"The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' 1200 WOAI news reports.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.
"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.
"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."
Is there actually anyone left who actually still clings to the anthopogenic global warming theory? Especially in light of the recent Climategate scandal? The state of Texas stands on pretty solid footing to eliminate this nonsense and and should prevail in court.
8 comments:
JD,
If nothing else, you are totally predictable and consistent in that you always cite the lunatic fringe and spurious sources for your posts.
Gregg Abbot's suit is politics, not science. Period. We're talking Texas here.......
Then you cite an article from Conservapedia to argue the veracity of Anthropomorphic climate change. That's too funny!
It is well shown that those e-mails were 99.9% mundane conversations and a couple of them were blown completely out of proportion. It saddens me deeply that such a seemingly articulate individual (you) would use such biased sources as his only sources. But, confirmation bias has a powerful grip on many easily influenced segment of the population.
The American Meteorological Society stated that Climategate did not affect the their position on climate change. They have shown the vast evidence for human influence on climate. They have also stated (rightly) "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."
The American Geophysical Union stated that they found the e-mails "were being used to corrupt the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change." They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasized that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."
I spent over twenty hours looking at the data and have corresponded with two independent researchers from MIT and even a cursory educated look at the data and evidence clearly shows that climate change is happening, and many facets of the change are affected by man made greenhouse gasses.
Simply, if you look at the tonnage of carbob dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere every second of every day, it is impossible to disregard it's effect.
You can even do a simple model with a fish aquarium and a heat lamp and some basic laboratory instruments to demonstrate the effect of CO2 on the temperature.
Now, to the politics, it is a reasonable to question how the cutting back on greenhouse gases will affect the economy, but it is also reasonable to continue to ask how the release of the gases will affect the climate and the future of planet earth.
Anyone that dismisses this continued study because a politician says so is a dumb head. Period.
Hear hear, Froggie.
...the recent Climategate scandal?
It was a manufactured controversy.
There were several independent investigations that concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice. Of course the media, which is by it's nature conservative, didn't publicize the reports clearing the scientists as much as the initial allegations.
Did any of you actually peruse the link I provided?
For me anyway, the moment of realization that the whole thing is a complete sham on a global scale was when it was shown that the earth was actually cooling and they scuttled the term "global warming" and replaced it with "climate change".
And exactly how does one falsify the theory of "climate change"? If tempuratures trend downward for several years Viola!-Climate Change! If they trend upward, same thing.
It's all just an attempt at creating artificial scarcity in energy. Heck, I'm so sure of it that my stock portfolio reflects this.
Here's one company that I'm betting on for instance. If it takes off, I'm going to be sitting pretty.
Offshore wave energy converters sound pretty cool.
"For me anyway, the moment of realization that the whole thing is a complete sham on a global scale was when it was shown that the earth was actually cooling....."
Tell that to all the glaciers that are melting away. Tell that to the snow cap of Mt Kilamanjaro that is melting away. Tell that to some six year old kid that might even believe it.
You. Must. Be. Kidding.
Tell that to all the glaciers that are melting away
Tell me that the Antarctic ice shelf isn't expanding. Link
Tell that to the snow cap of Mt Kilamanjaro that is melting away
Tell me that this snow cap retreating and advancing hasnt been cyclical in terms of history and that deforestation near the mountain isn't the primary cause in this case. Link
Here's a more specific link.
Post a Comment