Ask the Car People.SM


Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

10918 messages,  Last post on May 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 1067 of 1093

#10654 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [steve_] by gagrice

Jul 02, 2012 (5:31 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 02, 2012 5:07 pm)
I did not hear anything said in that piece about doing away with our clean air and water regulations. That sounds like a boogie man argument.
 
The reality of the UN stealing our sovereignty is the issue. As many have said here we have cleaner air than much of Europe, so why do we listen to them on environmental issues? It is about losing our standard of living to satisfy the Limousine Liberals that want to rule the World from their Villas.

#10655 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [gagrice] by steve_ HOST

Jul 02, 2012 (5:58 pm)

Replying to: gagrice (Jul 02, 2012 5:31 pm)
In a world with 7 billion people, I just don't have much patience with the idea of a bunch of old guys smoking cigars in a penthouse boardroom pulling all the strings. Even Richard J. Daley got thrown out of the '72 Democratic convention by McGovern and he was the prototypical string puller.
 
I don't know what you mean by "listening" to the Europeans. We're a big melting pot and have been stealing good (and bad) ideas from the rest of the world for 236 years now (and yeah, had to do the math).
 
Our problem now is having elected officials that, unlike Nixon and the EPA formation days, won't work together on the issues.

#10656 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [steve_] by monksterman

Jul 02, 2012 (6:16 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 02, 2012 4:32 pm)
The Supreme Court is not GOD. They are fallible and imperfect.
 
Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?!? It is the plant world's oxygen. Decreeing it so is absurd and if it weren't so tragic would be comical.
 
It's "rulings" like those that are an example of a de jure government replaced by a de facto one.
 
Don't misunderstand me. I don't want dirty air and water either.

#10657 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [monksterman] by steve_ HOST

Jul 02, 2012 (6:34 pm)

Replying to: monksterman (Jul 02, 2012 6:16 pm)
Didn't like that Dred Scott decision eh?
 
If you don't want dirty air and water, someone is going to have to regulate how we keep it clean. You can trust Exxon or you can trust the United Nations or you can trust the EPA. Or we can go back to the old days where individuals had to sue the polluters and hope the judge didn't play golf with the chemical company owners.
 
The EPA seems the lesser of the evils.
 
Erin Brockovich seems to have plenty of work though.
 
Oh, back to CO2, "The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency."
 
How Carbon Dioxide Became a 'Pollutant' (WSJ)

#10658 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [steve_] by gagrice

Jul 02, 2012 (7:42 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 02, 2012 6:34 pm)
There is a good chance the EPA will lose its power over CO2, by the fact they are not proving it is hazardous...
 
In a narrow 5-4 decision in 2007, the US Supreme Court authorized the EPA to consider the greenhouse gas CO2 as a 'pollutant' under the terms of the Clean Air Act -- provided EPA could demonstrate that CO2 posed a threat to human health and welfare.
 
As my CEI colleague Marlo Lewis relates, the EPA's Inspector General (IG) released a report in September 2011, finding that EPA did not meet applicable federal Information (or Data) Quality Act (IQA) standards when developing the TSD. The IG argued that the TSD is a "highly influential scientific assessment," and therefore should have been subjected to the most rigorous form of peer review. EPA fell short of the mark by not publishing the comments of the agency's 12-member peer-review panel, and by placing an EPA employee on the panel, compromising its independence.
  
After all of the responses and briefs are filed, the Court may issue a decision around mid-2012.
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/epas_co2_endangerment_finding_is_endanger- ed.html

#10659 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [steve_] by fintail

Jul 02, 2012 (8:22 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 02, 2012 5:58 pm)
You don't need to have patience for something to have at least a shadow of reality. The more things change, the more a few continue to consolidate power and gold. I have never understood why liberal minded boomer era types are the ones who seem to most vehemently object to any idea that everything isn't raw coincidence.
 
Speaking of warming...what's that? Another cool day here.

#10660 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [gagrice] by steve_ HOST

Jul 02, 2012 (8:35 pm)

Replying to: gagrice (Jul 02, 2012 7:42 pm)
In other words, the system of checks and balances, even within one branch of government, may actually work? Cool.
 
Do we need any GW links to carry us through the holiday?
 
Colorado wildfires are 'what global warming really looks like' (csmonitor.com)
 
Melting permafrost causing rockslides, endangering town (softpedia.com)
 
 In Norfolk, Va. the sea level has jumped a total of 4.8 inches since 1990 (cleveland.com)
 
Death Valley heat in Kansas (csmonitor.com)

#10661 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [fintail] by gagrice

Jul 02, 2012 (8:32 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Jul 02, 2012 8:22 pm)
We have had absolutely gorgeous weather. Averaging 6-10 degrees below normal. No AC needed here. I think it is because my gas hog Sequoia stays parked in the garage most of the time.

#10662 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [steve_] by monksterman

Jul 02, 2012 (10:34 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 02, 2012 4:32 pm)
I stand by my statement that the EPA is unconstitutional. Show me where in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Congress is authorized to legislate in the area of the environment.
 
Now, the states could under their enumerated powers.
 
Once again, do not misunderstand. I think there should be clean air and water and the like. Just leave it up to each state to set it up and implement it in their jurisdiction.

#10663 of 10918 Re: This is how science works [monksterman] by steve_ HOST

Jul 03, 2012 (6:19 am)

Replying to: monksterman (Jul 02, 2012 10:34 pm)
If the EPA was unconstitutional, the Supremes would have said so back in the 60s when the first suits trickled their way up through the appeals process. The Commerce Clause will cover just about anything and Abe Lincoln killed off the idea of "states rights".
 
Let me know when you figure out how to keep Los Angeles smog from drifting from their jurisdiction into Nevada.

Messages Page 1067 of 1093

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement