TARP, Pokulus, and the GM bailout are just the warmup acts

As the EPA gears up to write regulations on manmade greenhouse gas
production, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday, "If EPA is
going to talk and speak in this game, the first thing it should speak
about is whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger
human health and welfare. It is a very fundamental question."

OK let’s do. Human activity accounts for about 5% of annual global CO2
production. The United States accounts for about 20% of the human
contribution, or about 1% of the annual global total. The annual
global total causes the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase at a
rate of about 2 parts per million (ppm) per year. The United States
therefore contributes about .01 ppm per year. (The great bugaboo of
the entire Warmist movement is the estimate that atmospheric CO2 has
risen about 100 ppm since the advent of the Industrial Revolution
about 150 years ago (i.e., from 280 to 380).)

In exchange for the United State’s .01 ppm per annual contribution to
annual global CO2 production, we get a life expectancy of 78 years,
compared to 45-50 in the Third World. We get infant mortality of 6.3
per 1,000 live births, compared to about 100 in the Third World. We
get “under-five” mortality of 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births,
compared to about 200 in the Third World. Also, the technology that
American CO2 production has created has bestowed incalculable similar
benefits world-wide, including in the Third World.

So let’s cancel 100% of our annual contribution. Let’s shut down
modern technology completely. What would be the effect of that choice
on the “very fundamental question” of “human health and welfare?
Well, “the science is settled” that slowing the annual increase in CO2
concentration by .01 ppm would have no effect whatsoever on the global
temperature. On the other hand, if we duplicate the experience of the
Third World, a 100% shutdown will cut our life expectancy by 40%,
increase infant mortality by 1,600%, and increase deaths of children
under age five by 2,500%. That sounds pretty much like endangering
human health and welfare.

Is a proposal to reduce American CO2 by 100% a straw man? Of course
it is. But what level of reduction promises any health benefits at
all? The only health benefit the Warmists can point to is to slow the
rate of global warming. But if a 100% reduction in the American
contribution will have no effect at all on the rate of global warming,
and if any reduction causes even miniscule level of damage to “human
health and welfare,” it follows that any reduction is a net negative.

180 Out

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:39:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>As the EPA gears up to write regulations on manmade greenhouse gas
>production, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday, "If EPA is
>going to talk and speak in this game, the first thing it should speak
SNIP
>rate of global warming. But if a 100% reduction in the American
>contribution will have no effect at all on the rate of global warming,
>and if any reduction causes even miniscule level of damage to “human
>health and welfare,” it follows that any reduction is a net negative.
>
>180 Out

With all Al Gore's fame over Global Warming, so many have forgotten
that 30 years ago he was crying about nuclear winter and the coming
Ice Age.

The man rakes in much dinero from his alarmist activities. There is
much money to be had in searching for solutions to what does not
exist.

Global Warming? Certainly not everywhere. One need only look at
changes in weather patterns where it is actually getting colder. Did
eveyone miss the article about 150 people freezing to death in Rio de
Janerio?

Most reputable scientists are backing away from Gore's position. They
say that it's a good idea to work to make the atmosphere better, but
there is not enough proof, not enough data, and no computer models
accurate enough to say whether the earth is going through a natural or
a man made change. Afterall, no humans existed to log causes and
effects for warming and cooling trends which took place BEFORE the
industrial revolution. Geologists seem to feel that all we need is 3
(count them... Pinatuba, Mt St Helens, and one more from theRring of
Fire) to equal all the man made greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, you have ObamaJama pushing scare tactics and supporting
such agendas as removing all those old style vehicles we lovingly call
classics off the roads by a certain percentage each year.

In case nobody has ever noticed.... the Democrats are well known for
their Chicken Little approaches to problems. The Bailouts and Stimulus
are prime examples. Throw enough money at it and it'll go away. Al
Bore LOVES that!

At least ObamaJama backed off the Transportation Secretaries idea to
tax every mile you drive.
--

Vintage Burgundy 65 Fastback 2+2, 289 OEM 4bbl, Custom C4,
OEM front disc/rear drum P/R&P, 16x8" V40s, BFG gForce
T/A skins. Cobra drop, halogen and LED lighting.

wrote:

> With all Al Gore's fame over Global Warming, so many have forgotten
> that 30 years ago he was crying about nuclear winter and the coming
> Ice Age.
I was just thinking..What ever happened to that big hole in the ozone?
And all that acid rain before that?
>

>
> Meanwhile, you have ObamaJama pushing scare tactics and supporting
> such agendas as removing all those old style vehicles we lovingly call
> classics off the roads by a certain percentage each year.
There's a bill our Governor of Oregon wants to pass that would outlaw
any car part, (OEM and aftermarket) if it doesn't meet "somebody's"
clean air guide-lines.
>
> In case nobody has ever noticed.... the Democrats are well known for
> their Chicken Little approaches to problems. The Bailouts and Stimulus
> are prime examples. Throw enough money at it and it'll go away. Al
> Bore LOVES that!
>
> At least ObamaJama backed off the Transportation Secretaries idea to
> tax every mile you drive.
I'm kind of on the fence about this, because if more and more plug-in
type cars begin to hit the roads, someone still has to pay to fix the
pot holes
And if I'm one of the few still burning petrol, I may have a big tax to pay.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:53:22 -0800, GILL
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> With all Al Gore's fame over Global Warming, so many have forgotten
>> that 30 years ago he was crying about nuclear winter and the coming
>> Ice Age.
>I was just thinking..What ever happened to that big hole in the ozone?
>And all that acid rain before that?

And they gave Bore a Nobel prize. Why is it that the party who
purports to be for the common man, is run by people who made mega
bucks on the backs of the common folks or inherited it, and are
wealthier than sin and want to "redistribute the wealth"? After it's
reditributed, they still will not be poor enough to be among the
"common folk".>>
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, you have ObamaJama pushing scare tactics and supporting
>> such agendas as removing all those old style vehicles we lovingly call
>> classics off the roads by a certain percentage each year.
>There's a bill our Governor of Oregon wants to pass that would outlaw
>any car part, (OEM and aftermarket) if it doesn't meet "somebody's"
>clean air guide-lines.

I'm just south of your border (Redding), but I have a lot of familiy
and friends spread between here and Portland. Oregon is a beautiful
state (I'm partial to the coast)... but there are an awful lot of
greenies there. :0)
>>
>> In case nobody has ever noticed.... the Democrats are well known for
>> their Chicken Little approaches to problems. The Bailouts and Stimulus
>> are prime examples. Throw enough money at it and it'll go away. Al
>> Bore LOVES that!
>>
>> At least ObamaJama backed off the Transportation Secretaries idea to
>> tax every mile you drive.
>I'm kind of on the fence about this, because if more and more plug-in
>type cars begin to hit the roads, someone still has to pay to fix the
>pot holes
>And if I'm one of the few still burning petrol, I may have a big tax to pay.
Reminds me of Carl Reiner. Pushed a tax on cigarettes and beer, but
NOT on cigars and wine. Do you suppose it's because rich people csn
afford to smoke cigars and drink wine? Or is it simply a coincidence
that among the few pleasure to working poor can afford (be they good
or bad) are found beer and cigarettes?
--

Vintage Burgundy 65 Fastback 2+2, 289 OEM 4bbl, Custom C4,
OEM front disc/rear drum P/R&P, 16x8" V40s, BFG gForce
T/A skins. Cobra drop, halogen and LED lighting.

On Feb 25, 6:02*pm, wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:53:22 -0800, GILL
>
> > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >> With all Al Gore's fame over Global Warming, so many have forgotten
> >> that 30 years ago he was crying about nuclear winter and the coming
> >> Ice Age.
> >I was just thinking..What ever happened to that big hole in the ozone?
> >And all that acid rain before that?
>
> And they gave Bore a Nobel prize. Why is it that the party who
> purports to be for the common man, is run by people who made mega
> bucks on the backs of the common folks or inherited it, and are
> wealthier than sin and want to "redistribute the wealth"? After it's
> reditributed, they still will not be poor enough to be among the
> "common folk".>>
>
>
>
> >> Meanwhile, you have ObamaJama pushing scare tactics and supporting
> >> such agendas as removing all those old style vehicles we lovingly call
> >> classics off the roads by a certain percentage each year.
> >There's a bill our Governor of Oregon wants to pass that would outlaw
> >any car part, (OEM and aftermarket) if it doesn't meet "somebody's"
> >clean air guide-lines.
>
> I'm just south of your border (Redding), but I have a lot of familiy
> and friends spread between here and Portland. Oregon is a beautiful
> state (I'm partial to the coast)... but there are an awful lot of
> greenies there. :0)
>
> >> In case nobody has ever noticed.... the Democrats are well known for
> >> their Chicken Little approaches to problems. The Bailouts and Stimulus
> >> are prime examples. Throw enough money at it and it'll go away. Al
> >> Bore LOVES that!
>
> >> At least ObamaJama backed off the Transportation Secretaries idea to
> >> tax every mile you drive.
> >I'm kind of on the fence about this, because if more and more plug-in
> >type cars begin to hit the roads, someone still has to pay to fix the
> >pot holes
> >And if I'm one of the few still burning petrol, I may have a big tax to pay.
>
> Reminds me of Carl Reiner. Pushed a tax on cigarettes and beer, but
> NOT on cigars and wine. Do you suppose it's because rich people csn
> afford to smoke cigars and drink wine? Or is it simply a coincidence
> that among the few pleasure to working poor can afford (be they good
> or bad) are found beer and cigarettes?
> --
>
> Vintage Burgundy 65 Fastback 2+2, 289 OEM 4bbl, Custom C4,
> OEM front disc/rear drum P/R&P, 16x8" V40s, BFG gForce
> T/A skins. Cobra drop, halogen and LED lighting.

Returning to the subject of EPA regulation of CO2 emissions under the
Clean Air Act, the latest signs (as of Friday March ) are starting to
show that global warming alarmism as a Bush-bashing tool is not the
same when it's YOUR side that is calling the shots (and getting the
blame). Even President O! must realize, at some point, that his
policies are very close to destroying our economy for a very long
time. It seems that a stock market worth only 80% of what it was
worth the day you took office 8 weeks ago (DJIA of 8280 vs. 6500), and
an actual unemployment rate of 14.8%, tend to focus the mind.

Thus, in the face of the realization that plugging commercial CO2
emissions into a regulatory structure intended to apply solely to
actually harmful chemicals would shut down what's left of the economy,
the Obama Nation is suddenly moderate in its goals. Just one example
is the retreat from goals floated in the final year of the evil Bush
administration, such that the Obama Nation's current target is merely
to reduce US CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This compares to a
Kyoto number, signed off on by Al Gore himself but never ratified by
the Senate, that the US should reduce emissions to 93% of 1990 levels
by 2008, and hold them there through 2012.

Also, the useful idiots who voted for O! are starting to wonder when
that oft-promised $13/week tax cut morphed into a mere placekeeper to
compensate them for the pass-through consequences of a Cap and Tax
scheme designed to suck $300 billion per year (or more!) out of the
private sector. Although O! does not yet believe it, it's still true
that you can't fool all the people all the time.

180 Out

wrote:

> Returning to the subject of EPA regulation of CO2 emissions under the
> Clean Air Act, the latest signs (as of Friday March ) are starting to
> show that global warming alarmism as a Bush-bashing tool is not the
> same when it's YOUR side that is calling the shots (and getting the
> blame). Even President O! must realize, at some point, that his
> policies are very close to destroying our economy for a very long
> time. It seems that a stock market worth only 80% of what it was
> worth the day you took office 8 weeks ago (DJIA of 8280 vs. 6500), and
> an actual unemployment rate of 14.8%, tend to focus the mind.
>
> Thus, in the face of the realization that plugging commercial CO2
> emissions into a regulatory structure intended to apply solely to
> actually harmful chemicals would shut down what's left of the economy,
> the Obama Nation is suddenly moderate in its goals. Just one example
> is the retreat from goals floated in the final year of the evil Bush
> administration, such that the Obama Nation's current target is merely
> to reduce US CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This compares to a
> Kyoto number, signed off on by Al Gore himself but never ratified by
> the Senate, that the US should reduce emissions to 93% of 1990 levels
> by 2008, and hold them there through 2012.
>
> Also, the useful idiots who voted for O! are starting to wonder when
> that oft-promised $13/week tax cut morphed into a mere placekeeper to
> compensate them for the pass-through consequences of a Cap and Tax
> scheme designed to suck $300 billion per year (or more!) out of the
> private sector. Although O! does not yet believe it, it's still true
> that you can't fool all the people all the time.
>
> 180 Out

I'm all there on this friggen Global warmed up crap. I wrote an e-mail
to one of my Oregon reps. asking why they have a bill to outlaw what
THEY perceive to be gas wasting car parts (both production and
aftermarket) This includes tires and anything else. And I made my point
that this can only hurt companys and what the **** anyways?

He wrote me back basically saying we need to do what other states are
doing, namely California, and it's what is best for the environment.

I just moved away from SoCal and it's no comparison from the air down there.

All I can do is tell this to anyone listening and hope people use their
vote........Stupid people.