EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to the White House

Excerpts from Reuters story: EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House

By Tom Doggett

http://www.nps.gov/piro/parkmgmt/images/WhiteHouse.jpg

Image: National Park Service

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.

She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.

 

Complete story here

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to the White House

  1. The EPA didn’t listen to people’s concerns. The OMB manages to stay above the politics and tends to come up with cost estimates that have a chance of being accurate.
    I don’t know if they welcome public input, I don’t think they do, but I’m sure they are aware that the EPA document has an agenda, as we heard here at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/leaked-omb-co2-memo-no-demonstrated-direct-health-effects/
    So the EPA has briefed the OMB a couple times, perhaps they’d be willing to say who has presented the other side(s) of the story.

  2. EPA:
    step 1 – CO2 is pollution
    Step 2 – CO2 is a danger
    Step 3 – cars and trucks cause and contribute to that pollution, so do power plants using Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas.
    Step 4 – Shut them down, go backwards to the middle ages and US lawmakers be damned.

  3. One wonders how they have to justify such a finding. I could send a finding to the White House too saying that argon is an endangerment. I admit it would be a tough one, but the last time I put a plant in an atmosphere of pure argon it died, while when I put it in an atmosphere of CO2 it did quite well thanks. We should thus make all possible strides in removing the third most prevalent gas from the atmosphere least all the plants on our planet become history.

  4. Around 96% of the CO2 in the air is from natural sources. So the EPA will declare a 96% natural gas needed for life on this planet as a pollutant?
    I say that we should declare the EPA as a danger against the natural order of this earth and shut them down.
    My 2 cents.
    Oh boy, I am about to reach my tipping point…

  5. EPA is clearly in the grip of politics.
    We should therefore demand an independent evaluation and insight in the endangerment findings.
    No way a ruling body must be in a position to set it’s own rules.
    Work to do here.
    This is about your freedom, so fight for it.

  6. The hard core lefty idealogues which are running you country and currently have it circling the drain don’t care about anything except their radical agenda. The USA is well into its sunset.

  7. It is very sad that science is being abused for political purposes.
    Do you really believe that the EPA actually read and considered the >300,000 comments that were submitted? I feel very much abused, since I spent approximately 3 full days writing detailed comments with references in response to the EPA’s proposals.
    A great EVIL is spreading across the US.

  8. This is the ongoing madness of those who seek a climate scapegoat for political ends. What will they do as the world continues to cool? Do they think people arnt going to be angry?

  9. “She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.”
    Most of which the EPA promptly ignored as extremist rantings from tea-bagging Republican stooges and added their names to the Whitehouse.gov watchlist, “These remarks show an anti-Obama and anti-science agenda,” Ms Jackson then asked the reporters “do you like my unicorn? his name is Bob and he hates when scientists say he never existed because he is right here…”
    Disclaimer Required in the Case of Liberal Readers
    For the record I made that bit up so do not go thinking she actually said that.

  10. Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??

  11. A bit of realism from newsweek.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/221608/page/1
    The article has an interesting calculation.
    “Waxman-Markey’s goal is just slightly more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050. The last time this nation had that small an amount was 1910, when there were only 92 million Americans, 328 million fewer than the 420 million projected for 2050. To meet the 83 percent reduction target in a nation of 420 million, per capita carbon-dioxide emissions would have to be no more than 2.4 tons per person, which is one quarter the per capita emissions of 1910, a level probably last seen when the population was 45 million—in 1875.”
    But we all know what the greens have to say on population growth.

  12. tallbloke (13:32:30) :
    Not a legal peep from the vehicle manufacturers?
    ANSWER: They were taken care of as part of the stimulus package. $25 Billion (first go-around) buys a lot of co-operation and silence.

  13. tallbloke (13:32:30) : “Not a legal peep from the vehicle manufacturers?”
    Surely you jest. The manufacturers that just got bailed out with Federal money and are thus partly owned by Obama & Co. ? Don’t look for help from big business, big energy, or big oil on any of this. They’re sitting pretty. If you want to have any effect, boycott a company that supports leftist AGW theory and send them a letter.

  14. Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
    Who the hell is running the country?

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
    No-one is running the country. Everyone has abdicated responsibility. The Bureaucrats are relying on the PC autopilot of ready made responses and formulations, and the president reads his lines from the autocue like several presidents before him.
    If you want the country running properly, you’d better form a committee of national salvation under the Aegis of the constitution.

  15. As I mentioned on another thread, since it was the EPA that required catalytic converters to be used on autos in order to turn unburned hydrocarbons into water vapor and CO2 they must now require the removal of those converters immediately. Or perhaps they just want to find a way to ban the use of gasoline autos altogether? That would be quite a boon for the electric car business and switch the balance of power from oil companies to electric companies.

  16. Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
    Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??
    That was a rhetorical question. Right?

  17. EPA finding says we have too many Liberals. We also have too many wind generators. They consume millions of tones of Carbon in being manufactured.

  18. EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to the White House
    Peter Orszag, head of OMB, was quick to rebut the April story that his office was resisting the EPA’s “danger” assessment of CO2. Within a day or two of the “smoking gun” claims by congressmen, he was busily apologizing…

    (He said) the memos are being taken out of context… (and) his agency’s memo was simply a collection of criticism gathered from multiple agencies and does not reflect any administration conflict over the EPA finding.

    There seemed to be some initial resistance to Obama’s health plan too, but OMB ended up endorsing it.
    How can he do otherwise?

  19. Interesting. So if CO2 is a polutant there must be levels that are safe/acceptable as with any other polutant. If it happens to be around 270ppm then that raises questions of why the agro business regularly allows workers in CO2 enriched atmospheres of up 1000ppm and why that business seems to be working along the guidlines that 5000ppm is the maximum safe level? Clearly someone is mistaken.

  20. Death to tyrants.
    We must ignore this ruling. We must resist any implementation of it. We must fight this trannical power grab based entirely on a lie.
    We must abolish the EPA. We must repeal the automatic standing in court the enviro nazis have to sue to stop our industry. This insanity has got to stop somewhere. I say we stop them now before the government gets their greedy hooks into us any deeper. At what point does the injury our government inflict on us cause us to rise up against it?

  21. Stephen Skinner (14:20:38) :
    C02 simply replaces oxygen. The trouble with the EPA is that it has no ventilation in it’s sealed-off mindset, and therefore emits oxygen-deprived findings.

  22. The car companies are all falling over each other to rush from exisiting highly regulated and advanced technologies into something new which will allow them an easier, subsidised life and pass the big issues on to some other industry.
    The US companies are probably more keen for that to happen than the Asian and European companies since they are further behind. That said with Ford seemingly doing quite well (having already sold off some potentially medium term competitive businesses to Asia in the shape of India and China) maybe things were not as bad as the bailout money suggested. Even GM seem now to have reversed their decision to sell off european operations.
    Of course one can only speculate as to how much can be achieved in so little time, albeit with so much taxpayer funding but the apparent ‘turnaround’ seems uite impressive after decade of struggle despite being in the middle of a recession.
    So why is that then? Just what are the main influences that have changed the balance? With so much scrutiny being performed that question should not take long to answer.
    It should be fun to watch the EPA explaining why is feels the need to tax cars and trucks and power stations but not other forms of industry like tomato growers. How about a super tax on soft drink manufacturers? Two hits for the price of one – cut gasses and obesity in a single strike.
    Good to see above that Newsweek have worked out how to add two and two and get a logical result.
    Remember, if the ‘green’ tide is going to create so many new jobs related to so much less energy consumption, energy is about to become too expensine to use.

  23. Henry chance (14:13:30) :
    “EPA finding says we have too many Liberals. We also have too many wind generators. They consume millions of tones of Carbon in being manufactured.”
    And re-manufactured, including the massive concrete bases, every 20 to 25 years – or maybe less.

  24. The only dangerous CO2 is the one emitted by the corrupted and scientifically challenged politicians and also that of their science advisers. That’s the type of CO2 that should be eliminated.

  25. Stephen Skinner (14:20:38) :
    Exactly… they will now start adding warnings to pops, beer, bubbly wine, carbonated water, etc… if they touch one bubble of my beer… it’s Revolution!

  26. OSHA’s Time Weighted Average Exposure Limit is 5,000 ppm. The Short Term Exposure Limit is 30,000 ppm.
    If the EPA sets the atmospheric limit at 270 or 350 or even 540 ppm… A lot of work environments will be thrown out of compliance.
    Roy Spencer said it best, “It has been said that regulating carbon dioxide emissions will make the United States the cleanest Third World country on Earth. And whoever controls carbon dioxide emissions will control the world.”

  27. Steven,
    Please don”t look for any sort of logic or science coming out of the EPA. This is a political entity, the reason of who’s existence is simply the gathering of political power for the benefit of the progressive movement. Period!
    To be sure, there have been conscientious people working in that agency, and they have achieved positive things for the citizens of our country. The EPA has helped make our air cleaner and our water purer.
    But when the environmental movement was co-opted by the progressive movement the EPA began to become a mere pretense who’s stated goal was the protection of the environment, but who’s every action was aimed at the destruction of our free enterprise economy. There is no other plausible explanation for their record of activities. None!

  28. Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
    Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??
    The answer is “yes”.

  29. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.”
    In other news, the White House canceled all deliveries of toilet paper “until further notice”, explaining that it had enough on hand “for the forseeable future.”

  30. Kinda reminds me of the Cowards Principle.
    Attack only those bereft of tooth or talon for to do so may result in horrific injuries.
    Stay away from true dangers as they are way above your pay grade.
    Concentrate on the subjucation of the Sheeple because you will have Wolves behind you.
    Yeh, yeh USA
    Now you’re called the EPA
    Hope I’m wrong folks

  31. The US will be the cleanest 3rd world country on the planet when it reduces the C02 emissions, only so long as the prevailing winds don’t arrive to disperse the C02 coming from the East into US Airspace. The celebration will be brief, if indeed it ever occurs.

  32. jorgekafkazar (13:50:38) :
    tallbloke (13:32:30) : “Not a legal peep from the vehicle manufacturers?”
    Surely you jest. The manufacturers that just got bailed out with Federal money and are thus partly owned by Obama & Co. ? Don’t look for help from big business, big energy, or big oil on any of this. They’re sitting pretty.

    They know how to play the game. They made a deal for government to hand them a mandated and expedited complete replacement market of every auto in the country — to be replaced with hybrid/electrics — at our expense — which is of course hidden tax — with no net increase in either wealth or productivity. Great for the UAW, though — go figure.:
    http://www.dailytech.com/Auto+Execs+Urge+Government+to+Tax+Fuel+up+to+8Gallon+to+Increase+Fuel+Efficiency/article16727.htm
    Bastiat is rolling in his grave: The “broken window” economic fallacy :
    http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window

  33. In the Australian press the war of words between the “right-wing” Liberals in opposition to the “left-wing” Labor party pushing the ETS over here has escalated. Got to love when the issue is being bandied around for political purposes rather than being debated on scientific and/or economic merit.
    Penny W(r)ong our climate change minister is saying skeptics live in “fantasy land”:
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/6452565/climate-sceptics-in-fantasy-land-wong/
    She was famous for not being able to answer even the most basic questions about climate change posed by Family First Senator Steve Fielding (http://www.stevefielding.com.au/).
    While the Labor sheeple are united in supporting the crippled ETS legislation (CPRS) the Liberal disunity on the issue is being used to try and wedge the party:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/minchins-climate-change-attack-draws-out-turnbull-critics/story-e6frgczf-1225795999631
    Personally I would rather have politicians that speak their opinions than sheepishly tow a party line any day of the week.
    But the most stunning piece today is in The Australian, with none other than ole Gorby leveraging off the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall to preach about the new CC wall that needs to be torn down at COP15:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tear-down-wall-blocking-our-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225795880053
    I can’t wait for the US press to run with this one… the COP15 draft treaty was already branded as socialist, verging on communist, in nature without this king of support 🙂

  34. This is rank corruption and stinks.
    But I still want to consider one thing – the history. Way back in the sixties, ordinary folk stood up for green issues, against the status quo of the time, for things they believed in. Then in the seventies-eighties, there was a corporate counter-offensive to shut them down. Then corruption crept into the “green” movements as they turned the tide in the nineties against the corporations. Now we have rank corruption with profuse protestations of “green” on both sides but the “science” now stinks.
    The hope lies in the growing realization of (once again) ordinary folk, thanks to meeting-places like WUWT, that those in power at the top have either sold out to money or are ignorant of real science. Almost always, in the course of time, power corrupts and reform is up to concerned individuals. You have to use the pressure-head of frustration as a driver of positive action. The higher the pressure, the deeper you have to reach.
    It has always been like this. Always it took time to wake up to the threat, and time to muster strength. Study the history of any great reform. I remember watching the “faith” work behind the scenes, in Communist Europe, years before the Berlin Wall fell – I knew which way the wind was blowing. The Hungarian uprising was a disaster; Czechoslovakia edged a little closer to success; Poland edged still closer; finally Russia herself opened the way on. I know, I know, it is still work in progress.
    Deep reform will always take generations. Don’t ever give up hope. America is not dead, she is just sleeping.

  35. Kath (14:33:59) :
    “Living an 1897 lifestyle with a population of around 400 million. Someone isn’t thinking clearly.”
    I’d say more like 1837 … and don’t forget 1837 tax revenues. Government will have to start accepting eggs, livestock, and homespun goods as as payment.
    Yes, someone isn’t thinking clearly.

  36. Tom In Fla. I wonder the ban of gas powered cars altogether. That would mean the ban also of all carbon fueled vehicles and equipment. I lived in rural Mississippi in my early youth. We share cropped 80 acres with another family.
    We used gas fueled tractors to break, prepare, and plant the crops, mostly cotton. all the rest was done by draft animals and human hands. The gas tractors could prepare 40 acres and plant in 3 days. The big tractor was only 28 horse power. That was a nice tractor for the day. to cultivate the same 40 acres with draft animals took 2 weeks. This was done two times and then the crop was “laid by” the application of nitrogen based fertilizer. The rest of the work was done by hand. The transport to market was done by draft animal. One farmer could feed or clothe approximately 12 people. There were lots of people that knew how to farm. There were lots of small family owned farms. Can you imagine returning to the 1950 level of carbon use. Now if you ban all carbon fueled equipment because of CO2 we well next have to ban all draft animals due to their ghg emissions also. Here we come back to the dark ages and it will be freezing cold to boot.
    I have great fear for our country and our world.
    Bill Derryberry
    PS I was born in 1950 and I remember when we got running water in the house. one water tap in the kitchen only cold water. It was 4 more years before we truly had indoor plumbing. amazing the progress we may be about to forfeit. When all your time is dedicated to the gathering of food and heating fuel all other concerns become secondary. With the entitlement mentality today we are in deep trouble. I fear anarchy.

  37. “The EPA didn’t listen to people’s concerns.”
    I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.

  38. CO2 is an essential plant food.
    With a growing global population, it is essential to INCREASE food production.
    Therefore, it is essential to keep increasing CO2 to feed the growing population.
    Decreasing CO2 will cause far more death from starvation by reducing food production, than by any “anthropogenic warming.”

  39. Just a comment on the EPA being political. It has been from the beginning.
    In 1972, EPA hearing and resulting in over 9000 pages’ worth of transcript concluded that DDT was not a carcinogenic hazard for humans. The exact finding contained the words: “DDT is not a
    carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses
    under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on
    fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other
    wildlife… …and … …there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”
    Nonetheless, William Ruckelhaus, first EPA administrator, promptly ignored the findings and issued a ban on DDT stating that it WAS a carcinogen–relying on just 2 disputed animal studies. Probably, he believed he needed to show that the EPA was not some kind of toothless organization.

  40. Lucy Skywalker says:

    But I still want to consider one thing – the history. Way back in the sixties, ordinary folk stood up for green issues, against the status quo of the time, for things they believed in. Then in the seventies-eighties, there was a corporate counter-offensive to shut them down. Then corruption crept into the “green” movements as they turned the tide in the nineties against the corporations. Now we have rank corruption with profuse protestations of “green” on both sides but the “science” now stinks.

    I think you are too swept up in mythmaking.
    (some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money. Think of companies with expiring patents that can help shift spending towards newer, recently patented products with the help of green outrage and activism.

  41. Maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Write your Senators and Congressmen to get the EPA to apply the Clean Air Act to CO2 exactly as written. Don’t allow the additional CO2 generation being used by the EPA. Maybe everyone will come to their senses if the pain gets sufficiently extreme?

  42. Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
    Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??
    I vote for the president and a bunch of bureaucrats!

  43. China is completing coal fired power plants at a rate faster than 1 per week, with no end in sight. China is converting American dollars into coal deposits as fast as it can. Chinese leaders say that China will work with the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Oh, those inscrutable Chinese.

  44. While we are assessing blame …
    let’s not forget the travesty of jurisprudence that occurred when the SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a “pollutant.”

  45. Richard Sharpe (19:25:42) : …(some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money…
    and I completely agree with what you say there… for instance Al Gore’s directorship in, I forget which oil company, but it had a particularly bad human rights record…

  46. Breathing pure Oxygen under high pressure will cause acute Oxygen poisoning. Therefore Oxygen should be added to the list of polutants.

  47. Impact of the respiration of ornamental flowers on the composition of the atmosphere in hospital
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2x1p2434x732438/
    Summary Ornamental flowers were sampled in hospital wards and their respiration rates measured. We calulated the maximum possible contribution of the flowers to the CO2 and O2 content of the ward air, during an eight hour night. Only 1.6% of the CO2 increment in the ward air during the night (estimated to increase under most unfavourable conditions from 0.03 to 0.37% v.v.) was estimated to result from the presence of the flowers. The depletion of oxygen due to the flowers was calculated to be likewise negligible. Actual measurements of CO2 in the ward air in the early hours of the morning showed CO2 concentrations below 0.1%. It is concluded that nightly removal of ornamental flowers is not justified by their effect on the composition of the ward atmosphere.

  48. Maybe this is an opening, I read somewhere that while the Waxman/Markey travesty would not be subject to a court challenge, and EPA regulation would be.
    Also, I want to thank everyone here, from a skeptic (I know a pipe load when I see or hear it) but not up on all the science.
    I, and I suspect many others who do not post, read and find encouragement on this site.
    And thank a higher power every gay the the Goracle did not win in 2000, otherwise we would already be immersed in the great Cap & Steal.

  49. Once again Ayn Rand got it right – from Atlas Shrugged:
    “Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity
    of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons- the
    unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little
    bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he’s
    unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial
    giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations
    and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to
    function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull
    of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to
    demolish the whole of their effort.”

  50. Steve S. (21:51:31)
    The EPA with it’s $8 Billion budget and 17000 employees is perpetrating fraud and deceit upon the American public.
    Try 14 Billion Dollar Budget 2009-2010 via Stimulus Package and 10B plus moving forward after 2010. The Stimulus + new Obama Budget doubled the funding to ram this through because it is a great big hammer to beat the Senate into shape. Watch for it.
    http://illiquidassets.net/?p=167

  51. Stephen Skinner (01:19:09) :

    Breathing pure Oxygen under high pressure will cause acute Oxygen poisoning. Therefore Oxygen should be added to the list of polutants.

    Even more importantly, dihydrogen monoxide should be added as well. Thousands die every year from inhaling this extremely deady compound!

  52. Bulldust (17:18:13) :
    Penny Wong our climate change minister is saying skeptics live in “fantasy land”
    It prompted the government to question the validity of last-minute negotiations on its carbon pollution reduction scheme, set to go before parliament next week.
    Penny Wong and the Kevin Rudd are scientifically illiterate.

  53. Karl Koehler sends EPA endangerment finding to White House:
    Dear White House,
    After careful consideration and simple application of the modicum of common sense I was born with (which is really all you need to figure this thing out), I have concluded the people running the show over at EPA are dangerous.

  54. Richard (13:09:40) :
    EPA:
    step 1 – CO2 is pollution
    Step 2 – CO2 is a danger
    Step 3 – cars and trucks cause and contribute to that pollution, so do power plants using Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas.
    Step 4 – Shut them down, go backwards to the middle ages and US lawmakers be damned.

    And 8 more Steps to go??????

  55. Lucy Skywalker (00:52:50) :
    Richard Sharpe (19:25:42) : …(some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money…
    and I completely agree with what you say there… for instance Al Gore’s directorship in, I forget which oil company, but it had a particularly bad human rights record…

    Read all about Algore’s work for Occidental Petroleum here:
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html

  56. Chris R. said:

    Nonetheless, William Ruckelhaus, first EPA administrator, promptly ignored the findings and issued a ban on DDT stating that it WAS a carcinogen–relying on just 2 disputed animal studies.

    I don’t think EPA has ever ruled on the carcinogenicity of DDT. Ruckelshaus signed no such order.
    Ruckelshaus’s order, which stopped the spraying of DDT on agricultural crops, was based on the harm the stuff does to wild and domestic animals and insects. None of the studies the order was based on have ever been contradicted.
    Two DDT manufacturers sued EPA to stop the rule change. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there must be a sound basis in the science for any such ruling. Were there no support for the rule, the courts would be required by law to overturn it.
    In both cases, EPA won on summary judgment. DDT manufacturers did not bother to appeal.

  57. Let’s be honest, they know the truth on the matter now – you would have to be the stupidest person in stupidsville to think that CO2 is driving the climate. The whole climate change mullarkey is just a means of control and a tax on one thing – existence! You exist, you emit CO2, therefore I will make you feel guilty, and then I will tax you so that you can gain absolution. Just how many $$$$$ is going to made out of all this for a select few?

  58. Dr. Bones (or can I call you Indy), GREAT link. How beautiful that a site so thoroughly devoted to global warming alarmism publishes all the standard talking points, allows you to weigh in on them, and now has to face thorough embarrassment as they take a beating by nearly a 3:1 margin.
    A classic case of overzealous devotees greatly overestimating their own intellect. I don’t imagine they set out to build a website proving that the so called consensus on Global Warming is hooey. No they apparently bought it hook line and sinker and likely their intent was to show what a “fringe minority” the skeptics represented. Clearly it didn’t quite work out.
    THis is the hardest I’ve laughed in weeks, a fact that I made sure to share with them via their “Contact” link (which I would expect them to take down in the next 5 minutes).
    On the serious side though, I like many posters here submitted rational, scientifically based arguments against this endangerment filing. And I suspect the ratio was more on par with your suggestion. But two things are for sure:
    1) They’ll never tell what the ratio was (any pollster will tell you that 10000 people is a good population. The 3-1 margin in this poll roughly mirrors the results of similar polls and is probably an accurate estimate on the responses to the endangerment finding)
    2) They didn’t even read 3 of them, this decision was made years ago. It just took time to bring to fruition.
    Does make you want to stab your eyes out doesn’t it…?

  59. Time for Fox News to get their speed reader to review all the comments. I assume the EPA is required to make them available (if not, time for a FOIA). Once the results were known the EPA would be forced to support their decision.

  60. By the way, Chris R.:
    While DDT is probably not a strong human carcinogen, it is a known mammal carcinogen, and it is listed as a “probable” human carcinogen by the American Cancer Society and every other cancer fighting organization on Earth.
    Those findings are based on many human studies, not “just two disputed animal studies.” There is no serious dispute that DDT is a carcinogen for animals.

  61. Since water vapor and droplets make up roughly 70% of the greenhouse layer while CO2 contributes about 3%, shouldn’t we be more concerned with regulating water and water vapor as a pollutant? Another major concern, I would think, is these new fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen and emitting only water. Won’t this cause global flooding?

  62. I tried to leave a comment at the EPA’s and all I got for my trouble was a non-specific message that said that there was a problem with my submission. When I tried to go back, my comments were gone. Typical government incompetence

  63. I am using my heater with the lights on at the computer. It is cold, dark and I have something to say. This message brought to you by energy companies – the reason you have everything you own. And rather then a thank you, they get this.
    Thank you, energy companies!

Comments are closed.