House slams door on carbon tax
Study: Global Warming to Blame for Rise in Violence and Wars/b>
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 08/04/2013 12:21:41 AM PDT by iowamark
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.
Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Be sure to read the comments at the link.
The concept that the Earth will only heat up or cool off...if humans are involved....is the silliest notion that anyone could ever put up on a board and try to explain to an audience.
These dimwits should be more worried about the fact that the sun is not infinite in nature....and will one day...burn-out.
There is no money for any remedies, its laughable how they continue to pile on economic burdens.
When the economy comes crashing down, even the liberals will be more concerned about food than warming BS.
These global warming fruitcakes are dumber than a bag of hammers.
From: New York Times: A Republican Case for Climate Action (August 1, 2013)
________________________________________________
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
From: Newsweek: The Cooling World (April 28, 1975)
________________________________________________
Meet the new scumbag scam artists - - same as the old scumbag scam artists.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
Wow. A whole pack of lies in the New York Times. How unusual.
The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are non-linear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
No finite set of past states is sufficient to make a non-trivial prediction of future states.
This has been known since the 1963 paper by Edward Lorenz
“Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”.
To the extent that Anthropogenic Global Warming depends on predicting the future temperatures of the atmosphere in a distant future, to that extent it is a hoax.
Or basically there is just too much stuff going on for any modeling process we know of to keep tab of it. I agree. It’s Chicken Littling.
I mean AGW is Chicken Littling.
Yes, the climate surrounding the Republicans is bad. We need to replace them with more efficient models.
House slams door on carbon tax
Study: Global Warming to Blame for Rise in Violence and Wars/b>
Global Warming on Free Republic
Especially about the “hottest” part... it’s like the urban heat island phenomenon with respect to temperature data has not reached these folks’ ears?
By only focusing on a few isolated hobby horses in near vacuums (how’s that for mixing a metaphor), the AGW folks have managed to fool both themselves (I believe) as well as definitely fooling others.
Senility is a terrible disease.
The effects in one region can be measured at one time, but may have greater effect, less effect or reversed effect in another region at a different time.
That is why prediction is not possible.
Consider Carbon Dioxide: it may increase trapping of the sun’s radiation, causing heating, but the heating increases radiation, causing cooling. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations causes increased plant growth rates, causing cooling, but feeds back to cause lower carbon dioxide concentration causing slower plant growth rates....
No finite set of data can be sufficient.
Trivial predictions are like this: The temperature is now 90 degrees F. The temperature one second from now will be close to 90 degrees F.
Yep... too much stuff going on and at levels lower than the kind of high level data we have can keep track of. If I may use the expression here, “God only knows” what the result will be. Kind of like your proverbial sock except this time both socks are wearing through.
A flat out lie.
I’d call them scumbags, but then I’d have to apologize to bags filled with scum.
————Dennis Miller
And like where did they stick the thermometer... the air has thickness ya know not just latitude and longitude.
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.