It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by mikerussellus
C02 being a cause is an irrelevant point.
Mankind isn't responsible for even a notable amount of C02 in the atmosphere.
Edit - Didn't mean to come off argumentative. I'm agreeing with you. In a weird way.
This is one of those subjects that gets me a little riled.
[edit on 29-6-2009 by JayinAR]
Originally posted by TSZodiac
Only one thing is absolutely certain here - there will be major changes at EPA (look for people to start stepping down or being forced out soon). Too many people stand to make money on Cap and Trade.
It turns out that the report, written by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, is drawn heavily from the contrarian blogosphere, especially Ken Gregory of the Calgary-based "astroturf" group Friends of Science. And in one case, a lengthy "analysis" of a recent peer-reviewed paper has been lifted, without attribution, straight out of World Climate Report, the climate "news" blog run by uber-contrarian Pat Michaels.
>> I'm getting too good as smelling the astroturf. I hope that some day it will help me earn some money.
Just for starters, the contrarian report that CBS accuses the EPA of 'suppressing' revives the old zombie lie that a warming sun is to blame for global warming, except when it's not, then the earth is actually cooling. There’s no need to point out that the sun, the most studied object in the universe after earth itself, shows no signs of doing anything of the sort, nor is there any point in presenting data showing unequivocally that the earth is not cooling unless one conveniently cherry picks an interval right after the hottest year on record. Because -- now follow along Republican boys and girls -- the sun can’t be the cause of global warming on a cooling earth. The rest of the so-called suppressed report is just as bad if not worse. Excluding nonsense heavily plagiarized from energy industry front groups is not an example of suppression. It’s an example of rightful rejection.
Originally posted by ziggy1706
Why would this bill affect food?
Originally posted by ziggy1706
Why would this bill affect food? Whens the last time yuos aw a can of caned carbon?lol....well thier is soda and seltzer water, both carbonated****but i dont think its actually carbon dioxide. So becuase a plant taht we eat, absorbs carbon dioxide, and its released back into the atmosphere, using standard harvesting procedures..aka hadn or machine opicked..that is a cause for global alarm as well, accirding to obama?
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
They just want to raise taxes.They just want to control more.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Oh hey, it didn't take me long to find the smelly roots of this one;
The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.