So can someone address these other gases that have just mysteriously appeared in the report.”

The six gases are referred to as the Kyoto gases, because those were named in the Kyoto Protocol (or treaty) as the primary causes of man-made global warming, now renamed climate change. Each gas has been assigned a number, or multiplier, by which it acts in a manner greater than CO2. Thus, we have CO2-equivalents.

On the link below, scroll down to Annex A, and the six gases are listed there.

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php

Btw, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Trees breathe CO2.. why, who’da thunk it?

And we wouldn’t have had mullahs running Iran, or a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, all of which led to where we are now. A pretty heavy price to pay for a Reagan.

We may not survive this “Carter.”

This is what comes with a Dem supermajority and a Marxist President. Congratulations all you alleged libertarians out there who thought Hopey would be good for this country, and all you conservatives who thought you would “punish” the GOP for choosing that ~snip~ McCain.

Now you have Stalin.

1. No rants. Stick to the facts and science. Be respectful. Otherwise, you risk having your comments ignored or readily dismissed.
2. Both general comments and specific comments should be made.
3. The more specific you can be when making a comment, the better, such as Steven Goddard’s excellent dissection of Steig, et al’s paper regarding temperatures on Antarctica.
4. Courts are a poor forum to resolve scientific questions but are much better at procedural and constitutional issues. On the procedural front, one line of attack is that the EPA’s proposed finding violates the PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-on-Presidential-Memorandum-on-Scientific-Integrity/ ) I would encourage comments regarding how much of the cited science has not followed the scientific method including some of the many excellent posts I’ve read here about how science is not done by “consensus”. However, I will note that Courts like to “weigh” evidence and so could be swayed by the “weight of the evidence” and the so-called consensus that has developed. But a procedural attack would find a more willing audience. As for any kind of constitutional attack, I’ll have to give that some more thought.
5. Another potential line of attack is on the lack of specific public health effects and that such alleged effects are speculative at best.

While submitting comments may not carry the day, I believe they can have an impact at least in two ways. You may actually be able to persuade someone of the merit of your thoughts. More importantly, each comment must be responded to as pointed out by one of the other commenters. That’s why the more specific you can be, the less likely it can be lumped in with another comment. And the more comments deserving of a response, the more time it takes to conclude the administrative process. The fact that the EPA took such great pains in its Proposed Endangerment Finding to point out that it will follow the ordinary administrative process tells me that they are not fully committed to a rulemaking under the Clean Air Act. Any such rulemaking requires at least the development and publication of a Proposed set of regulations with a notice and comment period (such as for the Proposed Endangerment Finding) and then a similar rulemaking procedure for a Final rule. Further, the Clean Air Act is unsuited for this type of a new regulatory approach and the Administration knows it. For this and other reasons, the Administration prefers Congress to act. Also, don’t discount the value of writing directly to Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator. As an environmental attorney working for a Fortune 200 company, I’ve met with her when she was with the New Jersey DEP and have found her intelligent, thoughtful and responsive to well articulated arguments. While I have no illusions that few, if any, of such correspondence would ever be read by her directly, she will be made aware of the more thought-provoking comments.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud

Rick Gibbs

I think that cap and trade through the legislative branch is the real threat, not CO2 through the EPA. The legislative branch can do these things very quickly, the EPA cannot. And like I mentioned, the EPA is industry’s buddy. The legislative branch is not. Without EPA, industry would be inundated with lawsuits; far far more lawsuits than they have to deal with now.

As far as I can tell, the EPA cannot create cap and trade. All they can do is issue permits that allow us to pollute, and old polluters will likely be grand fathered. For example, if I want to build a new plant, I have to use a modern boiler with a really low NOX and CO spec. But it’s legal to keep running an old boiler provided it was under its agreement when installed. As far as paying to pollute, no, the EPA doesn’t have one of these programs as far as I know. Anyone knows better, please correct.

A rather well connected renewable fuels czar for a blue state told me (3 months ago) that Obama would not begin cap and trade until at least 2012. My interpretation is that the politicians know that cap and trade is a turd and they want to put it on a lame duck president, i.e. Obama in 2013. And I suspect that they somehow imagine they will the Republicans to not filibuster it.

I think it’s highly unlikely that global warming will survive that long. My dad told me the other day that a liberal scientific couple he knows has recently reversed on man caused global warming. I think the tide is turning both in the weather and in the politics.

There are many things that the EPA does right and even though I am a right wing nut cake, I would not like to see a world where the EPA was eliminated. The same applies to OSHA. Left to their own devices, the worst run companies would do amazingly dangerous and dirty things. Even with EPA and OSHA amazing stuff goes by. The best thing the US could do for health in the 2nd and 3rd world would be providing free training to other countries for their own agencies.

And it’s not obvious to me that the rural energy producing states are the ones that will be most damaged by cap and trade. Instead, I think the most damage will be in urban energy consuming states. Someone who heats their house with electricity will be hurting, someone who uses wood, a lot less.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Get_your_boots_off_my_back.htm

The people to go after are the senators in the mid west states where the electricity/jobs come from coal powered plants. We need to carefully inform them that cap-n-trade/EPA regulations are political suicide. Just the thought of electricity going up four fold scares the crap out of me and should scare them…

I do also believe that are at an inflection point in this country and this could finally be the catalyst that determines if we get back to common sense solutions or repeat history and head to the dark ages….

Remember…without Jimmy Carter there would have not been a Ronald Regan…

Assuming, of course, that humans aren’t part of the environment. After all, I suspect he wouldn’t argue that an increase in the population of, say, whales is a threat to the environment?

We’ve come pretty far OT here.

Back to reading the EPA nonsense . . .

Not all of the Democrats went along with the carbon cap and trade vote at the beginning of the month and 26 Democrats joined all 41 Republicans insisting that this legislation be voted on normally.

See Wall Street Journal article from 3 April

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123872261427685233.html

Then of course (not meaning to be alarmist) there is always the threat of the next big pandemic around the corner (and it is not if, but when, and how bad).