On December 8th, 2009 at 08:33 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
What time is Ms. Reitz going to release the report??? Also is Jesse Jackson on His way ?????
On December 8th, 2009 at 08:37 AM, pattsi said:
The N-G could start a "report release" count-down clock, including the question, "why not do so"?. :-) Pattsi Petrie
On December 8th, 2009 at 09:03 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
It should be a really fun Champaign City Council meeting tonight.
On December 8th, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Frustrated Observer said:
Have to change gears a bit here. Now that the Obama EPA has decided "greenhouse" gases are a hazard it might be nice to talk about the component of those gases that is most under scrutiny - carbon dioxide. That would be the same carbon dioxide exhaled from our bodies with every breath. So how is this supposed to play out? Do we have to stop breathing now? Is there going to be a tax on breathing?
Neglecting the human side of this and concentrating on carbon dioxide formed by the combustion of hydrocarbons we see hydrocarbon fuels as directly in the cross hairs of a technology-challenged administration. So when your furnace kicks on tonight to heat your house and pours out carbon dioxide thank the administration for declaring your furnace a hazard. And when you drive home after work tonight and dump carbon dioxide all the way home thank the administraion. Or when you turn the lights on courtesy of a fossil-fueled power station thank the administration. Etc.
The world's reliance on fossil fuels will not be broken by declaring them hazardous. Is this simply another way to squeeze us for more taxes? The so-called green initiatives of this administration reveal a leadership that is clueless to how energy is used. Throwing up subsidized wind turbines that produce overpriced electricity won't even begin to solve the "problem". Electric cars won't solve the problem since they need electricity that is generated by fossil fuels and by nuclear plants that apparently can't even be discussed in this administration.
And this declaration by EPA is inconveniently made even as we see the global warming books have been cooked. The confluence of "science" and politics is dangerous. The systematic efforts to politically squelch discussion on warming can only lead to decisions made on fantasies
On December 8th, 2009 at 09:30 PM, illinipunditposter said:
That would be the same carbon dioxide exhaled from our bodies with every breath.
Correct. This science you learned in junior high is still valid
So how is this supposed to play out? In what way do you mean?
Do we have to stop breathing now? You need not worry about about this
Is there going to be a tax on breathing? Only on the hot air you are spewing.
The world's reliance on fossil fuels will not be broken by declaring them hazardous. This is not the intent
Is this simply another way to squeeze us for more taxes? Please explain what led you to this scatter-brained suggestion
The so-called green initiatives of this administration reveal a leadership that is clueless to how energy is used. What initiatives are you referring to?
... fossil fuels and by nuclear plants that apparently can't even be discussed in this administration. Please tell us the basis of this assertion of yours
The systematic efforts to politically squelch discussion on warming can only lead to decisions made on fantasies Making decisions based upon fantasy was a specialty of the previous administration--whether concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or whether concerning scientific matters
illinipunditposter
On December 8th, 2009 at 06:38 PM, Narc said:
That would be the same carbon dioxide exhaled from our bodies with every breath. So how is this supposed to play out? Do we have to stop breathing now? Is there going to be a tax on breathing?
Is anyone proposing one or is that simply your persecution complex rearing its head? E. Coli in your food can make you very sick and even kill you. Does the fact that E. Coli exists naturally in your gut somehow make it instantly harmless?
On December 8th, 2009 at 07:06 PM, redstatewannabe said:
you guys didn't read the hacked emails?
On December 8th, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Narc said:
you guys didn't read the hacked emails?
I haven't gone through the 60+ MB of material myself, but most of what I have seen is fairly innocuous, being taken largely out of context, and misunderstood. Mostly by people who have an axe to grind and are science denialists to begin with.
On December 9th, 2009 at 02:26 AM, Keith_Hays said:
Gee, do those hacked e-mails mean that the ice caps and glaciers are not shrinking?
What time is Ms. Reitz going to release the report??? Also is Jesse Jackson on His way ?????
The N-G could start a "report release" count-down clock, including the question, "why not do so"?. :-) Pattsi Petrie
It should be a really fun Champaign City Council meeting tonight.
Have to change gears a bit here. Now that the Obama EPA has decided "greenhouse" gases are a hazard it might be nice to talk about the component of those gases that is most under scrutiny - carbon dioxide. That would be the same carbon dioxide exhaled from our bodies with every breath. So how is this supposed to play out? Do we have to stop breathing now? Is there going to be a tax on breathing?
Neglecting the human side of this and concentrating on carbon dioxide formed by the combustion of hydrocarbons we see hydrocarbon fuels as directly in the cross hairs of a technology-challenged administration. So when your furnace kicks on tonight to heat your house and pours out carbon dioxide thank the administration for declaring your furnace a hazard. And when you drive home after work tonight and dump carbon dioxide all the way home thank the administraion. Or when you turn the lights on courtesy of a fossil-fueled power station thank the administration. Etc.
The world's reliance on fossil fuels will not be broken by declaring them hazardous. Is this simply another way to squeeze us for more taxes? The so-called green initiatives of this administration reveal a leadership that is clueless to how energy is used. Throwing up subsidized wind turbines that produce overpriced electricity won't even begin to solve the "problem". Electric cars won't solve the problem since they need electricity that is generated by fossil fuels and by nuclear plants that apparently can't even be discussed in this administration.
And this declaration by EPA is inconveniently made even as we see the global warming books have been cooked. The confluence of "science" and politics is dangerous. The systematic efforts to politically squelch discussion on warming can only lead to decisions made on fantasies
That would be the same carbon dioxide exhaled from our bodies with every breath.
Correct. This science you learned in junior high is still valid
So how is this supposed to play out? In what way do you mean?
Do we have to stop breathing now? You need not worry about about this
Is there going to be a tax on breathing? Only on the hot air you are spewing.
The world's reliance on fossil fuels will not be broken by declaring them hazardous. This is not the intent
Is this simply another way to squeeze us for more taxes? Please explain what led you to this scatter-brained suggestion
The so-called green initiatives of this administration reveal a leadership that is clueless to how energy is used. What initiatives are you referring to?
... fossil fuels and by nuclear plants that apparently can't even be discussed in this administration. Please tell us the basis of this assertion of yours
The systematic efforts to politically squelch discussion on warming can only lead to decisions made on fantasies Making decisions based upon fantasy was a specialty of the previous administration--whether concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or whether concerning scientific matters
illinipunditposter
Is anyone proposing one or is that simply your persecution complex rearing its head? E. Coli in your food can make you very sick and even kill you. Does the fact that E. Coli exists naturally in your gut somehow make it instantly harmless?
you guys didn't read the hacked emails?
I haven't gone through the 60+ MB of material myself, but most of what I have seen is fairly innocuous, being taken largely out of context, and misunderstood. Mostly by people who have an axe to grind and are science denialists to begin with.
Gee, do those hacked e-mails mean that the ice caps and glaciers are not shrinking?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays