AOC states we haven't seen Co2 levels like this since the Pliocene period

[Ray From Cleveland]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

I'm about to find out because global warming started here yesterday, and I'm taking as much advantage of it as I can since it's leaving again tomorrow. Breezy and 84 right now. Tomorrow highs in the 60's.

 

[Flopper]

So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

 

[night_son]

Pontificating at a Green New Deal rally on Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who just claimed on Sunday that her apocalyptic prediction in January that the world would end in 12 years unless serious action was taken to combat climate change had just been "dry humor," suddenly returned to her climate change hysteria, stating CO2 levels had reached the highest levels in recorded history and the last time the levels were this high "bacteria and diseases we have never seen before roamed the Earth."

Ocasio-Cortez ranted, “It was reported today that this weekend for the first time in human history we have reached atmospheric levels of carbon at 415 parts per million. This has never been seen in recorded human history. In fact meteorologist Eric Holthaus and journalist said simply about this measurement, ‘We do not know a planet like this.’ The last time our planet hit 415 we were in the Pliocene period. Oceans were 90 feet higher. Bacteria and diseases we have never seen before roamed the Earth. Humans did not exist. We have never seen a planet like this. And a planet like this is exactly what we are going to get, and it is exactly what we are going to inherit from previous generations if we do not act positively now."

Ocasio-Cortez Issues Another Apocalyptic Climate Rant. Is This More Of Her ‘Dry Humor’?

Only one question here: What technology and devices were used to make this measurement during the Pliocene period? I didn't even know what the pliocene period was. So I looked it up. It was a time frame between 2 and 5 million years. The wheel wasn't even invented yet.

Oceans were 90 feet higher? So why aren't oceans 90 feet higher today?

 

[Flopper]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?

What is the cost to ignore AGW?

Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."

Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100

Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?

Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.

Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?

How about water for the droughts?

So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

New research shows that during the 2015–2016 El Niño, for instance, droughts, heat, and fires in tropical areas caused plants and soil on three continents to contribute to the largest growth of carbon dioxide on record. Plants use CO2 to grow, and they suck it out of the atmosphere. But during this event, because of little rain and higher than normal temperatures in South America, Africa, and Asia, some plants didn’t absorb as much CO2; others died and decomposed more quickly, releasing the carbon they’d pulled from the air.

A NASA satellite that monitors CO2 is revealing the inner workings of our planet





.

 

[Flopper]

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

According to the EPA, it is the state's choice as how they will lower air pollution levels to meet federal standards for their area. It could be that the state choose to use inspection stations because it believed it to be the most cost effective method.

The way the EPA works is the state submits a plan based on an environmental impact study as how they will lower pollution levels. Even if the EPA does not approve the plan, the state can still implement it. However, if the EPA does not approve it and the state decides to do it anyway and the plan fails to meet federal standards, then the state will find itself open to suits from environmental groups as well as the EPA. However, it always the state's choice.

There are now 31 states that have vehicle inspection stations. The states that have chosen not to use them used other methods to meet federal standards, often by putting more requirements on industries and power plants. IMHO, emission inspection stations have been effective at reducing air pollution because they got old high pollution vehicles off the road and put more pressure on auto manufactures to produce vehicles with better emission controls.

 

[Third Party]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

First, how did you get my graduation picture? Second, My indoor air quality is good-unless I eat beans. Third, I would think the best thing we could do today to help the environment as a whole, is to preserve the rain forests.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

According to the EPA, it is the state's choice as how they will lower air pollution levels to meet federal standards for their area. It could be that the state choose to use inspection stations because it believed it to be the most cost effective method.

The way the EPA works is the state submits a plan based on an environmental impact study as how they will lower pollution levels. Even if the EPA does not approve the plan, the state can still implement it. However, if the EPA does not approve it and the state decides to do it anyway and the plan fails to meet federal standards, then the state will find itself open to suits from environmental groups as well as the EPA. However, it always the state's choice.

There are now 31 states that have vehicle inspection stations. The states that have chosen not to use them used other methods to meet federal standards, often by putting more requirements on industries and power plants. IMHO, emission inspection stations have been effective at reducing air pollution because they got old high pollution vehicles off the road and put more pressure on auto manufactures to produce vehicles with better emission controls.

It's still the feds that are the problem no matter how you dance around it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

According to the EPA, it is the state's choice as how they will lower air pollution levels to meet federal standards for their area. It could be that the state choose to use inspection stations because it believed it to be the most cost effective method.

The way the EPA works is the state submits a plan based on an environmental impact study as how they will lower pollution levels. Even if the EPA does not approve the plan, the state can still implement it. However, if the EPA does not approve it and the state decides to do it anyway and the plan fails to meet federal standards, then the state will find itself open to suits from environmental groups as well as the EPA. However, it always the state's choice.

There are now 31 states that have vehicle inspection stations. The states that have chosen not to use them used other methods to meet federal standards, often by putting more requirements on industries and power plants. IMHO, emission inspection stations have been effective at reducing air pollution because they got old high pollution vehicles off the road and put more pressure on auto manufactures to produce vehicles with better emission controls.

Translation ~ a tax on poor people

 

[RealDave]

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?

What is the cost to ignore AGW?

Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."

Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100

Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?

Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.

Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?

How about water for the droughts?

So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.

AOC is well educated. You, on the other hand, is likely not.

 

[RealDave]

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

According to the EPA, it is the state's choice as how they will lower air pollution levels to meet federal standards for their area. It could be that the state choose to use inspection stations because it believed it to be the most cost effective method.

The way the EPA works is the state submits a plan based on an environmental impact study as how they will lower pollution levels. Even if the EPA does not approve the plan, the state can still implement it. However, if the EPA does not approve it and the state decides to do it anyway and the plan fails to meet federal standards, then the state will find itself open to suits from environmental groups as well as the EPA. However, it always the state's choice.

There are now 31 states that have vehicle inspection stations. The states that have chosen not to use them used other methods to meet federal standards, often by putting more requirements on industries and power plants. IMHO, emission inspection stations have been effective at reducing air pollution because they got old high pollution vehicles off the road and put more pressure on auto manufactures to produce vehicles with better emission controls.

Translation ~ a tax on poor people

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

 

[RealDave]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

View attachment 261610



New research shows that during the 2015–2016 El Niño, for instance, droughts, heat, and fires in tropical areas caused plants and soil on three continents to contribute to the largest growth of carbon dioxide on record. Plants use CO2 to grow, and they suck it out of the atmosphere. But during this event, because of little rain and higher than normal temperatures in South America, Africa, and Asia, some plants didn’t absorb as much CO2; others died and decomposed more quickly, releasing the carbon they’d pulled from the air.

A NASA satellite that monitors CO2 is revealing the inner workings of our planet





.

Yes, plant life is a factor. I am sure you will contribute to help save our forests from development.

It would not be an issue if we weren't spewing so much CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Yet never a concern about the poor people when they had their cigarettes taxed by Obama, or their increased costs for fuel, or environmental regulations that made their products more expensive.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

That's not part of owning a vehicle. It's part of an overbearing federal government.

 

[Flopper]

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

 

[RealDave]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Studies have shown that higher CO2 can help plant growth but nutrition levels can lessen. When you look at a crop like corn, it loses a percentage pf its production with each degree day over 90/95.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

The difference in your analogy is that they knew the river would rise and flood. We don't know what increased Co2 or any other gas would do. Most of the climate models were wrong in the past, and all they have to go on are those models.

Many years ago our river started fire. The theory was that if they dumped chemicals into such a huge amount of water like the Great Lakes, those chemicals would dissipate and never be noticed. Well they were wrong, but it took empirical evidence before they did something about it. Water simply doesn't catch on fire.

With global warming (or climate change if you will) we don't have empirical evidence of anything. We have predictions, models, but nothing concrete.

We have Alexandria Kelly Bundy who says we only have 12 years to exist; Beto says 10. Now we've all seen these predictions before and they never materialized. Increased hurricanes, increased tornados, increased earth quakes, cities buried under water, you name it, and somebody predicted it years ago.

The sooner government can control fuel and healthcare, the sooner they will have total control over the people. That's what this is really all about.

 

[RealDave]

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

The difference in your analogy is that they knew the river would rise and flood. We don't know what increased Co2 or any other gas would do. Most of the climate models were wrong in the past, and all they have to go on are those models.

Many years ago our river started fire. The theory was that if they dumped chemicals into such a huge amount of water like the Great Lakes, those chemicals would dissipate and never be noticed. Well they were wrong, but it took empirical evidence before they did something about it. Water simply doesn't catch on fire.

With global warming (or climate change if you will) we don't have empirical evidence of anything. We have predictions, models, but nothing concrete.

We have Alexandria Kelly Bundy who says we only have 12 years to exist; Beto says 10. Now we've all seen these predictions before and they never materialized. Increased hurricanes, increased tornados, increased earth quakes, cities buried under water, you name it, and somebody predicted it years ago.

The sooner government can control fuel and healthcare, the sooner they will have total control over the people. That's what this is really all about.

Ray got his PhD from the Limbaugh Institute.

We know hoe high CO2 affects our climate.

It is SCIENCE.

I wish you uneducated assfucks would quit pretending you actually know something & STFU.

If in 1990, a scientist said that if we continues with emission on the current pace that NY could be flooded as early as in 20 years is not saying it will happen. They are saying it could happen. As our CO2 levels increase there is a range of effects. Stating what the worst could be is not a fucking promise.

It does not mean the models are wrong.

For you stupid assfucks out there, some action has been taken & that would change the models.

When your doctor tells you smoking could kill you in 30 years & you go from 3 packs a pack to one, that changes your outlook.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

You stupid fucks think we can wait until the worse effects hit, we can just cut our emissions & everything.

There is a multi decade delay.

Why the fuck are you too stupid to get it.

 

[RealDave]

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Yet never a concern about the poor people when they had their cigarettes taxed by Obama, or their increased costs for fuel, or environmental regulations that made their products more expensive.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

That's not part of owning a vehicle. It's part of an overbearing federal government.

Do, we should have no regulations on vehicles.

Let people run them without brakes or any emission nooooooooooo because that wopuld be governmdnt interference.