FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 05/12/2009 12:49:39 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The [EPA] ignored major economic and scientific questions in its April proposal to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases, according to an internal government critique.
The undated and unsigned government memo, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget, said that the proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare was not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor on a number of issues.
It also said that the E.P.A.’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would have “serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
The document also raised questions about the E.P.A.’s inclusion of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming without proving that they have direct health effects.
The memo reflects views from unnamed officials within the government as part of an inter-agency review of the proposed regulation. Some of the objections mirror criticism of the proposed E.P.A. action from Republicans and business lobbies who say that the Clean Air Act is the wrong instrument to attack global warming and such regulation will have devastating effects on the economy.
Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the nine-page document at Lisa P. Jackson at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works committee this morning. He called it a “smoking gun” that proved the proposed finding was based on politics, not science.
“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,” Mr. Barrasso said. “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com ...
wow...can’t believe this is from The Slimes.
I think they are realizing that lack of truth will be/is their demise
Someone, please slap me.
Bush's fault.
Same political BS as the 2nd hand smoke report. It’s time to sunset all programs, departments and spending that is not enumerted in the constitution.
If the support services are provided by a contractor the suit should be lodged against them as well ~ that way all janitorial services can be withdrawn from the facility.
I can think of a host of other things that could be asked of a court along these lines.
This is another (if not final) nail in cap and trade’s coffin....and that is a big deal, because Obama was counting on that $600 billion tax increase to fund healthcare. Thus, cap and trade going down endangers another socialist utopian goal of Obama’s: government-run communist healthcare.
“I think they are realizing that lack of truth will be/is their demise”
If so, the realization is coming much too late, like the boy who cried “Wolf!” way too often.
First off, though carbon dioxide MAY have some effect on the climate, it pales into insignificance when compared to water vapor, which has an effect from some twenty times to as much as one hundred times the effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, compared to that of CO2. First off, simply because there is so MUCH water vapor, at any given time and under any given set of circumstances, as compared to CO2. Also water has some very peculiar characteristics NOT shared with carbon dioxide, in that it may exist in any of three different states of matter, somewht dependent on temperature, that does not happen with carbon dioxide.
Has anybody ever seen liquid carbon dioxide? It cannot exist except under special conditions of pressure and temperature, like some six times the normal atmospheric temperature of that which exists at sea level on Earth. The very fact that water exists as a liquid between the temperatures of 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 212 degrees Fahrenheit, is what makes life on earth possible in the first place. Also water has a very high specific heat index, much higher, for example, than most metals or non-metallic substances, and in fact, is the standard by which most other materials are measured. To pass from solid form ice to liquid form requires the input of a prodigious amount of energy, and to pass from liquid to water vapor requires about nine times more energy to change than the melting of ice. Even warming water up requires much more heat for each degree of temperature than warming up the same mass (weight) of most other substances. Conversely, to COOL the various forms of water dow requires that the equivalent amount of heat energy be RELEASED. And where is this energy released to? It radiates off the dark side of the earth when faced away from the sun.
So the cycle is largely self-correcting, with or without the assistance of mankind. Anthropogenic global warming (or cooling) is a myth, like the power of kings to command the tide.
However, we may harness this natural cycle of global warming (or cooling) to our benefit, and up to now, we have been carrying out a pretty respectable job of doing just that. Any carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons (petroleum, coal and natural gas) is quickly taken up by growing green plants, with the net effect of keeping the average concentration of carbon dioxide at sea level to less than 400 parts per million. Below about 250 parts per million, is the starvation level for green growing plants, and without the CO2, they will wither and die.
wow.......where did ya learn all that?I printed it to support my argument.
Wow. The EPA playing politics!!!! Who would have thunk it. < /s >
Yeah, good luck getting that one out of committee!
The memo is linked in Post#4. The WH attempt to refute its importance is linked in Post#8.
SideBar Moderator: this issue has NOT been “debunked” - it simply has been refuted by WH damage control attempts. After reading this memo, I believe that it is a very illustrative, despite the denials of the WH/EPA here, and I think the title should be changed back to the original, without “debunked”
PING for EPA critique
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.
