EPA Rules CO2 as Harmful to Humans

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a report declaring that CO2 (among six other gases) are harmful to human health. This opens the door for regulation and oversight by the Obama Administration. Intrigued by the stupidity of this report, I decided to take a look at it.

On pages 46-47, they admit that they did not do any new research. Their findings are all a result of the same old IPCC report that came out and has been thoroughly disproven. They add in some additional old reports from the CCPA, but that is only to bolster the already given pre-approved result. This in short makes this report a fraud and is meant to do nothing less than to forward the Leftist Liberial agenda.

This report has been heralded in the New York Times to be the catalyst for creating new Green jobs. Yet they omit the fact that in doing so, it will destroy jobs and our economy which is already teetering on the brink.

In the EPA’s assessment on page 52, they show their bias by stating that the reason that they chose those 6 gases to evaluate was because they can only be emitted due to human involvement. This is patently false in the case of CO2 as the oceans and volcanoes emit CO2 on a regular and massive basis. (shown in quotes below)

As discussed above, carbon dioxide is the most
important greenhouse gas directly emitted by human
activities in terms of its total additional heating effect
being exerted on the climate.

Page 53:

Under all future
scenarios, carbon dioxide is projected to remain the
dominant driver of climate change for the remainder of this
century.

Kind of like how you guys predicted how the global temperature has been droppping for the past 10 years?

Historic data that go back many thousands of years
show that current atmospheric concentrations of the two
most important directly emitted, long-lived greenhouse
gases (carbon dioxide and methane) are well above the
natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the
last 650,000 years. Atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations have been increasing because human emissions
have been outpacing the ability of the natural environment
to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere over
timescales of decades to centuries.

Really? the report delibrately ignores the fact that at the time of the dinosaurs, CO2 levels were over 1000 ppm (compared to today’s 386 ppm). Also, how did they determine that the CO2 increase has been due to humans? So far, the report has not offered any evidence other than the psuedo-science of the IPCCC.

Now I see a contradiction in logic (no surprise there…):

On page 49:

The Administrator therefore
disagrees with commenters on the ANPR who argue that when
considering whether the atmospheric concentration of
greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare, she must consider the impact from
the regulation of greenhouse gases under the CAA following
an endangerment finding.

And then on page 57:

Future atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations—not only for the remainder of the current
century but indeed for decades and in some cases centuries
well beyond 2100—will be influenced by our present and
near-term greenhouse gas emissions. Consideration of
future plausible scenarios, and how our current greenhouse
gas emissions essentially commit present and future
generations to cope with an altered atmosphere and climate,
reinforces the Administrator’s judgment that it is
appropriate to define the combination of the six key
greenhouse gases as the air pollution.

So with these two quotes, the EPA is admitting that it is looking at the “worst case senario” and is not a realistic portrayal of future conditions. It is a joke and a shame.

On page 58:

The global average net effect of the increase in
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, plus other human
activities (e.g., land use change and aerosol emissions),
on the global energy balance since 1750 has been one of
warming.

Did they not notice that in 1750, we were just coming out of the Little Ice Age? Of course we would be warming! In comparison to Roman times, we are actually cooler! Yup, gotta love that global warming cooling.

On page 59 we have an out and out lie:

Warming of the climate system is now unequivocal, as
is evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and
ice, and rising global average sea level.

We have been cooling for the past 10 years.

On pages 59 – 60:

Global observed temperatures over the last
century can be reproduced only when model simulations
include both natural and anthropogenic forcings, that is,
simulations that remove anthropogenic forcings are unable
to reproduce observed temperature changes. Thus, most of
the warming cannot be explained by natural variability,
such as variations in solar activity.

Kinda like how Mars had the same global temperature increase as Earth over the same period of time. How many humans are on Mars again?

I could go on, but I am getting sick of reading the Green Peace propganda…

Advertisements
Published in: on April 17, 2009 at 7:34 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://constitution1776.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/epa-rules-co2-as-harmful-to-humans/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. hahah great post! This stuff truly is ridiculous.. I’ve seen graphs showing “anthropogenic co2 emission levels” that are completely dwarfed by naturally occuring co2, how can they present this with such a straight face?

  2. Give me a break. You are just as guilty of propaganda as the left leaning liberals yet your tone of “I told you so ” is even more annoying as you clearly lack any understandng of global chemical balances and their effects. Try taking your head out of your ass and actually doing some research for a change instead of just parroting all the distorted media that people like you soak in as if it were inscribed on stone fuckng tablets

    • So care to offer any opposing evidence or do you just troll the blogs? Please, enlighten me on your vast knowledge of “global chemical balances” (whatever you think it means).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: