Endangerment Finding
Cliff
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/right-wing-advocates-sue-epa-over-c02-and-pollution-findings
"Right-Wing Advocates Sue EPA Over C02 and Pollution Findings"
[
...
At least 16 lawsuits have been joined together in the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Washington under the name Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. A
partial list of the science-denying petitioners speaks volumes:
Right-wing climate science deniers including the corporate-funded Competitive
Enterprise Institute and tea party-backer FreedomWorks Foundation
Anti-regulatory business lobbyists led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which
last summer called for a �Scopes monkey trial� on global warming
Coal companies, including the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, and
Massey Energy (whose CEO Don Blankenship calls global warming �a hoax and a
Ponzi scheme�)
Coal-burning utilities, through their perennial litigation arm called the
Utility Air Regulatory Group
Oil companies, through the American Petroleum Institute, the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum
Association
Steel, cement, and other trade groups, including the American Iron and Steel
Institute, the Portland Cement Association, and the National Association of
Homebuilders
Agribusiness, through the American Farm Bureau Federation and other groups
Climate denying politicians, including the tea party-courting governor of Texas,
his counterparts in Alabama and Virginia, and a dozen Republican members of
Congress such as Joe Barton and Marsha Blackburn
....
As lawsuits, though, these cases aren�t much of a threat. EPA is faithfully
following the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court�s landmark 2007 global warming
decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. You could not ask for a more transparent and
thorough process.
....
]
Monkey Clumps
wrote:
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/right-wing-advocates-sue-epa-over-c02-...
Except that CO2 doesn't "endanger" anyone and should not be classified
as a pollutant any more than oxygen or water vapor should.
hal
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Except that CO2 doesn't "endanger" anyone and should not be classified
>as a pollutant any more than oxygen or water vapor should.
If we let industry have their way nothing would be considered a
pollutant regardless of it's impact on human life.
T. Keating
The following is a portion of the text from that Supreme Court
decision..
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
"MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PRO -TECTION AGENCY ET AL."
"If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA
from making a reasoned judgment as to whether green-house gases
contribute to global warming, EPA must say so. That EPA would prefer
not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty
which, con-trary to JUSTICE SCALIA�s apparent belief, post, at 5-8, is
in fact all that it said, see 68 Fed. Reg. 52929 (We do not believe .
. . that it would be either effective or appropriatefor EPA to
establish [greenhouse gas] standards for motor vehicles at this time
(emphasis added)) is irrelevant. The statutory question is whether
sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to
decide whether greenhouse gases cause orcontribute to climate change.
Its action was therefore arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not
in accordance with law."
"We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction
in the statute."
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, andthe case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
tunderbar
wrote:
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/right-wing-advocates-sue-epa-over-c02-...
The deniers of reality (formerly known as climate alarmists) are sure
using some desperate language.
tunderbar
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:42:18 -0500, Cliff
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.opposingviews.com/i/right-wing-advocates-sue-epa-over-c02-...
What that says is that whatever decision the EPA takes, it must ground
it in science and explain how and why it came to that decision. If the
EPA does ground its decision on science and has to explain its reasons
clearly, then there is no way it can possibly justofy regulating CO2.
the science isn't there to do so.
Monkey Clumps
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:27:52 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>
> >Except that CO2 doesn't "endanger" anyone and should not be classified
> >as a pollutant any more than oxygen or water vapor should.
>
> If we let industry have their way nothing would be considered a
> pollutant regardless of it's impact on human life.
Wrong. Pollutants like sulfur dioxide and heavy metals actually can
endanger life. Nobody is going to argue about classifying them as
pollution. CO2 is a primary end product of most combustion and
respiration on this planet. Its production and consumption is
*essential* for life. CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses at
several time the atmospheric concentration to make plants grow
better. A small increase in atmospheric CO2 is not going to hurt
anyone. Calling it pollution is political nonsense.
whit3rd
> Except that CO2 doesn't "endanger" anyone and should not be classified
> as a pollutant any more than oxygen or water vapor should.
Human beings excrete CO2 with every breath, otherwise we'd all
be dead. The Apollo 13 astronauts had a hard time with CO2,
don't try to tell THEM, or me, it isn't dangerous.
Last Post
wrote:
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/right-wing-advocates-sue-epa-over-c02-...
> "Right-Wing Advocates Sue EPA Over C02 and Pollution Findings"
ø Browner (EPA chief) is a way out fascist extremist.
Yes! Fascism and Liberalism are just different
labels for left wing extremism
> ...
> At least 16 lawsuits have been joined together in the U.S. Court of Appeals in
> Washington under the name Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. A
> partial list of the science-denying petitioners speaks volumes:
Ø ROTFLMAO:— Because Cliff is no better than a 3rd rate alarmist
fascist he thinks that AGW is science. Boy, is he ever due for a rude
awakening.
ø There is no such thing,
just left wing science deniers.
including the corporate-funded Competitive
> Enterprise Institute and tea party-backer FreedomWorks Foundation
> Anti-regulatory business lobbyists led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which
> last summer called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on global warming
ø LOL a very appropriate analogy
>
> Coal companies, including the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, and
> Massey Energy (whose CEO Don Blankenship calls global warming “a hoax and a
> Ponzi scheme”)
ø Me Blankenship was "right on"
>
> Coal-burning utilities, through their perennial litigation arm called the
> Utility Air Regulatory Group
> Oil companies, through the American Petroleum Institute, the National
> Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum
> Association
> Steel, cement, and other trade groups, including the American Iron and Steel
> Institute, the Portland Cement Association, and the National Association of
> Homebuilders
> Agribusiness, through the American Farm Bureau Federation
>
> Climate denying politicians, including the tea party-courting governor of Texas,
> his counterparts in Alabama and Virginia, and a dozen Republican members of Congress such as Joe Barton and Marsha Blackburn
> ....
>
> As lawsuits, though, these cases aren’t much of a threat. EPA is faithfully
> following the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 global warming
> decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. You could not ask for a more transparent and
> thorough process.
The briefs were not properly informed and the clean air act needs to
be voided or at least reformed at least.
ø What carbon dioxide really is: Carbon dioxide is used by plants
during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in
respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic
compounds needed for plant growth and development. Photosynthesis[α]
is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds,
especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis
occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria. Photosynthetic
organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to create
their own food.
In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide
and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.
øø Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is
generated as a by-product of the combustion of so called fossil fuels
or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes.
Carbon dioxide is emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal
processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of
carbonates in crustal rocks.
As of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a
concentration of 379 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons,
driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and
summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn
and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay.
Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atmospheres.
At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits
directly to a solid at temperatures below −78 °C and the solid
sublimes directly to a gas above −78 °C. In its solid state, carbon
dioxide is commonly called dry ice.
CO2 is an acidic oxide: an aqueous solution turns litmus from blue to
pink. It is the anhydride of carbonic acid, an acid which is unstable
and is known to exist only in aqueous solution.
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some
people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness,
headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a
few minutes to an hour.[3]
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
Last Post
ø For CO2 to have any effect on the body would
take a concentration of 4866 times current levels
ø Nobody complains when one lights a match. Yet
it produces sulfuric acid. In many European
countries sulfur is a cognate for match. US
refiners do not buy libyan oil. It is cheaper than
the API 70 which is the industry standard but it
contains a lot of sulfur which is removed in the
refining process.
I M @ good guy
Actually, they burn natural gas or propane
to produce CO2 and get the heat at the same
time when weather is cold, CO2 is CO2, plants
love it, don't you?
Martin H. Eastburn
Let's see, the scientists that wrote the sea / ocean is rising were debunked and
their paper withdrawn from a journal.
It goes on and on. Mars snow is melting more than normal last summer. El Nino,
Volcano dust, all sorts of facts are blowing up the global warming / sky is
falling cry. Wake up Cliff.
You were fed a bag of bunk for the cause and it took in the world. Shame on them.
Martin
Monkey Clumps
At atmospheric concentrations, CO2 does not "endanger" anyone.
Pure H2O is not considered pollution, but if we put you in an enclosed
tank full of it, you might have a problem. Does this mean the EPA
should put out an endangerment finding on H2O?
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
e902-490a-883...@a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> Does this mean the EPA
> should put out an endangerment finding on H2O?
Oxygen dihydride is one of the most dangerous substances on earth, causing
an estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
LLoyd
leona...@gmail.com
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:
> Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> fired this volley in news:234d5d9d-
> e902-490a-8835-6ac3a7603...@a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Does this mean the EPA
> > should put out an endangerment finding on H2O?
>
> Oxygen dihydride is one of the most dangerous substances on earth, causing
> an estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
>
Water is the chemical compound H2O (oxygen
dihydride, 2 hydrogen atoms with one oxygen
atom), and, along with carbon, forms the basis of
all life on earth.
technomaNge
>
> Pure H2O is not considered pollution, but if we put you in an enclosed
> tank full of it, you might have a problem. Does this mean the EPA
> should put out an endangerment finding on H2O?
MDHS for H2O:
http://www.dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html
Dangerous stuff!
technomaNge
--
Due to anticipated high turnout in 2010's election,
the Electorial College has scheduled:
Nov. 1, 2010 All Independents vote.
Nov. 2, 2010 All Republicans vote.
Nov. 3, 2010 All Democrats vote.
Bruce Richmond
> e902-490a-8835-6ac3a7603...@a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Does this mean the EPA
> > should put out an endangerment finding on H2O?
>
> Oxygen dihydride is one of the most dangerous substances on earth, causing
> an estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
>
> LLoyd
Cliff
wrote:
> CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses at
>several time the atmospheric concentration to make plants grow
>better.
Works for some but kills others IIRC.
>A small increase in atmospheric CO2 is not going to hurt
>anyone.
I'm certain that when the world gets more than 9 degrees F warmer
on average it will be a far better place, right?
And 20 or 40 degrees will then be even better !!!
--
Cliff
Cliff
The exaust from many gas spaceheaters kills many types of
plants.
--
Cliff
Cliff
"EPA is faithfully following the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court�s
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:51:27 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses at
> >several time the atmospheric concentration to make plants grow
> >better.
>
> Works for some but kills others IIRC.
>
> >A small increase in atmospheric CO2 is not going to hurt
> >anyone.
>
> I'm certain that when the world gets more than 9 degrees F warmer
> on average it will be a far better place, right?
> And 20 or 40 degrees will then be even better !!!
ø You will never see it in you lifetime nor in your
grandchildren's lifetimes. Over the next 20 or
30 year you will see some hot spells and some
cold spells but the trend will continue to be
cooling.
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
leona...@gmail.com
leona...@gmail.com
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
>
> The exaust from many gas spaceheaters kills many types of
> plants.
> --
> Cliff
Can you give a cite for that statement?
Dan
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
4702-4e53-817...@y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
The only thing I have ever heard that is similar to that is that the
methyl mercaptan released from un-burnt cooking gas is toxic to plants.
I have at least a couple of plant care booklets that warn one to
frequently "air out" indoor plants if you cook with gas or use an un-
vented gas heater. Both those applications release a small amount of
un-burnt gas during the igntion cycle.
But as far as I can tell, the combustion products of a clean gas flame
are only water and CO2... not a terribly toxic combination to most plants
<G>.
LLoyd
Curly Surmudgeon
Nope, also CO and NO2. Carbon monoxide is the killer.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
Democrats: Party Without a Spine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
news:hmjdn8$uks$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nope, also CO and NO2. Carbon monoxide is the killer.
Not from a clean, properly oxygenated, near-atmospheric pressure flame.
NOx compounds are not formed at the relatively low temperatures found
there, and CO is only formed in the presence of insufficient oxygen.
LLoyd
dca...@krl.org
>
> >>> The exaust from many gas spaceheaters kills many types of
> >>> plants.
> >>> --
> >>> Cliff
>
> >> Can you give a cite for that statement?
>
> >> Dan
>
> > But as far as I can tell, the combustion products of a clean gas flame
> > are only water and CO2... not a terribly toxic combination to most
> > plants <G>.
>
> > LLoyd
>
> Nope, also CO and NO2. Carbon monoxide is the killer.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
> Democrats: Party Without a Spine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My request for a Cite to Cliff was a polite way of saying that he has
no clue. If he tries to find cites for space heater combustion
products killing plants, he should realize that he is wrong. You
might also look for a cite for your statement about CO and NOS.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO should
be of concern.
dca...@krl.org
> Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
> and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
> helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO should
> be of concern.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
> Democrats: Party Without a Spine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original post was about propane or natural gas heaters. How did
you get to Kerosene? And CO is poisonous to mammals. But Cliff's
statement was about killing plants. I do not think CO will kill
plants.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:16 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
>> and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
>> helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO
>> should be of concern.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Curly
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
>> Democrats: Party Without a Spine
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The original post was about propane or natural gas heaters. How did you
> get to Kerosene?
Actually the OP was about coal and steel industries but segued to
"spaceheaters" in general.
> And CO is poisonous to mammals.
Agreed, many species.
> But Cliff's statement
> was about killing plants. I do not think CO will kill plants.
>
> Dan
Probably not in any concentration to be found in living quarters let
alone outside. My concern was the danger posed by unvented space heaters
which are usually kerosene. Many people aren't as knowledgeable as you.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:06:05 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
>
> <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:
> >news:hmjdn8$uks$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> Nope, also CO and NO2. Carbon monoxide is the killer.
>
> > Not from a clean, properly oxygenated, near-atmospheric pressure flame.
> > NOx compounds are not formed at the relatively low temperatures found
> > there, and CO is only formed in the presence of insufficient oxygen.
>
> > LLoyd
>
> Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
> and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
> helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO should
> be of concern.
>
ø 1- Nobody can control the wind
2- Nobody can control the rain or snow
3- Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
4- Global temps are within natural variations
5- Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Curly Surmudgeon
Did you even read the post to which you pasted this rant?
leona...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:07:32 -0800, "leonard7...@gmail.com"
Get used to it!!
ø 4Q Asshole
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Curly Surmudgeon
Buh-Bye!