
What’s Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
* Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun’s energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
* Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
* Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
* Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.
Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information.
Top of page
* IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Exit EPA DisclaimerContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
1 Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of “virtual certainty” (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include extremely likely (greater than 95% chance the result is true), “very likely” (greater than 90% chance the result is true), “likely” (greater than 66% chance the result is true), more likely than not (greater than 50% chance the result is true), unlikely (less than 33% chance the result is true), very unlikely (less than 10% chance the result is true), and extremely unlikely (less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).
So going in Obama had a back up. Do it my way or it will be worse. There is still some thought whether EPA has Constitutional right. Anything they do will end up in court.
With Socialist party member Carol Browner former EPA admin, this is only a beginning of what she will pull for Obama's totalitarian regime. Right on target so the threat is there at the opening of Copenhagen.
What will the people do when businesses shut down because of Obama and Browners need to control the people?! Obama has done everything he can to kill business and jobs. Now he will have control over them like he mentioned about coal companies, he will tax them into bankruptcy.
DRUNK with power!
Imagine an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where all the members showed up drunk and with extra cases of wine, beer, and booze to keep them happy. Now imagine that that same group of drunks was empowered to make trillions of dollars worth of economic decisions for everybody in the world. This absurd scenario swiftly summarizes the United Nations Climate Change Conference beginning today, and lasting through December 18, in Copenhagen.
Despite the fact that the entire conference is founded on the belief that human economic activity, especially flying and driving, is emitting levels of greenhouse gasses that will soon kill us all, plutocrats from around the world have marshaled over 1,200 limos and 140 private planes to travel to and around Copenhagen over the next two weeks.
1) Wealth transfers: China emits more carbon dioxide than any other nation. Other developing countries, like India and Brazil, are also heavy emitters. But before these nations agree to even monitor their greenhouse gas emissions, they demand to be paid. Some are asking for as much one percent of the developed worlds GDP. For the U.S., thats a price tag of $140 billion a yearmore than 5 times our entire foreign aid budget of $28 billion per year.
add zhu zhu pets to your list. Hee!
Modern science is all about receiving grants, and the biggest checkbooks are those wielded by governments, and governments expect certain results. For example, the government two decades ago funded research into the alleged acid rain problems and the researchers reached very different conclusions than what the U.S. Government, and especially Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration (and his William Reilly-led EPA) had wanted to see.That tactic described was a test run; it's becoming SOP.
Acid rain, apparently, was not going to destroy U.S. forests, lakes, and rivers, and the government was ticked, really ticked. The EPA attempted to destroy the career of one scientist, Edward Krug, who had a paper in the prestigious Science in 1983 that demonstrated that lakes with high acidity were located in watersheds where the soil happened to be acidic. Furthermore, as Krug and other researchers noted, acid lakes existed in many places around the globe hundreds of years before industrial society became the norm.
This researched watershed-based conclusion (which now is the accepted theory of lake and stream acidification, not acid rain) was unacceptable to the EPA, and the agency engaged in a shameful campaign against Krug, something I documented in a January, 1992, cover story article in Reason. During my research for the article, one person told me that there would be no such government study for global warming, indicating that the government would ramrod through the policies it wanted whether or not they actually were necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.