Global Warming: The Fight's About Policy, NOT the Science

TPP wrote: BTW: EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem Monday, 20 April 2009 11:00
The EPA on April 17 proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.
In fact, about 8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1022

WE MUST KILL 8% of PEOPLE TO HELP SAVE THE EARTH....

NO, the EPA isn't regulating breathing. This article does a great job at twisting the facts. The thing is, breathing becomes pretty much net neutral once you consider the carbon cycle - you are eating carbon sources (meat, plant), taking them out of the environment in order to generate fuel for your cells. What gets respired out, and expelled as waste, comes from that internalized carbon source - hence, net zero. What becomes non=net zero about it is that as the number of people on the planet increases, more land must be converted to crop and pasture - and that causes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (as less trees means less CO2 taken out).

What about the points I made in my last post, TPP, PS, et al? No one's addressed that...

1 year earlier:
EPA Chief Says CO2 Output Not a Factor in Approving Coal Plants

Scientifically, WHAT CHANGED in a year?[/quote]Nothing scientific about politics...

These:

Breaking it down into the most simplistic ideas:
* Fossil fuels take millions of years to form

* We've been commercially digging up coal, and extracting oil, etc. rough estimates starting from the 1700s and lasting (technically and economically speaking, we won't dig up every last molecule) to 120 years from now so to 2030. one of many stats websites here 300-400 years to dig up what took millions of years to sequester underground. As Joe cited, CO2 emissions are at an all-time high and not expected to be lowered anytime soon. http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
The CO2 put into the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere anywhere from 100-500 years, and its effects take some time to enter the climate cycle (as in, the CO2 added today will affect the climate for over a millenia) http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html

* The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere was elucidated over 100 years ago, and is not in dispute, even by the most ardent contrarians. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... asy-steps/ Edit to add: doubling of CO2 = 3°C warming

* Conclusion: What this adds up to is that we are adding CO2, and other greenhouse gases as well, into the atmosphere at rates that the system cannot extract from the atmosphere and the radiative forcing will only increase.

TPP wrote: So, are you saying that POLITICS is driving the global warming Issue?
Then we agree.. WOW, won over 2 libs in 1 day, think I'll call it a day.

No, politics is not driving global warming, politics is keeping us from implementing adequate measures to address its effects. The reason the EPA is forced to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is because our cowardly, energy-company-bought, short-minded (next election only), weak-ass politicians (I can't even call them leaders, cuz they aren't) refused to pass legislation that would deal with emissions.

(And don't quit while you're behind!) lol KissyFace:

Chickaree wrote: Now what the left wants to do about it is what has me shaking my head. Cap and Trade? What a farce.

Absolutely. It annoys me when my favorite environmental blogs list Republican candidates and where they stand on global warming, slamming them for not endorsing cap-and-trade (it's one thing if the candidate says something stupid like it's not happening, parroting all the usual, long-debunked talking points, but if they are only against cap-and-trade, then they are still okay by me). It's a stupid measure, full of loopholes and tax breaks that will do nothing to fix the problem.

PS - try here for an overview of the research on the LIA (from 2006 so there may be newer data as well) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... lf-stream/