The American Spectator

Pete| 12.7.09 @ 11:24AM

At least this kind of BS can be more easily reversed, yes?

Richard Baker| 12.7.09 @ 11:46AM

Time to saddle up the forces of counter-transformation. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Pete| 12.7.09 @ 11:54AM

And here it is. Note the bias in the MSM article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....pa_climate

wws| 12.7.09 @ 12:19PM

I can't wait until it's just before the midterm elections, and the EPA gives out orders that will require an immediate layoff of 100,000 people in the hard hit industrial states.

ncatty| 12.7.09 @ 12:22PM

Our government is one of men and not laws.

Alvaro Fernandez| 12.7.09 @ 12:23PM

I'm confused. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Animals (including me) produce it every time we exhale. Are all animals polluters? Is there some loophole here for breathing?

On a more serious note, farming produces CO2. Are all farms now polluting industries? And what form of remediation would be required of a farm? Will they have to buy carbon credits?

Pete| 12.7.09 @ 12:34PM

Exactly. That is why the most extreme of these clowns advocate population control measures. The smarter (and thoroughly corrupt) ones will just use the regulations to line their own pockets and those of their friends. This has never and will never be about science.

Gerald Dudley| 12.7.09 @ 1:37PM

Note: This article provides arguments against the notion that CO2 in our atmosphere MUST be controlled. Writer: Gerald Dudley Ph D, sellernow1@cox.net

Politicians Exhale and the Planet Heats Up

By: Gerald Dudley Ph D

In all of the past years of scientific discovery, we have not been able to detect any other planet in the universe with our unique chemical makeup, which sustains all forms of animal and plant life. Today, we are said to be on the verge of ruining that life opportunity by our careless overproduction of one of those natural chemical substances, now labeled a pollutant.

Like many who read this, I had education classes in high school and college that give me the background to examine this dilemma in a simple and practical manner. In my time, scientists had identified all 92 elements within our planet. Since then, that detected number has grown to slightly over 100, using the scientific advancement of microscopic power. These elements are called atoms and each has been given a unique and descriptive name and symbol. They exist all around us as unique chemicals and are sometimes naturally combined together, with names and symbols describing them as molecules.

These atoms and molecules exist in three different forms within this climate bubble where we all live together. One form is a solid and can be easily seen—like dirt. Another is a fluid form that is also visible—like water. The third form is gaseous and is normally not readily visible. Some of these molecules can even change from one form to another. An example is the one that is currently causing concern. Carbon and oxygen atoms naturally exist in a molecule known as carbon dioxide that is popularly symbolized as CO2. The solid form of CO2 is commonly called “dry ice”. Extreme changes in the temperature levels actually convert it from gas to solid, and back.

This gas is the non-visible element that humans and other vertebrates produce each time they exhale. It is also a very important gas that is necessary for the growth and health of all plants in our universe. We breathe out CO2 and plants absorb it from that atmosphere. In turn, the plants exude oxygen (O2) into that same climate and we beneficially breathe it into our lungs. Shortages, not overages, of each chemical would cause human and plant death. It is this wonderful, natural sharing of gases that makes our planet unique in the universe.

Some plants have grown naturally since the beginning of time. Others have been cultivated as a means to produce food. Those that are grown outdoors are subject to the changes occurring naturally in our weather. Control of plant growth in an enclosed atmosphere is possible and reduces those damaging weather effects. Those enclosed facilities have an atmosphere that can be manipulated to effect plant growth artificially. Most of these enclosures are called greenhouses and that atmosphere is greenhouse gas.

By manipulating the ratio of just these two (named) gaseous chemicals it is possible to produce positive benefits for mankind. By increasing controlled levels of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse, flowering plants produce much better blooms; more quickly and uniformly. Persons with limited lung capacity are aided in their breathing through the artificially increased ratio of oxygen that they inhale. Outside of a greenhouse it is much more difficult to change the ratios of these chemicals in the earth’s atmosphere. This, however, seems to be the argument that is being offered by elected politicians to convince the rest of us that ratios are changing and that humans are the cause of this recklessness.

For as long as outdoors measurements have been sampled, our ground level atmosphere has contained about 1 portion of CO2 and 3332 portions of other gases. Those other gases, which we aren’t able to see, are: nitrogen (2600 portions), oxygen (666 portions) and argon (31 portions). The remaining 35 portions of atmospheric gases are too numerous to name and each exists in very insignificant portions. The concern among government policymakers is that increasing this ratio beyond 1 portion of CO2 would be unhealthy to humans and would increase the planet’s temperature.

This concern has been shown to be scientifically inaccurate. Valid studies have shown that humans in confined enclosures can tolerate CO2 levels of 50 portions or more in their atmosphere without health dangers. These studies were conducted with humans breathing normally in submerged submarines, in space capsules and in the Arizona Biosphere. It seems unnecessary to spend taxpayer money on methods that have the intent of reducing manmade levels of carbon dioxide, based on this practical, researched knowledge.

There is also a concern that gas-powered vehicular exhaust must be curbed by powering these vehicles by substances other than oil products. Coincidently, the tailpipes of these current vehicles don’t have any CO2 coming from their exhaust pipes.

The political intent is to place a price on the excess CO2 that is created by human activity, and market it to those who don’t go over their agreed limit. This measurement has been named “the carbon footprint” so a tax can be levied, payable to the government. I wonder how a college will pay the taxes for the CO2 produced by screaming, cheering basketball fans in their enclosed arena during a winning season? The results in a packed arena with a double overtime game would easily create 10 portions of this “polluting” gas in the enclosure during the event. The college could go broke.

While many persons claim the earth is warming, it has actually been cooling for the last decade. There seems to be only one strong indicator related to this warming and cooling phenomenon. That causal element is the sun. Can you believe that? The sun rises and earth’s temperature rises. The sun sets and we cool. Unusual daytime warming occurs when that sun is actively tossing solar flares toward our earth. About every eleven years this solar activity slows down or ceases. That is the time the earth cools. It is a natural cycle, not human created. No other warming causes have been scientifically identified.

Some have explained this warming to be the result of carbon dioxide trapping heat that warms the earth. Others include water vapor as a greenhouse gas, which is really the sauna factor of heat trapping, but water vapor doesn’t appear uniformly throughout the planet, so most people don’t consider it a real greenhouse gas. If convinced that it is a greenhouse gas, politicians might try to tax water also.

One reason why some decades-long studies may trend toward detecting earth warming is the placement of the measuring thermometers. Throughout the United States there are over twelve hundred weather stations that have continually recorded their closely surrounding temperature for decades. Over 90% of these sites are not in “open country” where they were first located. The urbanization factor in our nation has placed asphalt parking lots and other heat-trapping structures close enough to these stations to artificially elevate their recorded temperatures. Relocating them to sites away from “heat traps” would surely provide more reliable information. Could this be a better and less-costly political choice?

It would be my desire that every elected official use this common understanding of the way our wonderfully God-created planet has functioned from the beginning of time. We all inhale oxygen (a greenhouse gas) and exhale carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas). Plants reverse this process and we benefit from it. It seems important that our elected officials attention should be focused more on growing grass than on politically passing gas.

Bryan| 12.8.09 @ 12:22AM

Interesting that you speak of the balance between plants and animals. When we eat, we 'burn' plant matter (or animals that in turn ate plants) and exhale CO2.

In another fascinatingly balanced process, untold quantities CO2 were sequestered over the course of millions of years as plants first took over the surface of the earth. And good thing too, because over the course of the life of the earth, the sun has been warming. The land plants reduced the greenhouse effect of CO2 by getting rid of a lot of it. (Likewise, billions of years even before then, certain microbes metabolized the even stronger warming gas, methane, which then covered the earth, into CO2 over millions of years.)

But we are now hellbent on reversing the carbon sequestration of so many millions of years ago. Not only reversing it, but reversing it thousands of times faster than it was done.

Susan| 12.7.09 @ 2:22PM

No it just covers facilities emitting 25,000 tons annually: coal, oil cement plants only.

EPA Wields Big Stick explains differences between bill and EPA

ncatty| 12.7.09 @ 12:23PM

Our constitution was written to protect us from the government. It now serves to describe the powers of the government over us.

ncatty| 12.7.09 @ 12:25PM

There is now no limit to the power of the government over our lives.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.7.09 @ 12:26PM

For the ostensible good of the people?

Remember all - Rachel Carson?

Africa - in particular- no doubt appreciates her wrong-headed campaign against use of DDT; mosquitoes have built a monument to her.

Comes now Lisa Jackson and Lisa Heinzerling
to cry - we are women, hear us crow; we be
Obamanites. We be apparatchiks!

These dunces striking political matches as they
wade into a pool of voter flammable ire!

Richard Iowa | 12.7.09 @ 12:33PM

As a science academic we are all having a laugh in the department and wondering how the university hazardous waste committee will handle this. But, this is no laughing matter. Hopefully, if this goes through the next president will pledge to throw this out, get this overturned, or do what ever it takes to get rid of this "proclamation." In addition to being one of the most stupid things I have ever heard, this will provide the foundations to both take over this nation, and to destroy it. Hopefully the people of this nation will rise up and put a stop to this nonsense NOW.

Eyago| 12.7.09 @ 12:40PM

So, do we ban all sports, dancing, weight rooms, places like Curves and any other activity that requires physical exertion which in effect produces more carbon that would be generated from sitting completely still?

JamesJ| 12.7.09 @ 12:58PM

It was only a matter of liberal time before the gubbermint would find a way to tax and regulate breathing.

Bryan| 12.8.09 @ 12:04AM

Breathing comes from combining oxygen with plant matter (and animals that ate those plants) that was created via solar energy not more than a few years ago. I am not eating faster than the Sun made the food.

Now, when it comes to fossil fuels, we are burning half-billion-year-old plant matter many thousands of times faster than the matter was created. It's like fossil fuel is prehistoric biofuel that was buried and stored up. The biggest creation and burial of prehistoric biofuel was during the carboniferous, 475 to 400 million years ago. This is when woody plants first took over dry land.

We cannot just use this resource faster than it was created without thinking about the huge effect it had on the earth of the time and the way it could effect the present earth. Carbon dioxide is a blanket for the earth.

We have the capability of increasing it by 50% or more. We already have. If we burn all carboniferous coal, we will increase it by thousands of percent. And the earth will have the same warm blanket that it had 500 million years ago, when the sun was less hot.

Anyway, that's a nice story. There are so many ways to look at the predicament we are in. How can you guys not see any of them?

Bryan| 12.7.09 @ 11:48PM

Supreme Court upheld scientific consensus and it will again, if need be. Give it up. There will be some form of a tax on fossil fuel energy.

Let's ignore the science and the risk of harm due to erratic weather for a moment, and look just at what the tax will do, even if global warming is imagined. Ignore all the politics, and look at what a fossil energy tax will do. The net effect is a subsidy for saving and diversifying energy. It may cost in the short term but it will be a shot in the arm in the long term. You guys are against the idea because you think any tax, any communal action, is Wrong. And thus, you throw out the whole idea.

Even before we get to the point that it not doing it might be dangerous.

racking| 1.7.10 @ 12:31AM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com