Economy

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:04:28 GMT

Just a few reputable sources out of the millions now appearing all over the world wide web. Man Made Global Warming was a fraud all along. Just as I have been telling you. It never made sense in the first place and I don't understand how so many people fell for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climategate_holdren_email/2009/11/27/291545.html

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4502&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+(ClimateRealists+News+Blog)

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Chris Jensen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:38:47 GMT

Are you on the Flint Hills Center's board of directors? I offer results of an actual survey of scientists on this subject and must wait weeks for an editorial review. You post links to allegedly pirated emails and sail right through. Now I'm getting paranoid!

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:47:35 GMT

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS ALL A LIE! It's all coming to light now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69141-inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Chris Jensen — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:55 GMT

emmayus:
It would be nice if world scientists would AGREE about the nature and cause of Global Warming BEFORE we go putting a tax on a small percentage of a naturally occurring gas in the atmoshphere. This is a scam, to justify a tax that will not be used for any type of green energy! But it will help with a lot of reelection campaigns!

In fact, the more experienced a scientist is in climate research, the more agreement you will find. Among climatologists who are active, published researchers on the field, 96.2% answer “risen” to Question 1, and 97.4% answer “yes” to Question 2:

Question 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Question 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Among scientists of all disciplines, 90% answer “risen” to Question 1, and 82% answer “yes” to Question 2. The only scientists who, as a group, are skeptical in their responses to Question 2 (not to Question 1) are “economic geologists” (i.e., the fossil fuel industry): only 47% of those answer “yes” to Question 2. Among meteorologists, whose expertise is in short-term forecasting, 64% answer “yes” to Question 2. ( http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ).

The real scam here is the denial of anthropogenic global warming by representatives of the fossil fuel industry. The real economic issue is whether this generation will share the inevitable cost of global warming with the next generation--whether we pass along a debt that our children will be forced to pay.

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:30:58 GMT

It would be nice if world scientists would AGREE about the nature and cause of Global Warming BEFORE we go putting a tax on a small percentage of a naturally occurring gas in the atmoshphere. This is a scam, to justify a tax that will not be used for any type of green energy! But it will help with a lot of reelection campaigns!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Chris Jensen — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:37:15 GMT

There is a perception that Republicans put selfish interests first, public good second. My own experience has been that the self vs. public divide cuts across party lines. The most recent example is an alliance between Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, to promote climate change legislation. I recommend this article to those whose minds remain open: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:56:22 GMT

Grandamr, you are right. The Federal Government has definitely overstepped its authority.

Grandmar, you need to get involved with the 10th Amendment people.

These are the people who are trying to stand up to the usurpation of Federal Power over the states and we are trying to stop them!

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Grandmar247 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:52:27 GMT

conservationist:

It disappoints me that the legislature is attempting to determine this issue. It must be left to the courts to decide and those decisions abided by rather than overruled by the legislature.

Legislators make 'Law', not the 'Courts' and 'Legislators' are elected by the 'People' to whom they represent. What you are suggesting is exactly what the 'People' don't want. The 'Courts' are suppose to uphold the 'LAW', not make 'LAW' from the 'Bench'. Cap'n Trade was passed in the House in Washington. It has 'NOT' become 'LAW' and therefore, for the EPA to come into our State and put a 'Halt' on our 'Economy'. to me, is way out of line. As I see it, the Federal Government has over-reached its boundaries and '2007 House Bill 2412' is appropiate and should be supported.

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Grandmar247 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:36:43 GMT

Legislators make 'LAW', not the 'COURTS' and 'Legislators' are elected by the 'People' to whom they represent. What you are suggesting is exactly what the 'People' don't want. The 'Courts' are suppose to uphold the 'LAW', not make 'LAW' from the 'Bench'. Cap'n Trade was passed in the House in Washington. It has 'NOT' become 'LAW' and therefore, for the EPA to come into our State and put a 'Halt' on our 'Economy', to me, is way out of line. As I see it, the Federal Government has over-reached its boundaries and '2007 House Bill 2412' is appropiate and should be supported.

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:36:52 GMT

Perhaps you should read your own sources! It agrees with ME!

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.^[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.^[32]^[33]

The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. ^[34]

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:56:26 GMT

From same website!

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.^[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.^[32]^[33]

Try reading your own sources.

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Chris Jensen — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:20:43 GMT

Ah, the Heartland Institute!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:06 GMT

Heartland Institute Comments in Response to Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases

Written By: Maureen Martin

Published In: Rulemaking Comment

Publication date: 06/23/2009

The Heartland Institute submitted the following comments in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Notice of Rulemaking entitled Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons discussed below, for EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to make this proposed positive finding would be unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious.

(Continue reading)

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/full/25532/_Heartland_Institute_Comments_in_Response_to_Proposed_Endangerment_and_Cause_or_Contribute_Findings_for_Greenhouse_Gases.html

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

emmayus — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:56:16 GMT

When meteorologists can accurately predict the weather (let alone CLIMATE) even one WEEK in advance, perhaps then I will consider the validity of the Global Warming Hype.

It's a shame they let people like you vote.

Re: 2007 House Bill 2412 (Override agency coal plant rejection; push economic development)

Chris Jensen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:30:11 GMT

If physics trumps hysteria, then you should be willing to test, personally, whether increasing carbon dioxide amplifies solar heating of the atmosphere. You're not going to illuminate yourself or persuade a discerning reader with misrepresentations and extreme language. For tips on how to do the experiment, you might have a look at NASA's "Glory" website.