EPA Commissar Orders Americans To Live Like It's 1899
The Empire Strikes Back.... This would be funny if it wasn't so sad....
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The next nullification will probably be the "clean power" nonsense. No governor is going to allow the EPA to cause rolling blackouts in his state by shutting down power plants.
Then, it just might be one of the oil producing states that regulates drilling activity and ignore the EPAs nonsense.
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!
regardless you are correct!!!!!
But that is not so frightening. What's frightening is that a large segment of Americans take self important dunderheads like this, seriously. Not only are we declining economically and morally, but heading at full speed toward an idiocracy.
“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back!” Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72)
Does this sound like the elite are going to live like us? How about all those yachts, multi million dollar home, which some own several of, and heat and cool. Ted Turner owned about 28 homes. All the actors have multiple homes, and they aren't going to give them up. Nope, just the common tax paying folk.
This is Agenda 21 coming at you, in the planning for over 15 years. Even the UN says they don't dare if global warming is true, as long as we believe it is and they can control us.
Hillary in her thesis on Alinsky, differed only in her feeling the US could be taken down from "within", and this is it, her route to Marxism. This EOA talking head is just another bought and paid for New England liberal who likes to tell other people how to live, based on fake science. Think Michelle is going to give up her jet set vacations, or Angelina her trips to her multiple homes by jet, including sending a jet out for caviar, they way we would go to McD's?
The argument goes like this. Science says Aryan blood is real. Science is not wrong. Aryan decline must be stopped. Jews are to blame for the decline of German civilization. National socialism will restore the "Ubermensch" to his lofty throne.
Oh, yeah, save for when I'm away, I've been doing that for years and years. Never mind.
At least the old one was based on facts (see Venona), not pseudoscience. As an actual scientist not paid to "believe", I should know.
There is very little temperature data for the Southern hemisphere. See www.ndbc.noaa.gov.
The "so-called scientists" (who espouse man-caused global warming) are working with other liberals to achieve a one world government. They have taken a very meager and hopelessly inadequate data set and have manipulated it to achieve a political objective; complete control of the energy sectors of our economy. Global warming is a fabrication.
me if this is " putting thoughts into [her] brain"),
that people put up with it because of an attitude
of "fundamental guilt"; that, because they don't have the right philosophy, they don't stand up for
the right to live their own lives, with proudly
righteous defiance.
I say great, let's live like it's 1899 and explore a new frontier.
I agree we need to make changes to save us from future costs of global warming. Naomi Klein, though, said in her book she was for most of the changes anyway, so she's sees a bright side of global warming. I find this disgusting. I do not want to live a Little House on the Prairie lifestyle. Most people do not, so I'm confident people will find a solution other than that.
The article makes the claim that the EPA Administrator agrees with people like Klein. The links in the article do not support that. It looks like Kerry Jackson invented that claim from whole cloth.
This quote does show the incompetent politically appointed commissioner to agree with the goals of Klein and using power of the EPA to force people to act against their free will.
Global warming as hypothesized and forecast by the UN climate czars and their toady "scientists" has been disproven by 19 years of global cooling.
First there must be proof that the GW hypothesis is true. This has not happened. Then there must be proof that any specific change will result in a solution without side effects more horrible than the original problem. This has not been done.
The Global Warming hypothesis is a political agenda to centralize world wide power for the statist looter cartel and destroy individual liberty, free markets, and American sovereignty.
I think this claim is essentially a fact. We have to reduce the emissions or find someway to mitigate them.
Denying the problem altogether is absurd.
In fact, the forecasts that were used to prove the problem have been shown by history to be rubbish.
Emails have been published between insiders that showed that they, the political source of the hypothesis, knew it was false and discussed their efforts in lying to cover up the failure of the hypothesis.
Ignoring these facts is irrational.
1. There is no proven problem to be fixed.
2. there is no proposed solution that does not make the supposed problem worse instead of better... unless you think that the starvation of a few billion people, unemployment at more than 30%, markets controlled and stifled by government looters, and world economy in ruins is an acceptable solution.
Denying that there is no proven problem is absurd. Defending a government official who wants to use government power to loot the way of life Americans have produced by hard work is consent to dictatorship.
In order to accelerate the conversion to clean power sources, we need to increase the use of the fossil fuels necessary to manufacture, transport, and install the clean power infrastructure over the short term. Forcing a cutback in fossil fuel use is counterproductive, delaying the growth of clean energy infrastructure.
I know "fossil fuels" is a convenient way to refer to hydrocarbon fuels but it is a theory of their source, and possibly not factual.
I'm sure someone will point to the 3% as flawed, but people often confuse capacity with delivery. Both wind and solar don't deliver more than 30% of capacity simply because the wind is inconsistent, and the sun doesn't shine for 24 hours.
Hydrocarbon fuels .vs fossil fuels. Has this been discussed in a post? I am interested in the fossil fuel theory and the accuracy.I have heard some interesting things of it's origin. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is what evidence is there that fossils were in mass quantities 15,000 ft below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and then 27,000 feet into the bottom.
If you have some online research to share, please start a discussion. I am interested.
That is the most succinct and accurate summary of this problem.
I do not think people so damn worried should act. If we just charge people based on the actual cost of their activities, the problem will work itself out. People will find alternatives except in cases where they can create more value than the cost of the environmental damage. In either case, people maximize value pursuing their own self interests and not at the expense of stealing value from others.
The so-called science relies on selected evidence ("Only count the data if it drives our agenda"), and on faulty mathematics ("choose a method that is likely valid but not in our particular context, and portray as mathematical idiots any who dare fault us .").
First off, there are technologies to remove carbon, there are natural ways to reduce carbon, and there are technological replacements for the HFC;s she was complaining about. That doesn't mean that we go back tot he dark ages (because, oh by the way, the idiots never mention the fact that the "poor people" in the world today in same dark ages, deforest, turn wood into charcoal, and then emit CO2 and CO in burning g it, creating 10X the problem because they removed the trees). They also conviently ignore the issue of the removal of the largest CO2 removal machine on earth, the Amazon Rain Forest, which is being lost by several square miles a day and is like 50-60% smaller than it was 30 years ago. Climate change? Maybe. Environment change, almost certainly. Man made? Not necessarily. Exacerbated by man? Probably. Yet you dumb political moron: It's not my little part of you insane little world, it is all the crap you carefully ignore, like: Not using technology to address it, not fixing the biggest contributors (Like Amazon issue, and China) and instead focus your pea brain and manipulation and corrupt hands in my pocket, to steal whatever you can, impose whatever rules you want on me, because it is easier to screw the common person, than to address the biggest causes. The EPA Administrator may respectfully GFH. Until they actually have a factual basis that addresses the whole picture, Global Warming/Climate Change/Environmental Change (insert your favorite label her) Change is a myth and a legend. There is some small truth in their BS, but a huge amount of lies and myth and manipulation as well. So, lady, you lose on lack of credibility, as well as perjury.
The CO2 upward trend does.
Actually, as a separate point, today's forests are not really major CO2 sinks at all. Even the amazon basin is mostly aerobic swamp, so most carbon gets decomposed again fairly quickly. Last major organic sink was the carboniferous period, when huge forests were growing in anaerobic swamps which prevented decomposition of dead material, thus forming coal etc. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to preserve forests, but reducing atmospheric CO2 is not one of them.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/dr...
BTW I do not subscribe to anyone view on this, since no one wants to be factual without messing with the facts, so it is hard to have a position based on rational thought..GIGO...
The fact remains that any mature forest holds a fixed 14 to 18 kg of carbon per sq metre. That carbon continuously cycles to and from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and decomposition. There is NO NETT FLOW of carbon OUT OF that cycle, therefore there is no nett removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The balance of that cycle might change during a drought year, but it does not change the long term ZERO FLOW of carbon.
Even forest fires, which release probably at least half of that carbon reservior into the atmosphere rapidly, only have a small effect. The carbon will be back to the 14 to 18 kg reservior again within a couple of decades.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/for...
So in a mature forest the fixed carbon reservoir has an equal flow of carbon (as growth) and back to the atmosphere (as decomposition). As those two flows must be exactly equal it makes no difference whether the flow is a few grams or many kilograms per sq metre. So trying to measure its flow is just wasted effort, the grant application would not get past me!
Of course I'm not agreeing with the EPA statements or their planned "fixes". No government agency ever really wants to fix the problem, they only want to monetize it. If someone goes and solves it they would lose a source of revenue.
Any pronouncements about GW/CC that do not raise these questions are not to be taken seriously.
But your examples of some of the issues actually have minimal effect on global climate. In fact charcoal would even be a solution, as it is completely carbon neutral. Every atom of carbon which is sent into the atmosphere from charcoal was extracted from the atmosphere during the tree's growth. The big issue is the unmanaged way it is usually done in impoverished parts of the world, trees are not re-planted so large areas become desert.
Now ... as for those political obstacles ...
It is true that people exploit problems as you say by a) telling you who's to blame and b) what to do about it. Not everyone trying to solve a problem, though, is doing that.
Several of things you say no one mentions or exploits actually are exploited in some circles. I'll go through the ones I happen to know about without in any way disparaging you for not knowing of all brands of political exploitation in the world.
" the idiots never mention the fact that the "poor people" in the world today in same dark ages, deforest, turn wood into charcoal"
This is one of the key issues. When Europe and US were industrializing, they were less efficient in terms of GDP per carbon emission than today. When experts rightly say we need to do something about the effects of carbon emissions, less developed countries complain that now that they don't get the benefit of being inefficient in their industrial infancy that advanced countries got. Naomi Klein says this is the perfect excuse to ask the rich to give wealth to the poor.
"Amazon Rain Forest"
Most people accept deforestation as a part of the problem. I suspect people who think decreased biodiversity is a greater threat might focus on the climate change impact of deforestation because it's more widely known. I know they're both problems, and I do not know which is more serious/costly.
You touch on the notion that climate change isn't the only impact humans have on the earth. We're in the middle of the sixith mass extinction event the earth has seen, probably caused by human activities. It would be desirable if none of this were costing anyone else, if there room for infinite expansion of human activities with no impact on other humans. That's clearly false. Global warming is just one impact. Going back to the population and lifestyle of pre-industrial times is obviously not possible or desirable. I'm confident people will find solutions: ways to reduce carbon emissions or absorb them and put them back in the ground, alternatives to HFCs, etc. Eventually I imagine people will move into the oceans and space. If you think about how 150 years ago the first practical transatlantic cable was new technology, it's not hard to imagine in 150 years people living in space and carefully controlling the biosphere with technologies we cannot even imagine.
I only read the first part of her book and skimmed the rest, but it seems she knows she wants some form of socialism. She thinks the problem of the environment is so big it can only be solved through socialism. I think just like all problems big and small it's best solved by leaving people alone and having some structure to enforce agreements and stop people from steeling/trashing other people's stuff.