Thomas Lindaman wrote:
The EPA announced an "endangerment finding" is in the works naming carbon dioxide to be a danger to the environment, thus making it subject to regulation. Once this finding is made public, it may be used to circumvent the lack of agreement on any environmental treaty coming out of Copenhagen.
Why This Matters: Not only does this finding do an end run around the Senate (the entity that is charged with approving all treaties, even climate change ones), but it comes off as a purely political desperation move to avoid having to deal with the implications of the ClimateGate scandal.
What are you basing this on? So now the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is in on this simple conspiracy?
AGW proponents point to carbon dioxide production as proof that we're screwing up the environment, but the problem is that increases in carbon dioxide production occur after a temperature increase.
And when you consider carbon dioxide represents a little less than 4% of the total greenhouse gasses (with water vapor making up the bulk of it to the tune of 95%),
More on climate forcing here, for those that are curious:
regulating carbon dioxide may not have nearly the impact on the environment as some think it will.
MAY not?
All this time you've been saying AGW is a "myth." A "hoax." A "fraud." Meaning human production of CO2 has no impact on the environment whatsoever.
You're now saying that limiting CO2 production into the atmosphere MAY not have have NEARLY the impact that AGW proponents are thinking it will.
You're implying that limiting CO2 DOES have an impact on the environment. And it could even have the impact that the proponents are stating. It just MAY not.
Are you saying that AGW IS true, it's just the amount of predicted IMPACT that you're disagreeing with? If so, heck, why didn't you say that to begin with?
My god... is this a breakthrough? Is it possible that after doing your recent AGW research... You're seeing that humans DO impact the environment with our CO2 production?
