So what chance do you think the public has to make EPA stop its climate/carbon dioxide campaign?
After spending billions to prove up the case for warming caused by carbon dioxide, and accepting all the claims of the IPCC as holy writ or script, the EPA is on another tear to take down our energy system. Carbon dioxide, present in ambient air at 0.04%, about 400 parts per million, and critical for plant life, is now a pollutant because it causes dangerous warming. Hard to sell me on dangerous warming this winter. I’m worried about living to see an icy turn of the screw and no more water skiing.
Another comment period is now underway, object all you want, no one at the EPA will hear.
http://www.publichealthnewswire.org/?p=9229
Note the picture in the article, another phony baloney pic of steam billowing out of a generating plant that uses steam turbines.
If you watch the plume from one of these plants, it disappears in less than a few hundred feet, because it’s not smoke.
But that isn’t the big deception, the article is about carbon dioxide, which is invisible and not a pollutant.
The article wants you to think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Only way it got to be called a pollutant is a tortured argument that it causes dangerous warming. Thus the “endangerment” finding that requires carbon dioxide to be the cause of warming which is the cause of detrimental effects and damage, even deaths and displacement around the globe and here at home.
Such tortured analysis reinforced by panic mongering and cargo cult scientific “expert” claims, is all about pursuit of a political agenda–power and control and the role of government and the oligarchs as saviors.
thank you, I like biology.
Indeed it is, now, hence my comment. It was simply a typo.
The larger issue is the silly business of CO2 being a pollutant; I wrote a short story on the logical consequences of this belief:
http://level-head.livejournal.com/608391.html
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Gentlemen, 0.04% is correct.
now that is clever. anarchist’s unite.
I think I just tacked my comment onto a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists, instead of submitting independently as I intended.
Wish I could see the reviewer’s face as they try to figure that one out….
The deaf EPA might listen is enough people in congress would suddenly reduce their funding to 4 parts per million
I’ll check that out. 400x 10 to the 6th is the ambient carbon dioxide, so its . 000400 and you be right and I be dumb. I have done that number plenty of times over the last many years, just not lately so I screwed it up.
You’ve got CO2 an order of magnitude too high in your percentage.
The EPA’s goal is not to protect Americans, sadly. Their agenda is interfered with by good science. And the notion of “pollutant” has been corrupted as badly as an EPA official.
I wonder how many “pollutants” would end almost all life on the planet if their levels in the biosphere could be magically cut by three-fourths. At 100ppm, most plants, then most animals including us, would die. Plants had been starving, near suffocating, for many years until humans started putting back a little CO2.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle