- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court largely left intact Monday the Obama administration's only existing program to limit power plant and factory emissions of the gases blamed for global warming. But a divided court also rebuked environmental regulators for taking too much authority into their own hands without congressional approval.
This is a major blow to the Koch Brothers, who have been waging war on the EPA for more than 20 years, in an effort to gut that agency. The SCOTUS decison does limit the EPA in the permitting process in that it cannot deny permits based on global warming pollutants alone, but the global warming pollutant regulations that power plants must abide by are left intact, and the power industry is expected to follow these laws or else.
This is good, because no matter what the shills say, the science on global warming is in, and the USA is following that science, as well as demonstrating to the world that it intends to be a leader on this issue, and not a sideline watcher participating in "crackpot science" in an effort to deny the obvious.
Article is here.
Hurray for science and reason!
What " Science " ? Liberals are some of the most Scientifically ignorant people I've ever run accross.
Look up what " Science " ( politicized rhetoric ) did to the German " green revolution " .
Their finance minister just decalred it a total failure as their Citizen's now pay 300 percent more than the average American does on Electricity just so they can be dependant on Coal.
[video]http://on.rt.com/6hwsfb[/video]
For the sake of balance.
Still, what does that have to do with the science? The situation is not about fiance, but about science. What's scientifically ignorant about climate change?
This is a major blow to the Koch Brothers, who have been waging war on the EPA for more than 20 years, in an effort to gut that agency. The SCOTUS decison does limit the EPA in the permitting process in that it cannot deny permits based on global warming pollutants alone, but the global warming pollutant regulations that power plants must abide by are left intact, and the power industry is expected to follow these laws or else.
This is good, because no matter what the shills say, the science on global warming is in, and the USA is following that science, as well as demonstrating to the world that it intends to be a leader on this issue, and not a sideline watcher participating in "crackpot science" in an effort to deny the obvious.
Article is here.
Friken Libs are just a bunch of mindless easilly led SHEEP !
The " Koch Brothers " ?? Really ?
So we're going to NAILED with higher utility rates in a DOWN economy over a leftist nonsensical narratives ?
You libs think this is going to hurt the " Koch Brothers " ??
No, its going to hurt those people already struggling to make ends meet.
You f***ing dumbasses !
The "Evil Libs are dumbasses" meme again? The court ruled 7-2 on this part of the ruling, which means that 3 of the 5 Conservative judges voted in favor of it. Got something else to post instead of your ad hoc attacks on a group of people?
The "Evil Libs are dumbasses" meme again? The court ruled 7-2 on this part of the ruling, which means that 3 of the 5 Conservative judges voted in favor of it. Got something else to post instead of your ad hoc attacks on a group of people?
Oh Bull sh** !
AGW is and has been a politically driven psuedo science since its inception.
And now we get to see the results of the BS Hockey stick graphs and make believe movies about the end of the world.
AGAIN, take a look at the stupidity that is Germany's green energy revolution.
A STUPID endeavor built on the back of this politicized false narrative of Global warming.
It failed miserably because SCIENCE had nothing to do with it.
It was ideologically driven and its FAILED MISERABLY.
Again, the finance aspect of Germany's green energy revolution has nothing to do with the science. Other than your assertions, what exactly is wrong with the science?
The "Evil Libs are dumbasses" meme again? The court ruled 7-2 on this part of the ruling, which means that 3 of the 5 Conservative judges voted in favor of it. Got something else to post instead of your ad hoc attacks on a group of people which, by the way, don't even make any sense?
High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Bull, you have no idea what your'e talking about. It's NOT just about " Economics ", because now Germany's air is dirtier than it was before they entered into this disaster.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-big-lie-becomes-official-at-noaa/
NOAA " The year 2012 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, beating the previous record by a full degree in temperature, a government climate agency said on Tuesday. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the average temperature in 2012 in the contiguous United States was 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit (12.94 degrees Celsius), 3.2 degrees above the average recorded during the 20th century and 1.0 degree above 1998, until now the hottest on record. "
" I will do a more complete analysis later, but for now I want you to focus on the bold sentence above, which claims that 1998 used to be the hottest year in the US.
In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934."
" Science " !!
THERE is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.
For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nation’s financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.
We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.
This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.
We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.
Here's another from the Rolling Stone Mag
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Again, your first link focuses on the financial burden of green energy. The second link I can't access from work.
And since I can post links too, here's one from Henry Paulson:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=0
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?