Global Warming for Dummies

[Thinker]

Dear Lone Ranger,

You do not mention Aerobic sea life as a source of CO2. The theory that I have seen is that the warming seas, whether caused by geothermal, Sun heat, or Earth tilt, or some combination, have led to increased production of CO2 by sea life. You are saying that there is no effect on CO2 from sea fish, animals and Aerobic Bacteria?

The graphs on Solar heat output show variations on an hourly basis. How accurate do you feel the Solar heat mesurements are? Do you agree that up to 30% of the current global warming could be from Solar Forcing? How much money has been spent on the instruments to measure the 11 year cycle that you claim is currently in a decreasing solar heat phase?

How much should humans be doing to decrease their CO2 production?

..

Originally Posted by Legs

Unless they plan on suing damned near every other human on the planet, however, it's a selective blame game that won't go far in court (I'd imagine).

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Thinker

Dear Lone Ranger,

You do not mention Aerobic sea life as a source of CO2. The theory that I have seen is that the warming seas, whether caused by geothermal, Sun heat, or Earth tilt, or some combination, have led to increased production of CO2 by sea life. You are saying that there is no effect on CO2 from sea fish, animals and Aerobic Bacteria?

Yes he does, actually. And your less sentence, were your first one correct, would be a strawman argument.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, fish and other animals are such a minute volume of the world's oceans that they contribute almost nothing to atmospheric CO2 levels in the short term (over a few thousand years). Changes in solubility of CO2 with temperature are far more important in contributing to atmospheric CO2 levels, as the oceans are a vast reservoir of dissolved CO2. As water warms, it can hold less CO2, so the oceans release more of it into the atmosphere.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

Unless they plan on suing damned near every other human on the planet, however, it's a selective blame game that won't go far in court (I'd imagine).

In light of SCOTUS' decision to mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant, I'd say your imagination is rather stunted - at least compared to that of any lawyer who smells money.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

SCOTUS' decision to mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant ...

SCOTUS did no such thing.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

SCOTUS did no such thing.

Well it sure looks like they did:

[...]

3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition--which includes "any air pollution agent ... , including any physical, chemical, ... substance ... emitted into ... the ambient air ... ," §7602(g) (emphasis added)--embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical ... substance[s]."

[...]

Seems to me any other reading would be extraordinarily ...imaginative...

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Well it sure looks like they did

Correction: It sure looks like they did to you, because you're a numbskull.

Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the irony. Based on his comical -- and deliberate, perhaps, given his status as self-appointed constitutional expert -- misreading of Mass. v. EPA, yguy regales Uthgar with the inevitable consequent:

I'd say your imagination is rather stunted

Kettle, thy name is, etc.

And, from his own cite:

EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases

Such a clown.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Correction: It sure looks like they did to you, because you're a numbskull.

And yet again, Scarface provides vacuous insolence in hopes of filling the gap left by his inability to come up with sufficiently creative lies and distortions to cover up the fact that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I'll bet he's becoming tedious even to my enemies.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Fixed.

And I'm not inclined to explain it to you, either.

Especially when you can't even recognize the Court's holding in your own citation.

Fear not, however. I've taken judicial notice that you're utterly incapable of embarrassment.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

And, from his own cite:

EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases

Such a clown.

The statute as cited by the Court does indeed grant authority to EPA to regulate pollutants...but of course that's not what CO2 is. That's why SCOTUS had to make it one.

Get it now, dummy?

[Ari]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they technically make all the gasses that come out of your mouth a "pollutant" based on your interpretation Yguy?

[D. Scarlatti]

Dear god, you are such an insufferably moronic troll. SCOTUS did not "mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant." The questions presented arose after the EPA refused to treat greenhouse gases as falling within the statutory purview and SCOTUS determined that the EPA's reasons for doing so were deficient:

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. 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, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In other words, should the EPA devise a more compelling rationale as to why greenhouse gases should not be within the statutory purview, then such a course of action would be "consistent with this opinion."

Either way, there is no "mandate" as you so ridiculously put it. Read the dissents, you idiot. This was a case primarily of Article III standing and statutory construction.

Considering whence it generally speaks, that would seem self-evident.

[D. Scarlatti]

Ironically, very little is "self-evident" to that obstreperous blockhead.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Dear god, you are such an insufferably moronic troll.

Actually, while there are no doubt many here who find me insufferable, you are clearly not one of them.

Isn't that interesting?

In other words, should the EPA devise a more compelling rationale as to why greenhouse gases should not be within the statutory purview, then such a course of action would be "consistent with this opinion."

Well how very handsome. In between now and then, if EPA officials refuse to treat CO2 as a pollutant, I'm sure they can expect the Court to look the other way.

Either way, there is no "mandate" as you so ridiculously put it.

That is precisely what it is, ya lying dirtbag.

Incidentally, water vapor is also a GHG, which raises other "interesting" possiblities...

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

That is precisely what it is

You keep telling yourself that, sport. And I'll keep laughing at you.

Originally Posted by yguy

[I'm a] lying dirtbag.

I wouldn't go that far. You're just incredibly fucking stupid.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I wouldn't go that far. You're just incredibly fucking stupid.

In emulation of its beloved who holds its timid cock in his imperial hand, I believe it achieves both with equal fervour.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

And I'll keep laughing at you.

Hey, be my guest. Don't hurt me none.

[D. Scarlatti]

Oh yeah and by the way, ytroll, you owe my friend Uthgar the Brazen an apology, since you insulted him pursuant solely to your demonstrated inability to understand a decision of the United States Supreme Court. So either bend over, or on your knees.

[ZEZOZE]

yep...for dummies.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm

boo!

[ZEZOZE]

ps- i was going to post a National Post article, but then it would be made political and that's what i'm trying to stay away form in my stance...it's just bullshit.

global polluting? sure. global warming...not this year.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Oh yeah and by the way, ytroll, you owe my friend Uthgar the Brazen an apology, since you insulted him pursuant solely to your demonstrated inability to understand a decision of the United States Supreme Court. So either bend over, or on your knees.

That's more of a bestiality sort of thing, and I'm not ever clicking on that thread.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Oh yeah and by the way, ytroll, you owe my friend Uthgar the Brazen an apology, since you insulted him

As deserving of insolence as that nincompoop is generally, the comment about stunted imagination was not meant, and neither is it properly read, as an insult - your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA notwithstanding.

So both of you are welcome to screw off and die.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA

Feel free to prove those up, champ. Any time. I'll be around.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Feel free to prove those up, champ.

Just did, nitwit.