EPA Threatens “Command-and-Control” Economy to Push Climate Change Agenda
-
Distind wrote:
What I want to know is why it's so remarkably unbelievable that a massive surge in a gas known to increase heat retention may cause warming on a global scale which we humans are responsible for.
That is al gore's argument. Lord Monckton thoroughly and eloquently explains why its bullshit in the first 2 minutes.[^]
Gore's involves us all dying in two days because 'WE DIDN'T LISTEN!' Science says we're effecting potentially serious alterations into the environment which should cause additional he retention to some extent. Why is that, in your own thought out words, so difficult to believe?
-
Gore's involves us all dying in two days because 'WE DIDN'T LISTEN!' Science says we're effecting potentially serious alterations into the environment which should cause additional he retention to some extent. Why is that, in your own thought out words, so difficult to believe?
Distind wrote:
Science says
What comes out of the CRU is not science.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
he does absolutely nothing of the sort
:laugh: One only has to listen to the first two minutes of his speech to be enlightened to the fact that he very well explains why al gore's theory of man made global warming is pure bullshit, very thoroughly and eloquently.[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
One only has to listen to the first two minutes of his speech to be enlightened to the fact that he very well explains why al gore's theory of man made global warming is pure bullsh*t, very thoroughly and eloquently.
So you said before. You were wrong then and you are still wrong. He explains nothing, just gives his opinion which happens to be different from Al Gore's opinion. This does not make him right.
-
Distind wrote:
What I want to know is why it's so remarkably unbelievable that a massive surge in a gas known to increase heat retention may cause warming on a global scale which we humans are responsible for.
That is al gore's argument. Lord Monckton thoroughly and eloquently explains why its bullshit in the first 2 minutes.[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Lord Monckton thoroughly and eloquently explains why its bullsh*t in the first 2 minutes.
It satisfies you, because you have made no effort to understand the sciences underpinning the opinions of AGW sceptics and supporters alike. I know that Monckton has a deeper understanding of the subject, but this video is just a journalistic fluff for those who are bothered by long words and mathematics. Never mind.
Bob Emmett
-
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent declaration that the life-sustaining gas carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant is part of an effort to establish “command-and-control” role for government. EPA boss Lisa Jackson declared carbon dioxide dangerous prior to her scheduled appearance at the Copenhagen climate summit in Denmark. Command-and-control is a military term defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. In the case of the EPA, the mission is to impose the globalist climate change agenda on the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mrNYE56I3A[^] More specifically, the EPA threat to impose a military-style command-and-control over the economy is an effort to force congressional action on the climate change agenda. EPA states that it will not wait for an agreement in Copenhagen and action on climate change legislation in Congress. Proposed legislation that passed the House is currently on hold in the Senate. The agency, established by Richard Nixon and Congress in 1970 with 18,000 full-time employees, will intervene directly in the economy, according to an official. “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official announced. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” The EPA official warned that the EPA’s intervention will be a huge “deterrent to investment” and will inflict injury on an already damaged economy. Critics of the Obama administration and the EPA say such directives from on-high represent a move toward socialism. In fact, the EPA’s dictatorial edict is more evidence that the government is colluding with the “powers of financial capitalism,” as Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the global elite, who are working to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences,” explained Quigley. The leak earlier this week of the “Danish text” demonstrates that secret agreements
Clearly, you have spent all of a minute or two evaluating evidence from dubious sources. But do you really have an inkling of a clue what that announcement was actually for? And under what terms it was made? Read these and take the time to allow them to rattle around your brain for a while, then, and only then, you will be in a knowledgeable state to discuss fact rather than somebody else's fictionalized view of the world. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument[^] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html[^] http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm[^] http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-23315.pdf[^]
-
You are so ignorant. That there is warming, is beyond a doubt. Even that video says that there is, and all the people who try to intelligently claim that there is no man made warming, rely on the little ice age for an explanation of the warming that is happening, beyond any question.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You make shit up. We are going into a cooling stage now, the heating and cooling is due to the cycles of the sun. How do you account for the synchronous melting and now synchronous expanding (due to the cooling stage the solar system experiencing due to the cycles of the sun) of both Earth's and Mars' ice caps? You either believe the COP15 wannabe global corporate dictators who use fraud, or you believe real science. I believe the real science not based on fraud and power-grabbing / money-grabbing. Only people with the intellect of an amoeba believe the man made global warming propaganda spew.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
One only has to listen to the first two minutes of his speech to be enlightened to the fact that he very well explains why al gore's theory of man made global warming is pure bullsh*t, very thoroughly and eloquently.
So you said before. You were wrong then and you are still wrong. He explains nothing, just gives his opinion which happens to be different from Al Gore's opinion. This does not make him right.
He explains well-known 9th grade-level scientific facts.
-
Distind wrote:
Science says
What comes out of the CRU is not science.
Buddy, did I quote them? Have you ever found out the different heat dissipation differences given certain concentrations of CO2? Have you ever looked into any of the almost innumerable variables surrounding the global climate? I have, I also left you a treat that should explain the global warming -> ice age bit that never made all to much sense to me until recently getting a straight answer from someone who actually had a clue. See if you can find it, better yet, see if you can grasp it, it's not hard.
-
Distind wrote:
Science says
What comes out of the CRU is not science.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What comes out of the CRU is not science.
And that's it? We are supposed to take the word of a person who, time and time again, has shown himself to be ignorant of mathematics and science. I want a statement as to why you think the CRU science is flawed.
Bob Emmett
-
Buddy, did I quote them? Have you ever found out the different heat dissipation differences given certain concentrations of CO2? Have you ever looked into any of the almost innumerable variables surrounding the global climate? I have, I also left you a treat that should explain the global warming -> ice age bit that never made all to much sense to me until recently getting a straight answer from someone who actually had a clue. See if you can find it, better yet, see if you can grasp it, it's not hard.
Distind wrote:
Buddy, did I quote them?
Its where your spew ultimately comes from.
-
You make shit up. We are going into a cooling stage now, the heating and cooling is due to the cycles of the sun. How do you account for the synchronous melting and now synchronous expanding (due to the cooling stage the solar system experiencing due to the cycles of the sun) of both Earth's and Mars' ice caps? You either believe the COP15 wannabe global corporate dictators who use fraud, or you believe real science. I believe the real science not based on fraud and power-grabbing / money-grabbing. Only people with the intellect of an amoeba believe the man made global warming propaganda spew.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What comes out of the CRU is not science.
And that's it? We are supposed to take the word of a person who, time and time again, has shown himself to be ignorant of mathematics and science. I want a statement as to why you think the CRU science is flawed.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
why you think the CRU science is flawed.
Climategate.
-
Isn't the sun moving towards it's most active cycle over the next two years? And proof, that ever elusive thing, do you have any for this claim? Because as I've said before, solving the mysteries of the global climate would be Nobel prize worthy.
Distind wrote:
Because as I've said before, solving the mysteries of the global climate would be Nobel prize worthy.
:laugh: I see you have a sense of humor. :thumbsup:
-
He explains well-known 9th grade-level scientific facts.
-
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent declaration that the life-sustaining gas carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant is part of an effort to establish “command-and-control” role for government. EPA boss Lisa Jackson declared carbon dioxide dangerous prior to her scheduled appearance at the Copenhagen climate summit in Denmark. Command-and-control is a military term defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. In the case of the EPA, the mission is to impose the globalist climate change agenda on the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mrNYE56I3A[^] More specifically, the EPA threat to impose a military-style command-and-control over the economy is an effort to force congressional action on the climate change agenda. EPA states that it will not wait for an agreement in Copenhagen and action on climate change legislation in Congress. Proposed legislation that passed the House is currently on hold in the Senate. The agency, established by Richard Nixon and Congress in 1970 with 18,000 full-time employees, will intervene directly in the economy, according to an official. “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official announced. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” The EPA official warned that the EPA’s intervention will be a huge “deterrent to investment” and will inflict injury on an already damaged economy. Critics of the Obama administration and the EPA say such directives from on-high represent a move toward socialism. In fact, the EPA’s dictatorial edict is more evidence that the government is colluding with the “powers of financial capitalism,” as Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the global elite, who are working to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences,” explained Quigley. The leak earlier this week of the “Danish text” demonstrates that secret agreements
You fail once more. You mindlessly quote unsupported opinions on subjects you do not understand. You assume that any idiot on YouTube is by definition correct, so long as they agree with you. You won't even admit a completely obvious mistake[^]. Everyone in this forum is now dumber having read your post. I award you no points, and may [deity of choice] have mercy on your "soul."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Distind wrote:
Buddy, did I quote them?
Its where your spew ultimately comes from.
No, not really. I've gone out of my way to find the basic scientific principles rather than someone's half cocked theory. As per any complex system, I went about understanding the basic portions first, and frankly from them it's really easy to see how someone would panic. I've managed to get far enough that if I could find a real model of it I could probably make sense of it's methodology. If I'd actually have anything of use to say about it is questionable.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
why you think the CRU science is flawed.
Climategate.
Ok, I have to ask. Is there anyone else who would happily shoot everyone who attaches gate to anything the slightest bit scandalous? Watergate was before I was friggen born, why are we still attempting to reference it, it was a damn hotel name, nothing particularly historically significant in the -gate. WHY DO YOU IDIOTS USE IT?(at all of them, particularly the media)
-
Distind wrote:
Because as I've said before, solving the mysteries of the global climate would be Nobel prize worthy.
:laugh: I see you have a sense of humor. :thumbsup:
-
Ok, I have to ask. Is there anyone else who would happily shoot everyone who attaches gate to anything the slightest bit scandalous? Watergate was before I was friggen born, why are we still attempting to reference it, it was a damn hotel name, nothing particularly historically significant in the -gate. WHY DO YOU IDIOTS USE IT?(at all of them, particularly the media)
Distind wrote:
Is there anyone else who would happily shoot everyone who attaches gate to anything the slightest bit scandalous?
Shoot them? Nah... Lock them in a room and force them to watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show over and over again until their heads explode. Sure, they'd refer to it as Rockygate, but they wouldn't live to spread the term.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
You make shit up. We are going into a cooling stage now, the heating and cooling is due to the cycles of the sun. How do you account for the synchronous melting and now synchronous expanding (due to the cooling stage the solar system experiencing due to the cycles of the sun) of both Earth's and Mars' ice caps? You either believe the COP15 wannabe global corporate dictators who use fraud, or you believe real science. I believe the real science not based on fraud and power-grabbing / money-grabbing. Only people with the intellect of an amoeba believe the man made global warming propaganda spew.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the heating and cooling is due to the cycles of the sun.
And how does that work, precisely? Not saying you are wrong, but you can't just say it is so. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation, for example? If you cannot explain in your own words, pray post a link to someone who you believe can. (Not another YouTube video, a proper, verifiable source.)
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You either believe the COP15 wannabe global corporate dictators who use fraud, or you believe real science.
It would be possible to accept AGW, while abhoring the whole Copenhagen brouhaha.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Only people with the intellect of an amoeba believe the man made global warming propaganda spew.
Only a person with the intellect of an amoeba would dismiss either the pro or con hypothesis out of hand.
Bob Emmett