Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Ole Griz, nothing personal, but I hope you yanks freeze yer nutts off every year between Nov. and the end of Jan. We need to see us some serious green down here in MS during the duck season. Sounds like that may happen more often in the future if these scientists are right about the reduced solar activity and cooling trend. So, bundle up.

[TODO]

Going fishing at pickwick tomorrow and was just looking at the weather forecast, it happened to have the historical high and low. Look at the dates for the record high (1955) and low (1998). Just an observation

Hourly Forecast more details
6am

35°F

Mostly Sunny High
61°F

Precip
10%

Wind: NNW 6 mph
Max. Humidity: 50%
UV Index: 6 High


Sunrise: 7:09 AM CT
Avg. High: 63°F
Record High: 84°F (1955)



Clear Overnight Low
35°F

Precip
10%

Wind: WSW 5 mph
Max. Humidity: 65%


Sunset: 6:58 PM CT
Avg. Low: 38°F
Record Low: 15°F (1998)

[Old Griz]

Po Monkey. No offense taken. We don't need those mallets up here after the season closes anyway. Now if we could just get DU to stop spreading all that corn around!

[Denduke]

[Hammer]

MEMO TO GW NAYSAYERS:

Didnt think I would really stay away for good, now did you naysayers? Check this out:

Hammer 18, Naysayers 0

BTW, why dont yall get all riled up, storm the MS State Capitol, take over the MS State Government, pass laws seceding from the United States so the Yankees can come down here and kick the everliving, everlasting, eternal, lowdown, dog on the porch crap out of us again, just like they did 150 years ago???

Spin the War anyway you want to boyz but the truth is that by the time Sam Grant and Billy Sherman got done with us, the Rebs didnt want no more....Pretty similar to the whipping yall been toting home after I've gotten through with you on this thread.

HAMMER

PS Is 768 posts a record?

States Suing E.P.A. Over Global Warming

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 2, 2008
Filed at 7:52 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- Officials of 18 states are taking the EPA back to court to try to force it to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the Bush administration for inaction on global warming.

In a petition filed Wednesday, the plaintiffs said the 5-4 ruling in April 2007 required the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from motor vehicles.

The EPA has instead done nothing, they said.

''The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty,'' Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

The petition asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to require the EPA to act within 60 days.

In last year's decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act, and said the reasons the EPA gave for declining to do so were insufficient.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Supreme Court required the agency to evaluate how it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other vehicles but set no deadline.

The EPA plans to include the evaluation in a broader look at how to best regulate all greenhouse gas emissions, not just those from vehicles, he said. Otherwise, a mash of laws and regulations could emerge rather than the ''holistic'' approach the administration favors.

''We want to set a good foundation to build a strong climate policy of potential regulation and laws we can work toward and actually see some success,'' Shradar said.

At a press conference Wednesday, David Brookbinder of the Sierra Club, one of 11 environmental groups involved in the suit, said the EPA has been talking about a ''holistic'' approach to climate change for years.

''In fact, they have done absolutely nothing except stand in the way of everybody's else's efforts,'' he said.

Last week's announcement by the EPA of the formal rule-making procedure signaled the agency wanted to put greenhouse gas regulation ''on indefinite hold,'' said Jim Milkey, chief of environmental protection at Coakley's office, who argued the case before the Supreme Court.

''Every day that goes by without a solution, the window of opportunity to fix the problem closes a bit more,'' he said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the EPA ''has failed to lead, it has failed to follow the states' lead and we are prepared to force it out of the way in order to protect the environment.''

The plaintiffs in the latest court action include Coakley and attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, plus representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the cities of New York and Baltimore, and several environmental organizations.

The plaintiffs contend the EPA has already completed the work needed to start regulating carbon dioxide.

The Supreme Court ruling requires the agency to regulate carbon dioxide if it determines it's a danger to public health and welfare. Senior EPA employees have told House investigators about a tentative finding from early December that carbon dioxide posed a danger because of its impact on climate.

They also said a draft regulation had been circulated internally, then abandoned. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson has said the issue had to be re-examined because of tougher automobile mileage requirements enacted in December.

The plaintiffs want the finding about the dangers of carbon dioxide released within 60 days so the process for regulating vehicle emissions can begin. They said final rules wouldn't be ready until the next administration takes over.

In Washington, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming voted 12-0 Wednesday to issue a subpoena for all drafts of EPA documents on the issue.

''EPA has made no effort to accommodate the committee's request,'' said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the committee's chairman.

Shradar declined to say whether the agency would produce the documents the subpoena will request. ''We will review this new petition and respond appropriately,'' he said.

--------

Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert in Washington contributed to this report.

[rjohnson]

Taking care of the environment and the global warming myth doesn't necessarily go hand in hand. Remember it's still unproven whether the CO2 levels are causing this myth. So you article proves what point??? I still don't think you have one person on this board to backup your opinions or even side with you.

Cooling then warming then cooling then warming Check out this article on the media "scares" of climate change http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp It's all hype.

[rjohnson]

Here's more to debunk your myth.

Original Article

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Cold Reception

Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

[Hammer]

Why argue with me? Instead take it to the Supreme Court (which ruled that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes global warming) or file an amicus brief in the 18 states vs. EPA lawsuit...

The GW Naysayers are implicitly saying that the Supreme Court, 18 states, the Bush Administration, 100+ countries, 5000+ climate scientists, the United Nations and hundreds of leading corporations are wrong, yet you are not scientists and base your argument on some extraordinarily bizarre conspiracy theory...

You have fallen for the same tactics of denial and misinformation as propogated by Big Tobacco that have resulted in millions of deaths and health care expenses that are out of control. Despite the presence of over 1000 cancer causing compounds, cigarettes are still legal so the tobacco company tactics have worked for them. In the case of GW and CO2 emissions, the tactics have failed and the economy of the world is currently evolving from carbon intensive to carbon neutral with or without the stinking genuises on the MS Ducks board...

Get onboard or get left behind.

[GordonGekko]

Why argue with me? Instead take it to the Supreme Court (which ruled that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes global warming) or file an amicus brief in the 18 states vs. EPA lawsuit...

that isn't exactly what the Supreme Court held...a more accurate statement comes from the article you quoted below....

.
The Supreme Court ruling requires the agency to regulate carbon dioxide if it determines it's a danger to public health and welfare.

in fact the Majority opinon by Justice Stevens states (Mass. v. EPA pp. 30):

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.

From this it becomes clear that the Court has not determined whether or not CO2 (as a greenhouse gas) contributes to climate change. In fact, with that statement, the Court specifically leaves the question of causation for the EPA to decide.

that being said carry on....

[rjohnson]

The GW Naysayers are implicitly saying that the Supreme Court, 18 states, the Bush Administration, 100+ countries, 5000+ climate scientists, the United Nations and hundreds of leading corporations are wrong, yet you are not scientists and base your argument on some extraordinarily bizarre conspiracy theory...

First off you say I'm not a scientist. Well no chit but I can form an opinion too you know. Second from what I venture to guess the Supreme Court, the Bush Administration, 100+ countries, and the United Nations are not scientists either. So that leaves you with 5000+ (not sure where you pulled that BS statistic from) climate scientists to back your opinion. Well the 5001+ climate scientists on the other side of the argument say they are wrong. You still have no hard definitive absolutely indisputable evidence to support the myth/hoax and neither do I to say the it's not true. So go ask the Asians where the GW is....

Again we still need to pollute the environment less and regulations for that would be fine but to use a hoax to get the legislation passed is just wrong. Creating a scare to pass legislation is not any different than paying off the legislators.

Now if 9 out of 10 climate scientists agreed CO2 was the sole cause of climate change in one direction or another that would be a little more concrete and legislation, treaties, etc. would be easily passed. A 5-4 vote is less than convincing though.

[Boogerden Boy]

Your mom goes to college

[Rice]

The 50+ page argument is solved here's the obvious proof hahaha

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Run for your lives, we have less than 5 years to live (per Al Gore in his inconvenient movie that came out a couple of years ago). Thus, that should leave us with about 3 years left. That being the case, amazingly, I see no real sense of ugency. Everyone, including the chicken littles, seems to be going about their normal lives.

And the relatively minor suggestions to be more conservation conscious as contained in the recent PR blitz by Al and his gang --- if you have been to a movie lately, and gotten there early enough to watch the previews, it is ridiculous --- are nothing more than things we should all be doing anyway to conserve energy and save money. I am all for a cleaner environment. Hell, it would be nice if we could get some of these "green" folks to just stop littering. Interestingly, despite all the breathless doomsday talk in Al's movie and elsewhere within the lunagic fringe, there is no sense of real urgency in these PR ads and commercials. It is more like --- do this and be cool.

Hell, some of us were green, when green wasn't cool. And we didn't have to create a bogus boogeyman to do the right thing. Some of these folks act as if the idea of turning off a freaking light switch when leaving a room is a major revelation. Wow. I would never have thought of that if I had not seen it in one of these mind numbing green commercials. LOL.

Once again, there will be no climate crises -- no doomsday. Its just weather. It is natural for the earth's climate to go through periods of change. There is nothing we can do about it. The real science lately suggests we are entering a cooling period. And if this global cooling trend continues, mark my words, all these idiots who earlier were warning us of "global warming" due to man-made CO2 increases, will now shift gears to try to blame the cooling on the CO2 increases. The scientific support for this theory is irrelevent to these folks. Why, if Arnold "the Terminator" believes it, it must be so. LOL. It is a religion designed to change and manipulate the way we spend and allocate $$$$$. Nothing more.

[mottlet]

http://www.seasonsend.org

[JJ McGuire]

NASA Satellite Discovers Massive Vegetation Die Off

(Greenbelt, Maryland) A new sensor on a NASA Earth-orbiting satellite has for the first time observed a global-scale die off of vegetation, a new article in Science magazine reports this week.

"We were amazed at the continental scale that this die off occupied", said Dr. John Jorgenson of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. The relatively rapid change in vegetation characteristics was observed from late summer through the fall, when the multi-million dollar NASA instrument recorded a distinct change in vegetation color from green to various shades of yellow, brown, orange, and red.

"While there have been anecdotal reports for many years of this die-off phenomenon, those reports have been restricted to local regions. We have, for the first time, documented the global scale of the event, which covers much of the Northern Hemisphere during the months of September and October", said Dr. Jorgenson.

While the exact mechanism for the phenomenon is unclear, the researchers believe that it is related to increasing fossil fuel use, especially home heating oil, during the fall when temperatures turn cooler. "We know that particulate pollution from the burning of fuel oil can have a negative effect on healthy vegetation, and so the correlation between heating fuel use and vegetation die-off constitutes 'smoking gun' evidence for this association", Jorgenson said.

Bolstering this theory, Jorgenson claimed, is the observed return of vegetation health in the spring as temperatures warm and heating oil use drops to near zero.

The new findings will likely help fuel increasing calls for restrictions on the widespread and indiscriminant use of fossil fuels, due to their proven connection to uncontrollable climate changes, such as tsunamis and killer hurricanes.

When contacted for comment on the new results, discredited global warming skeptic Dr. John Michaels told this reporter, "I think the NASA scientists should investigate the possibility that this die-off is directly related to decreasing levels of sunlight and the resulting cold temperatures as winter approachers". When told of Dr. Michaels' theory, Jorgeson replied, "Well of course he would say that…everyone knows he is in the pocket of 'big oil'. Besides, how else would you explain the fact that the die-off does not occur in tropical locations, where heating oil use is virtually unheard of?"

Vegetation die-off (areas of reddish-brown) in New England observed by NASA satellite, revealing the negative influence of heating oil use on normally healthy vegetation.