Comments on: U.S. EPA is Ill-Equipped to Fight Global Warming http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SS http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1249 SS Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:25:02 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1249 These are great examples of how insignificant we are in the whole scheme of climate change. One more point - temperatures are going DOWN! The whole AGW argument is a red herring. These are great examples of how insignificant we are in the whole scheme of climate change. One more point – temperatures are going DOWN! The whole AGW argument is a red herring.

]]> By: alena http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1248 alena Fri, 15 May 2009 16:52:08 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1248 US contribution of CO2 emissions in 2006 looks to me like 25%, not 20%, given your numbers in the article. Unless you are eliminating the emissions from liberals. US contribution of CO2 emissions in 2006 looks to me like 25%, not 20%, given your numbers in the article. Unless you are eliminating the emissions from liberals.

]]> By: Deamiter http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1232 Deamiter Thu, 07 May 2009 21:05:44 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1232 So... the entire argument is that because the US generates only part of the pollution, the US should do nothing domestically because the country can't solve the problem on its own? I get the feeling this could only make sense to somebody who utterly denies any AGW. If you step back for a moment and assume (as this entire argument does) that this warming is a problem, saying that we should do nothing just because if we act alone we will accomplish little is just silly! No, the EPA is probably not the best agency to regulate CO2 emissions in the USA, but the article doesn't even make THAT point as it assumes that ALL emissions are eliminated, a result that would not depend on the source of the regulation. So… the entire argument is that because the US generates only part of the pollution, the US should do nothing domestically because the country can’t solve the problem on its own?

I get the feeling this could only make sense to somebody who utterly denies any AGW. If you step back for a moment and assume (as this entire argument does) that this warming is a problem, saying that we should do nothing just because if we act alone we will accomplish little is just silly!

No, the EPA is probably not the best agency to regulate CO2 emissions in the USA, but the article doesn’t even make THAT point as it assumes that ALL emissions are eliminated, a result that would not depend on the source of the regulation.

]]> By: cknappenberger http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1244 cknappenberger Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:28:35 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1244 Andrew, But I am only a climatologist, not an economist! :^) -Chip Andrew,

But I am only a climatologist, not an economist! :^)

-Chip

]]> By: cknappenberger http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1243 cknappenberger Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:27:52 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1243 C3H Editor, Granted it is probable that all the warming in the past 150 years is not from CO2 increases, but it is also probable that all the warming from CO2 increases to date has not yet been realized. Lacking a good quantification of these, I am happy to call it a wash. I develop this concept a bit further over at World Climate Report in a just-posted article <a href="http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/" rel="nofollow"> What You Can('t) Do About Global Warming </a>. Check it out. -Chip C3H Editor,

Granted it is probable that all the warming in the past 150 years is not from CO2 increases, but it is also probable that all the warming from CO2 increases to date has not yet been realized. Lacking a good quantification of these, I am happy to call it a wash.

I develop this concept a bit further over at World Climate Report in a just-posted article What You Can(‘t) Do About Global Warming .

Check it out.

-Chip

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1242 Andrew Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:19:54 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1242 Although I should note it is actually a bargain compared to Kyoto: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html Although I should note it is actually a bargain compared to Kyoto:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1241 Andrew Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:15:55 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1241 Chip, I see that you have done a more in depth analysis over at WCR. There is still something missing, however, which would have been easy to calculate. How much money you'd have to spend in offsets to prevent a whole degree of temperature rise. Based on the values given, it works out to about $25,000,000,000,000 per degree C (a simple linear regression of the coordinates (3.11*10^-12, 84) and (1.36*10^-11, 364) extrapolates out to about this figure (actually higher)). Now I think that is way too much, don't you? :) Chip, I see that you have done a more in depth analysis over at WCR. There is still something missing, however, which would have been easy to calculate. How much money you’d have to spend in offsets to prevent a whole degree of temperature rise. Based on the values given, it works out to about $25,000,000,000,000 per degree C (a simple linear regression of the coordinates (3.11*10^-12, 84) and (1.36*10^-11, 364) extrapolates out to about this figure (actually higher)). Now I think that is way too much, don’t you? :)

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1237 Andrew Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:56:18 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1237 C3H Editor-There is a thing called arguing from your opponent's assumptions-or being generous-which adds strongly to the force of the argument-it is true whether Chip's associate's claims are true or not (and many reject that possibility outright). In other words ~regardless~ of what one believes about climate, even the strong view of advocates of catastrophic AGW, the EPA is totally ineffectual-it doesn't come close to doing what it is supposed to. C3H Editor-There is a thing called arguing from your opponent’s assumptions-or being generous-which adds strongly to the force of the argument-it is true whether Chip’s associate’s claims are true or not (and many reject that possibility outright). In other words ~regardless~ of what one believes about climate, even the strong view of advocates of catastrophic AGW, the EPA is totally ineffectual-it doesn’t come close to doing what it is supposed to.

]]> By: C3H Editor http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1236 C3H Editor Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:43:32 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1236 Chip, Thought some more about your response and have to "quibble." You're attributing +0.8 C exclusively to CO2. Your close associates suggest that socioeconomic, land-use and UHI effects are a big part of that +0.8. Taking those factors into account would reasonably lower the +0.8 to +0.4 instead. If these other factors are taken into account, then that 115 ppm that causes a 1C change becomes 225 ppm to make the same 1C change, much closer to theoretical calculation. Since you have a big megaphone on this blog (which is good), you might consider the very influential impacts of your assumptions when discussing important points. If you believe that there are other factors that have "caused" the 0.8 increase, then start your calculation with an assumed CO2 causal increase that is lower. Of course, if you believe 100% of the +0.8 C change was due to CO2, then keep on Hummer-ing (trucking)! C3H Editor Chip,

Thought some more about your response and have to “quibble.” You’re attributing +0.8 C exclusively to CO2. Your close associates suggest that socioeconomic, land-use and UHI effects are a big part of that +0.8. Taking those factors into account would reasonably lower the +0.8 to +0.4 instead. If these other factors are taken into account, then that 115 ppm that causes a 1C change becomes 225 ppm to make the same 1C change, much closer to theoretical calculation.

Since you have a big megaphone on this blog (which is good), you might consider the very influential impacts of your assumptions when discussing important points. If you believe that there are other factors that have “caused” the 0.8 increase, then start your calculation with an assumed CO2 causal increase that is lower. Of course, if you believe 100% of the +0.8 C change was due to CO2, then keep on Hummer-ing (trucking)!

C3H Editor

]]> By: Sean http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/the-epa-fights-global-warming-via-endangerment-going-after-a-00033cyr-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-1233 Sean Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:55:52 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2145#comment-1233 I think a better analogy is using a shotgun to rid your home of ants. If you point it at the wall where the ants are coming from you'll kill a few, scatter most and do much more damge to your home than the ants ever would. I think a better analogy is using a shotgun to rid your home of ants. If you point it at the wall where the ants are coming from you’ll kill a few, scatter most and do much more damge to your home than the ants ever would.

]]>