It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Administration Formally Declares Dangers of Carbon Dioxide

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

What a load of bunk! Now that they've been discovered as frauds, they need to hurry up and jam all of this legislation through ASAP.

Me, I'm gonna build a fire in my fireplace each and every night this winter to commemorate this crap!
If you get a copy of the 2 health care bills, you'll have fuel for the season!

Throw in the cap and trade and you'll be toasty all winter.

jw




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I think its probably too late to stop this monstrous global institution from rising and taking control of 'climate debt'. But we can still follow the money and keep a spotlight shining upon it. The money for these carbon credits has to be watched like a hawk.

I look forward to greener lawns and more fruit trees in the garden, unless of course private growth of food is regulated out of existence and codex alimentarius rules the roost. Every silver lining always has a cloud.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I'm amazed more and more every day. Everything Bush did was awful until Obama does the exact same thing. After that, it's just fine.

In other words, it's OK that Obama's doing it because Bush did it too? Nice to see that you don't hold your guy's standards as high as those you don't support. Your blind faith is showing.


The Bush administration ignored, supressed and outright altered scientific data, reports and evidence.

This is not conspiracy...this is the testimony of everyone from 2 former heads of the EPA to over a thousand scientists that worked for the EPA. Bush appointees complained that evidence and reports were suppressed and altered.

President Obama has simply adopted that the policy of removing politics from the science. There is absolutely no evidence that the current administration has done anything but let the scientists present their evidence.

One...political agenda trumps scientific evidence.
The other...Scientific Evidence speaks independantly.

These two approaches to scientific evidence are polar opposites.

The Bush=Obama theme is tired rhetoric.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

The only problem with your premise is that you (and Al G., the EPA and Obama) consider CO2 at present levels to be "pollution," that is, "endangering human health and welfare."

Tell us how much CO2 is costing the American public in "clean ups, medical costs, etc."


Here is a basic introduction to the economics of polluting...
www.pollutionissues.com...

In short the costs are near immesurable, but here is just a sampling of costs..

Air pollution contributes to lung disease, which claims close to 341,500 lives in America every year and is the third-leading cause of death in the United States. (Source: American Lung Association, 2002)


Researchers say asthma more prevalent in children living near busy roads, freeways
www.pe.com...

American Journal of Respiratory Care and Medicine:
Recent studies, primarily in Europe, have reported associations between respiratory symptoms and residential proximity to traffic;
ajrccm.atsjournals.org...

Children living near busy roads have greater asthma and eczema risk
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Key studies on air pollution and health effects near high-traffic areas
- Air pollution from busy roads linked to shorter life spans for nearby residents
- Truck traffic linked to childhood asthma hospitalizations
- Pregnant women who live near high traffic areas more likely to have premature and low birth weight babies
- Traffic-related air pollution associated with respiratory symptoms in two year old children
- Children living near busy roads more likely to develop cancer
- Emissions from motor vehicles dominate cancer risk
- Proximity of a child's residence to major roads linked to hospital admissions for asthma
www.sdearthtimes.com...

Asthma, which can be triggered by either indoor or outdoor air pollution, annually accounts for an estimated three million lost workdays for adults and 10.1 million lost school days in children. Asthma costs our nation $12.7 billion in health care costs annually. (Source: American Lung Association, Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality, 2002)

The "Superfund" which everyone agrees is massively underfunded and inadequate is budgeted at about 1.5 Billion per year.

Cleaning up industrial pollution in rivers, lakes and waterways runs in the Billions annually...not "superfunds", but local expenses.

Pollutants in water is passed on to us via drinking water and fish we consume....medical costs.


This is SCIENCE not politics.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Yea you do actually all realize that Carbon Dioxide does affect human health and cause cancers right? This is a big step by Obama and i salute him. The Senate would never pass anything to cut emissions, now he doesn't have to go to them. Juxed.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

The Bush administration ignored, supressed and outright altered scientific data, reports and evidence.


As did such stalwart "public servants" as Jim Hansen and Michael Mann.


This is not conspiracy...this is the testimony of everyone from 2 former heads of the EPA to over a thousand scientists that worked for the EPA. Bush appointees complained that evidence and reports were suppressed and altered.


Some people consider the ability to defy fear-mongering and fraud, not matter how overwhelming, to be prudent. Especially when it involves the welfare and solvency of people with no voice in the matter.


President Obama has simply adopted that the policy of removing politics from the science. There is absolutely no evidence that the current administration has done anything but let the scientists present their evidence.


Except for Carol ("One World" and "Socialist International") Browner, John ("redistrution of wealth," "de-development," "population explosion" and "forced abortion") Holdren, Steven ("European price model," "under-priced energy," and "coal-fired nightmares") Chu, and Van (Green-jobs Marxist) Jones.

Not science, but ideology is not the motivating factor for this administration's climate and energy policies. Oh, I almost forgot Barack (GE/C&T capitalist Immelt 'economic advisor') Obama and Al (Gulfstream II) Gore.


One...political agenda trumps scientific evidence.


As in the UN IPCC, the WMO and East Anglia. Political organizations, all.


The other...Scientific Evidence speaks independantly.


As in Phil (shut them up) Jones, Benjamin (beat them up) Santer, Kevin (hide the decline) Trenberth. (I could go on, but what's the point?)

AGW/Climate change, as currently framed, is inherently political.

"Anthropogenic climate change" pits the industrialized world against the developing world demanding assistance, support or recompense. It pits prosperous countries against poorer ones reluctant to put a limit or price on carbon. It pits comparatively fuel-efficient and carbon-capping blocs against the more reluctant and politically divided.

Until AGW advocates are willing to even consider that the science is not "settled," that the "models" are imperfect, and that the "projections" are only speculation, the "debate" will amount to nothing more than headbutting.

Face it.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Here is a basic introduction to the economics of polluting...
www.pollutionissues.com...

...

This is SCIENCE not politics.


No. It is mis-direction. Hype and fear-mongering help you not.

CO2 is not discussed separately in anything you've posted.
(Soot, lead, particulates, dust, CO, SO2 and volatile hydrocarbons are not CO2, and are not the subject of the OP.)

The EPA regulations will address specifically CO2 as within the definition "pollution."
You, unfortunately, do not.

I am not a pollution advocate.

Can you try a responsive post, or are your fear and incompetence overwhelming?

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 

you do actually all realize that Carbon Dioxide does affect human health and cause cancers right?


Really? Which ones?

I'd like to see ONE medical report tying CO2 to ANY cancer.

You cannot do it because you know it is false.

I do not believe you are that ignorant of the facts or so willing to lie. You must have some other motive or purpose. What are you really trying to accomplish?


jw

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Here is a basic introduction to the economics of polluting...
www.pollutionissues.com...

...

This is SCIENCE not politics.



The EPA regulations will address specifically CO2 as within the definition "pollution."
You, unfortunately, do not.

I am not a pollution advocate.

Can you try a responsive post, or are your fear and incompetence overwhelming?


You said "The EPA regulations will address specifically CO2 "

You are dead wrong.

Well why not actually go to the source??

Here is the actual ruling...



On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--

carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

www.epa.gov...

I know that everyone likes to focus on CO2 but the ruling, contrary to what you stated, does not.

Are you saying you want CO2 excluded from greenhouse gases that combustion engines emit? Do you have a specific CO2 love for some reason?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Reply to maybereal11:

Would those health care costs be the same costs and the same bodies that are currently attibutable to second hand smoke for which smokers are paying by increased insurance payments, billions through the master settlement agreement and through horrendous taxes on tobacco products?

Are we now expected to pay for those same health care costs once again through increased taxes on petroleum products?

HMM - how do they tell the difference between asthma caused by air pollution and asthma caused by exposure to second hand smoke??

Oh well - lets pretend that each target group (smokers, car makers, petroleum industrial, industrial managers) are each responsible for the exact same diseases and the exact same bodies and collect billions from each and every one of them, over and over again.

And of course, lets pretend that there can never be a case of asthma or other respiratory illness can exist all by itself due to genetics.


BTW - the epa threatened to regulate CO2 can be a good thing. Regulations can be challenged based on scientific evidence. International treaties can't.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
uhh, how come they don't work to limit real industrial pollutants, like xenoestrogens. We dump so much crap that is cancerous into our environment and we're worried about CO2? I guess limiting real pollution would hurt "big business", but limiting CO2 only hurts the middle/lower class.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by maybereal11

You quoted my discussion of CO2 and GHGs.
I asked specific questions, you quoted them, then ignored them and began your pointless, irrelevant rant.

You replied with a bunch of crap about auto exhausts and highway pollution.

You never answered the questions in the post you quoted.

Are you afraid to or is it that you just can't?

Of course, you are ignoring the post to which I was responding and the attendant examples of industrial pollution and cleanup costs. Not GHGs. The post wasn't focused on GHG's was it? Don't you remember, or are you just playing games?

I covered the "six key gases" last March and April when this was first proposed. Just look.


Are you saying you want CO2 excluded from greenhouse gases that combustion engines emit? Do you have a specific CO2 love for some reason?


If you read the post and links, you'll see that CO2 and GHGs wasn't the subject; it was industrial"pollution."

Would it help you if I edited CO2 to GHGs? Same point.

You know that the primary focus of all AGW regulation/taxation is CO2, or don't you?

You know that CO2 is the "prime constituent" the AGW advocates are so scared of, don't you?

Or are you just playing games?

The pathetic misdirection and conscious ignorance of AGW disciples and faithful reveal the futility of reasoned debate on the substance of the issues:

Does man-made CO2 cause global warming
Does limiting or taxing CO2 emissions result in significant reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration
What are the cost-benefit analyses of such measures

Come back when you get a grip.

jw

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Oh, do you mean the scientists that got busted lying their asses off, threatening any scientist who disagreed with them, and manipulated the data to support their cause? Those scientists?





Busting knuckle dragging climate change deniers is fun.

You guys got anything else?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Reply to post by maybereal11

You quoted my discussion of CO2 and GHGs.
I asked specific questions, you quoted them, then ignored them and began your pointless, irrelevant rant.

You replied with a bunch of crap about auto exhausts and highway pollution.

You never answered the questions in the post you quoted.

Are you afraid to or is it that you just can't?
[edit on 8-12-2009 by jdub297]


Your post does not make sense. I edited most of your rant because it makes me dizzy trying to figure out what you are saying.

You asked about demonstrating the "downstream
" pollution..specifically CO2...I responded with several scientific studies...as opposed to ranting opinions...demonstrating that exposure to CO2 correlates with real world health implications...Which among causing life long suffering for folks..costs people real money in health coverage...What don't you get about that?

Here....maybe you didn't read my post...

Air pollution contributes to lung disease, which claims close to 341,500 lives in America every year and is the third-leading cause of death in the United States. (Source: American Lung Association, 2002)

Researchers say asthma more prevalent in children living near busy roads, freeways
www.pe.com...

American Journal of Respiratory Care and Medicine:
Recent studies, primarily in Europe, have reported associations between respiratory symptoms and residential proximity to traffic;
ajrccm.atsjournals.org...

Children living near busy roads have greater asthma and eczema risk
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Key studies on air pollution and health effects near high-traffic areas
- Air pollution from busy roads linked to shorter life spans for nearby residents
- Truck traffic linked to childhood asthma hospitalizations
- Pregnant women who live near high traffic areas more likely to have premature and low birth weight babies
- Traffic-related air pollution associated with respiratory symptoms in two year old children
- Children living near busy roads more likely to develop cancer
- Emissions from motor vehicles dominate cancer risk
- Proximity of a child's residence to major roads linked to hospital admissions for asthma
www.sdearthtimes.com...

Asthma, which can be triggered by either indoor or outdoor air pollution, annually accounts for an estimated three million lost workdays for adults and 10.1 million lost school days in children. Asthma costs our nation $12.7 billion in health care costs annually. (Source: American Lung Association, Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality, 2002)

These are independant studies conducted all over the world showing a STRONG CORRELATION to Asthma and CO2.

Or maybe you think car exhaust is good for you?

Maybe you should toss out your CO2 Detetectors at home?

What do you think happens to children living on a busy road while those same fumes waft through their window 24/7?

My only problem with folks such as yourself is that you defend polluters simply because their opponents are typically left leaning...

If you love CO2 so much why don't you spend some time in a closed garage with the car running contemplating how "safe" those emmissions are?

Or are they only safe when they waft through someone else's window?

What illogical, obnoxious, propaganda driven, self-centered, intellectual hating, denialist, narrow viewed right wing drivel.

Yipee...car fumes are good for us!!

I am done trying to speak reason to this idiot fest.

Now's the chance to get in your last word...I won't be reading it.
Be sure to ignore everything I said and every scientific study I cited.
I'd be dissapointed if you actually found a grip on reality for a moment.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Oh, do you mean the scientists that got busted lying their asses off, threatening any scientist who disagreed with them, and manipulated the data to support their cause? Those scientists?


Or the people who lied their asses off by omitting context to convince a sound byte Beavis culture?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Perhaps, but if the USA transforms this into a catalyst for serious proposals at Copenhagen, that will likely reciprocate and increase comparable binding action from many of your competitors - take a look at what many of them are already proposing - and may even transform the perception of the USA and confidence in Obama as looking like a strong leader with a vision and the ability to overcome congress to deliver on his proposals, something that has been increasingly viewed as something of a concern and sign of weakness from the foreign (investor) perspective thus far.

If Obama couldn't manage to overcome that resistance, failed to deliver anything of substance at Copenhagen, and the negotiations fail, I wonder whether the subsequent loss of confidence in his administration, and in the direction of the country/economy may be even worse, plus, who's to say how the USA would fair in it's economic recovery with BRIC or other reluctant Copenhagen participant economies probably far less restrained efforts to compete and grow their economies and consumption vs the US's?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


So your trying to argue that CO2 and all the other harmful chemicals produced by Cars, Planes, Trains, Oil extraction do not effect human health?

I don't know if this is also causing Climate Change, but surely you can agree that are behaviour is not good for the Planet or ourselves? We should become sustainable for sustanabilities sake.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
We should all reside in caves and live off the land then. Screw the monetary system and mechanized industry. Let's just revert back to the cave man days and keep our beloved earth clean. Screw everything from land owners to leaders. Go captain cave man go.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Oh wait, sorry. The cave men tried that and still got froze over didn't they? Darnit! I guess I should've left my two cents out.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Your post does not make sense. I edited most of your rant because it makes me dizzy trying to figure out what you are saying.


You must be delusional. You copied almost my entire post before going berserk.

Here's what you quoted:

The only problem with your premise is that you (and Al G., the EPA and Obama) consider CO2 at present levels to be "pollution," that is, "endangering human health and welfare."

Tell us how much CO2 is costing the American public in "clean ups, medical costs, etc."


And my point still stands, you have yet to answer the quoted question.

Now, where is the "rant," or "downstream" whatever? More misdirection?


You asked about demonstrating the "downstream
" pollution..specifically CO2...


Where?


I responded with several scientific studies...as opposed to ranting opinions...demonstrating that exposure to CO2 correlates with real world health implications...Which among causing life long suffering for folks..costs people real money in health coverage...What don't you get about that?


You're kidding, right?

Equating automobile exhaust with CO2 and GHGs? There is certainly CO2 in exhaust, but it is far from the most dangerous constituent.

Show me ONE study that CO2, alone, causes "long suffering" health problems or "world health implications."

Did you know that CO2 is necessary for all life?


Here....maybe you didn't read my post...


Your post is about "air pollution," not CO2. Do you not know there's a difference?



These are independant studies conducted all over the world showing a STRONG CORRELATION to Asthma and CO2.


CO2? That is a blatant lie. There is no medical study anywhere that correlates the development of asthma to CO2.


Or maybe you think car exhaust is good for you?


Yopu really don't know the difference, do you?


Maybe you should toss out your CO2 Detetectors at home?


CO2 detectors? Have YOU been inhaling car exhaust? Who has a CO2 detector in their house? Where do I buy one? What are they for, to tell me if I'm breathing?


What do you think happens to children living on a busy road while those same fumes waft through their window 24/7?


It appears that you are a prime example. "Those same fumes" are not the equivalent of CO2! They may CONTAIN CO2, but are nastier things like particulates, un-burned hydrocarbons,carbon monoxide, lead and other volatile by products of combustion.


My only problem with folks such as yourself is that you defend polluters simply because their opponents are typically left leaning...


You are sadly misguided. I detest pollution, I conserve and recycle, I plant a garden and grow food. I planted an orchard many years ago for the environmental as well as aesthetic benefits. I cannot abide a polluter any more than I can an idiot.


If you love CO2 so much why don't you spend some time in a closed garage with the car running contemplating how "safe" those emmissions are?


You are sick, aren't you? I am so sorry for you and your peers. Where have I claimed to "love CO2," although I will admit I believe that it is VITAL to human and other complex life forms. Not that you would know, of course.


Or are they only safe when they waft through someone else's window?

What illogical, obnoxious, propaganda driven, self-centered, intellectual hating, denialist, narrow viewed right wing drivel.

Yipee...car fumes are good for us!!

I am done trying to speak reason to this idiot fest.

Now's the chance to get in your last word...I won't be reading it.
Be sure to ignore everything I said and every scientific study I cited.
I'd be dissapointed if you actually found a grip on reality for a moment.


I hope someday soon, you will realize, or wsomeone will explain to how how foolish you have been here.

Deny ignorance!

jw



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join