PDA

View Full Version : APP - States sue over EPA CO2 ruling



tinfoil
03-06-2010, 01:52 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/states-sue-epa-global-warming-ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528T ext+-+Politics%2529



LOL even Rockefeller says to chill out.

Taichiliberal
03-06-2010, 05:47 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/states-sue-epa-global-warming-ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528T ext+-+Politics%2529



LOL even Rockefeller says to chill out.

What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!

Cypress
03-06-2010, 06:07 PM
TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :


Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling: Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors

Fighting back on behalf of the EPA is a coalition of 16 states and New York City, arguing that without regulations, climate change will adversely affect them.



Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.

Taichiliberal
03-06-2010, 06:26 PM
TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :


Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling: Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors

Fighting back on behalf of the EPA is a coalition of 16 states and New York City, arguing that without regulations, climate change will adversely affect them.


Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.

:good4u:

FUCK THE POLICE
03-06-2010, 08:22 PM
Epic win.

Cancel 2016.2
03-06-2010, 08:31 PM
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.

tinfoil
03-06-2010, 09:00 PM
TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :





Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.

Golly! You mean govs are salivating at the thought of taxing CO2?
Color me suprised.

You are such a government tool.

No duh they support it. It's easy money. That's my whole fucking point you stupid fucking idiot

Taichiliberal
03-06-2010, 11:16 PM
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.

Instead of insinuation, why don't YOU provide the facts to substantiate your assertions?

Cypress
03-07-2010, 08:42 AM
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.

With regard to these states energy consumption, it sounds like you're just guessing. I can't respond to guesses and speculations.

With regard to the law, sorry man, you’ve been duped yet again by the Rightwing blogs.

The Legislature has already authorized the USEPA to regulate any and all pollutants that pose a reasonable risk to human health, or the public welfare. I'm guessing maybe you've never heard of the clean air act.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It’s EPA’s job, as an executive branch agency, to enforce the law. They don’t just make up shit as they go along. They are an enforcement agency. Just as it is Department of Justice’s job to enforce the laws passed by congress. That’s their job, to enforce laws that are on the books. DOJ and EPA (or any executive agency) can be sued if they DON”T enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature and signed by the President. That’s Soviet Union crap where government agencies can just ignore rules and laws whenever they want to.

If you want to overturn or modify the clean air act, that’s fine. But, you can’t pass a law and then tell the executive branch not to enforce it. But the Supreme Court has directed USEPA to enforce the clean air act, and that they do not have the choice or option to simply sidestep their executive authority to enforce the law.

Like I said, these three teabagging states are going to get absolutely smoked if their lawsuit ever sees the inside of a courtroom. Personally, I think this is political grandstanding and roadblocking, and these teabaggers know they can’t win inside the courtroom.


Supreme Court Rules that EPA has the Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Emissions

April 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

Taichiliberal
03-07-2010, 06:10 PM
With regard to these states energy consumption, it sounds like you're just guessing. I can't respond to guesses and speculations.

With regard to the law, sorry man, you’ve been duped yet again by the Rightwing blogs.

The Legislature has already authorized the USEPA to regulate any and all pollutants that pose a reasonable risk to human health, or the public welfare. I'm guessing maybe you've never heard of the clean air act.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It’s EPA’s job, as an executive branch agency, to enforce the law. They don’t just make up shit as they go along. They are an enforcement agency. Just as it is Department of Justice’s job to enforce the laws passed by congress. That’s their job, to enforce laws that are on the books. DOJ and EPA (or any executive agency) can be sued if they DON”T enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature and signed by the President. That’s Soviet Union crap where government agencies can just ignore rules and laws whenever they want to.

If you want to overturn or modify the clean air act, that’s fine. But, you can’t pass a law and then tell the executive branch not to enforce it. But the Supreme Court has directed USEPA to enforce the clean air act, and that they do not have the choice or option to simply sidestep their executive authority to enforce the law.

Like I said, these three teabagging states are going to get absolutely smoked if their lawsuit ever sees the inside of a courtroom. Personally, I think this is political grandstanding and roadblocking, and these teabaggers know they can’t win inside the courtroom.

HE SHOOTS, HE SCORES!

DamnYankee
03-07-2010, 07:22 PM
Golly! You mean govs are salivating at the thought of taxing CO2?
Color me suprised.

You are such a government tool.

No duh they support it. It's easy money. That's my whole fucking point you stupid fucking idiotEpic win. :good4u:

Taichiliberal
03-07-2010, 07:54 PM
Golly! You mean govs are salivating at the thought of taxing CO2?
Color me suprised.

You are such a government tool.

No duh they support it. It's easy money. That's my whole fucking point you stupid fucking idiot

What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!

DamnYankee
03-07-2010, 07:59 PM
What's the pollutant, Libby?

tinfoil
03-07-2010, 08:53 PM
What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 07:06 AM
What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.

What's the pollutant that you're scared of, Libby?

Cypress
03-08-2010, 07:28 AM
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.

You’re way, way out of your league Cupcake

You’ve been reading too many obscure rightwing blogs. How do I know this? Because teabaggers universally have “suddenly” latched on with a death grip, to the talking point that because CO2 is natural, it can’t possibly be a pollutant.

Here’s a tip: Any chemical compound can be legally classified as a pollutant if human activities cause them to (1) become elevated above ambient natural background conditions; and (2) if the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that, at these levels, they reasonably can pose a risk to either human health, or the public welfare.

That applies to dissolved oxygen, to nitrogen, and to phosphorus. All of which are naturally occurring compounds, and all of which can be elevated by human activities to harmful levels. All of which have been classified as pollutants, if elevated by human activities beyond certain thresholds.

Here’s something else your obscure rightwing blogs didn’t tell you. Environmental law is not like criminal law. Scientists don’t have to prove with 100% certainty, or beyond all reasonable doubt that a substance that is being elevated by humans poses a public risk. All they have to do is show that the preponderance of evidence reasonably shows that it is a risk to the public welfare. Virtually the only time public policy requires something approximating absolute certainty is when we are going to send someone to the electric chair, or deprive them of life or liberty. Otherwise, public policy is supposed to be based on risk-management, and on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

You have a habit of providing nothing but rightwing blogs, British tabloids, and blathering about some vast global conspiracy of liberal scientists.

On the other hand – and in stark contrast – pretty much every single reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science has concurred and concluded that emissions of greenhouse gases associated with human activities has a high probability of risk to the planet and to public welfare.

As for me, the preponderance of evidence and the choice is clear when I’m presented with these two choices: 1)Tinfoil-Bravo-Meme-Dixie-and Some Rightwing Blogs; versus 2) The overwhelming consensus of the world’s most qualified climate scientists and international scientific organizations.

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 07:55 AM
You’re way, way out of your league Cupcake

You’ve been reading too many obscure rightwing blogs. How do I know this? Because teabaggers universally have “suddenly” latched on with a death grip, to the talking point that because CO2 is natural, it can’t possibly be a pollutant.

Here’s a tip: Any chemical compound can be legally classified as a pollutant if human activities cause them to (1) become elevated above ambient natural background conditions; and (2) if the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that, at these levels, they reasonably can pose a risk to either human health, or the public welfare.

That applies to dissolved oxygen, to nitrogen, and to phosphorus. All of which are naturally occurring compounds, and all of which can be elevated by human activities to harmful levels. All of which have been classified as pollutants, if elevated by human activities beyond certain thresholds.

Here’s something else your obscure rightwing blogs didn’t tell you. Environmental law is not like criminal law. Scientists don’t have to prove with 100% certainty, or beyond all reasonable doubt that a substance that is being elevated by humans poses a public risk. All they have to do is show that the preponderance of evidence reasonably shows that it is a risk to the public welfare. Virtually the only time public policy requires something approximating absolute certainty is when we are going to send someone to the electric chair, or deprive them of life or liberty. Otherwise, public policy is supposed to be based on risk-management, and on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

You have a habit of providing nothing but rightwing blogs, British tabloids, and blathering about some vast global conspiracy of liberal scientists.

On the other hand – and in stark contrast – pretty much every single reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science has concurred and concluded that emissions of greenhouse gases associated with human activities has a high probability of risk to the planet and to public welfare.

As for me, the preponderance of evidence and the choice is clear when I’m presented with these two choices: 1)Tinfoil-Bravo-Meme-Dixie-and Some Rightwing Blogs; versus 2) The overwhelming consensus of the world’s most qualified climate scientists and international scientific organizations.

Isn't water vapor more of a greenhouse gas that CO2? We should then regulate water, no?

Cypress
03-08-2010, 08:16 AM
Isn't water vapor more of a greenhouse gas that CO2? We should then regulate water, no?

Nice! Haha, a scientifically-illiterate teabagger chimes in from the peanut gallery, not even daring to question the content of my post, but simply tossing out some diversionary “factoid” they read on some rightwing blog.

If you’re truly interested in informing yourself on the topic (which I doubt you are), read my post carefully. An educated person, with an ability to comprehend, can easily separate out the criteria I listed, in terms of legally defining a pollutant.

CO2 is a direct result of direct human emissions.

Water vapor, is to a large degree, a consequence of higher temperatures associated with human-induced climate change. In short, human industry aren’t directly spewing gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere. Increased water vapor is, in large measure, from increased evaporation – i.e., a consequence (potentially) of other direct human emissions that impact the climate. Bottom line, dummy: we regulate direct human sources of pollution - not the consequences of pollution. It is assumed that controlling the actual anthropogenic controllable sources will mitigate the consequences.

Take off your teabag hat and think. Controlling the controllable sources of pollution can mitigate the environmental consequences associated with those controllable human emissions.


Your education is over. I doubt you even care to be informed, but you may carry on chirping in from the peanut gallery with your rightwing blog “factoids” if you get giggles from doing so. Carry on.

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 08:33 AM
Nice! Haha, a scientifically-illiterate teabagger chimes in from the peanut gallery, not even daring to question the content of my post, but simply tossing out some diversionary “factoid” they read on some rightwing blog.

If you’re truly interested in informing yourself on the topic (which I doubt you are), read my post carefully. An educated person, with an ability to comprehend, can easily separate out the criteria I listed, in terms of legally defining a pollutant.

CO2 is a direct result of direct human emissions.

Water vapor, is to a large degree, a consequence of higher temperatures associated with human-induced climate change. In short, human industry aren’t directly spewing gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere. Increased water vapor is, in large measure, from increased evaporation – i.e., a consequence (potentially) of other direct human emissions that impact the climate. Bottom line, dummy: we regulate direct human sources of pollution - not the consequences of pollution. It is assumed that controlling the actual anthropogenic controllable sources will mitigate the consequences.

Take off your teabag hat and think. Controlling the controllable sources of pollution can mitigate the environmental consequences associated with those controllable human emissions.


Your education is over. I doubt you even care to be informed, but you may carry on chirping in from the peanut gallery with your rightwing blog “factoids” if you get giggles from doing so. Carry on.

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, 2.3 times more than CO2.

How do large buildings in every city keep cool during the summer? Have you ever heard of evaporative cooling?

How about irrigation for farming? How much water vapor is given off?

What gives off more water vapor per acre, and ocean or a forest?

Along with CO2, water vapor is a product of complete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, even when using fuel cells. Water vapor is the sole byproduct of complete combustion of hydrogen fuels, that is if we ignore the pollutant oxygen.

I assume that you know how to use Google so I'll wait patiently for your response. :)

Canceled1
03-08-2010, 09:08 AM
What's the pollutant that you're scared of, Libby?


That would be the toxic fumes emanating from his upper/lower lip region.

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 09:24 AM
That would be the toxic fumes emanating from his upper/lower lip region. And no doubt what large lips they be. He's so full of shit his eyes must be brown. :palm:

tinfoil
03-08-2010, 09:36 AM
IPCC fail! who are the idiots who still believe this crap?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/tc02vsIPCC.jpg

Cancel 2016.2
03-08-2010, 11:07 AM
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

It is truly amazing that the fear mongering denialists such as Cypress continually spout off the absurd claim that 'science is on their side' or rely on government agencies committed to propagating this myth in order to gain more control over the populace for their 'credibility'.

Yet ask them to answer any of the questions raised from the constant stream of problems the IPCC and others have with their faked 'science' and all you get is....

'we have government agencies on our side'
'we will not answer those questions'
'all ur info must be coming from right wing bloggers (or now his very favorite... call everyone who disagrees a 'teabagger')'

Bottom line, people like Cypress are complete lemmings. He has no control over his own thoughts. He is spoon fed his lying propaganda from his masters. He refuses to look at or refute any evidence against his masters fear mongering. For if he were to admit there is a problem, it would show the world what most of us already know and force him to admit to himself... that he is indeed one of the greatest fools on this planet.

There is a 110 page report on the use of weather stations linked above Cypress. Do read it. I know you won't read the weekly standard piece because of the source, but for the rest of you, feel free to point out the highlights of that article that list all the problems that the brain dead kool aid drinking fear mongering denialist lemmings like Cypress will continually refuse to address.

Cancel 2016.2
03-08-2010, 11:10 AM
from the 110 page report


SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.

5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

tinfoil
03-08-2010, 01:08 PM
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

It is truly amazing that the fear mongering denialists such as Cypress continually spout off the absurd claim that 'science is on their side' or rely on government agencies committed to propagating this myth in order to gain more control over the populace for their 'credibility'.

Yet ask them to answer any of the questions raised from the constant stream of problems the IPCC and others have with their faked 'science' and all you get is....

'we have government agencies on our side'
'we will not answer those questions'
'all ur info must be coming from right wing bloggers (or now his very favorite... call everyone who disagrees a 'teabagger')'

Bottom line, people like Cypress are complete lemmings. He has no control over his own thoughts. He is spoon fed his lying propaganda from his masters. He refuses to look at or refute any evidence against his masters fear mongering. For if he were to admit there is a problem, it would show the world what most of us already know and force him to admit to himself... that he is indeed one of the greatest fools on this planet.

There is a 110 page report on the use of weather stations linked above Cypress. Do read it. I know you won't read the weekly standard piece because of the source, but for the rest of you, feel free to point out the highlights of that article that list all the problems that the brain dead kool aid drinking fear mongering denialist lemmings like Cypress will continually refuse to address.

No shit! The dork tries to claim I'm suddenly saying CO2 in a natural element essential for life. It's a god damned fact. What an idiot. He's laughable. Ask him to cite a single study that proves human CO2 drives climate or led to any catstrophic events, and what do you get?-- Nothing.

I bet he still believes global warming killed all the rain forest frogs despite it being disproven. He probably still believes the the glaciers will melt by 2035.
He probably still believes everything he reads from sources like Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidtt.

Cypress is simply an eco-bot spouting off the same tired discredited science. It's truly pathetic. The sceptics have beaten the mighty IPCC into submission. The leader has alredy stepped down. The railroad engineer who claims voodoo science whenever flaws and fabrications in the IPCC report are revealed is as fervent a beliver as old crypiss. LOL True nutters.

CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming, not the cause, and while it has a feedback effect, it does not drive climate and the feedback effect has been ridiculously overplayed by alarmists.

dolts like crypiss are just too damn easy to lead around as evidenced by his refusal to examine the science.

hah what a loser

Cypress
03-08-2010, 02:00 PM
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, 2.3 times more than CO2.

How do large buildings in every city keep cool during the summer? Have you ever heard of evaporative cooling?

How about irrigation for farming? How much water vapor is given off?

What gives off more water vapor per acre, and ocean or a forest?

Along with CO2, water vapor is a product of complete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, even when using fuel cells. Water vapor is the sole byproduct of complete combustion of hydrogen fuels, that is if we ignore the pollutant oxygen.

I assume that you know how to use Google so I'll wait patiently for your response. :)


Now you're just guessing, speculating, and spinning. Please man, just stop. Everything I said is easily available from credible scientific sources. There's no need for you to guess, speculate, and spin about water vapor.

My previous post to you about water was 100% correct. It's not my fault if you don't have the foggiest clue about climate science. If you need corroboration from a scientific source with unimpeachable qualifications, then I present the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration:


"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html


And no, I do not accept the rightwing rag "Weekly Standard" as a credible or non-partisan source of climate science. I give you permission to continue babbling about a global scientific conspiracy. No credible scientific organization on the planet is buying your babble...that's why you rely on rightblogs and rightwing rags. You teabagger climate denialists are as bad as the 9/11 truthers, sheesh. Carry on.

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 04:00 PM
Now you're just guessing, speculating, and spinning. Please man, just stop. Everything I said is easily available from credible scientific sources. There's no need for you to guess, speculate, and spin about water vapor.

My previous post to you about water was 100% correct. It's not my fault if you don't have the foggiest clue about climate science. If you need corroboration from a scientific source with unimpeachable qualifications, then I present the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration:




And no, I do not accept the rightwing rag "Weekly Standard" as a credible or non-partisan source of climate science. I give you permission to continue babbling about a global scientific conspiracy. No credible scientific organization on the planet is buying your babble...that's why you rely on rightblogs and rightwing rags. You teabagger climate denialists are as bad as the 9/11 truthers, sheesh. Carry on.

Care to answer my previous questions?

Cancel 2016.2
03-08-2010, 06:12 PM
And no, I do not accept the rightwing rag "Weekly Standard" as a credible or non-partisan source of climate science. I give you permission to continue babbling about a global scientific conspiracy. No credible scientific organization on the planet is buying your babble...that's why you rely on rightblogs and rightwing rags. You teabagger climate denialists are as bad as the 9/11 truthers, sheesh. Carry on.

Thanks for proving me correct. Yet another of Cypress' flat earth denialist rantings. 'oh right wing blogs' 'oh the government agencies who I pretend are scientific organizations don't criticize their own work'... blah blah blah blah....

Once again he ignores the scientists who are indeed coming out against the fear mongers bullshit. He pretends there is no problem with their 'research'.

He will ignore the study on the weather monitoring stations. He will ignore any evidence that would dare suggest his beloved masters lied to him.

Bottom line, there is no point discussing an issue like this with such a brain dead flat earth fear mongering moron like Cypress. He will only accept what his masters tell him.

Cancel 2016.2
03-08-2010, 06:12 PM
Care to answer my previous questions?

Of course he won't answer...

DamnYankee
03-08-2010, 06:46 PM
Of course he won't answer... I love how he attacked my education right off the bat. Obviously he doesn't know what my degree is in and what I studied in grad school... :)

Taichiliberal
03-08-2010, 10:10 PM
Now you're just guessing, speculating, and spinning. Please man, just stop. Everything I said is easily available from credible scientific sources. There's no need for you to guess, speculate, and spin about water vapor.

My previous post to you about water was 100% correct. It's not my fault if you don't have the foggiest clue about climate science. If you need corroboration from a scientific source with unimpeachable qualifications, then I present the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration:




And no, I do not accept the rightwing rag "Weekly Standard" as a credible or non-partisan source of climate science. I give you permission to continue babbling about a global scientific conspiracy. No credible scientific organization on the planet is buying your babble...that's why you rely on rightblogs and rightwing rags. You teabagger climate denialists are as bad as the 9/11 truthers, sheesh. Carry on.

:hand:

Taichiliberal
03-08-2010, 10:11 PM
What's the pollutant, Libby?

Read Cypress post, Southie...get a fucking clue as to what is being discussed!:palm:

Taichiliberal
03-08-2010, 10:15 PM
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.

:palm: Actually, the discussion is about the ARTIFICIAL LEVELS that are being produced by industry, NOT what naturally occurs.

Got that, you ignorant lout? And there is a hell of a lot more contained in the exhausts of the smokestacks...or were you in a coma when our lakes were being killed off by acid rain?

You keep playing the same broken record, and you keep denying any and all other information.

Minister of Truth
03-09-2010, 01:22 AM
Can we all at least agree that its gay to call someone a "cupcake?"

DamnYankee
03-09-2010, 07:13 AM
Read Cypress post, Southie...get a fucking clue as to what is being discussed!:palm: I did Libby. He's too scared to say, same as you. :)

Taichiliberal
03-09-2010, 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Read Cypress post, Southie...get a fucking clue as to what is being discussed!


I did Libby. He's too scared to say, same as you. :)

Actually we just don't let dishonest neocon dupes like you set or change the tone/subject of discussion...like you're trying to do now. Carry on!

DamnYankee
03-10-2010, 07:24 AM
Actually we just don't let dishonest neocon dupes like you set or change the tone/subject of discussion...like you're trying to do now. Carry on!How ironic, bringing up your neocon bogeyman in every post. :)