Finally!!! But why has it taken four months for someone to act on this? And just who do the EPA think they are? Scratch that, I know just who they think they are.

If I recall correctly, the EPA document supporting their endangerment decision specifically stated that it was not neccessary to perform its own research since the IPCC research provided the necessary and reliable research (I will have to look again to find the exact claim, but it basically relied on IPCC). Lisa Jackson can claim that the fall from grace of IPCC doesn't change the facts. But the EPA owes us a new documentation of how they support their finding. At present, the basis of their endangerment finding has gone from "as backed by IPCC research" to "because Lisa Jackson says so".

Since the so called "hockey-stick" graph of North American temperatures:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif

has been discredited

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/12/co2-hockey-stick-graph-is-fraud-too.html

I propose that the term "hockey-stick" graph now be used to refer to the explosion of the federal deficit:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GwDYFxb8piY/SZ29RTbFt2I/AAAAAAAACmA/qPPIEEuogKE/s1600-h/FederalDeficit.gif

http://chasblogspot.blogspot.com/2009/02/deep-impact-federal-deficit.html

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

Seems the Republicans are on a smear witch-hunt campaign which is their "expertise". Not we here in the United States fiddled 30-40 years to act on our irresponsible consumption of fossil fuels. Ok, we'll continue to gorge ourselves as if others (ie China) will not compete with us for oil.

Domestic coal is dirty(ash), destructive (strip, mountain top removal), & toxic(mercury).

Oh, there can not be any adverse reactions to burning these, at least not in our lifetimes!

We need to be 100% certain before we change course and everyone cross the T's and dot the i's.

Pretty sad,

not for me, I'm over the big 50 but the ones just coming onboard.

Does this mean that the Bureau of EPA, under the "Office of the President" is "OUT OF BUSINESS"????

O, Glorious day, America can "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL",

Build new refineries, ETC. I can buy a 55 gallon drum over at the local oil company without "Scrutiny" on what I will do with the drum!!!!

I hope the Senator is successful in his "destroying this bureau of nonsense" and all of the agencies that have "eat out our substance" for years.

GLORIOUS FREEDOM, no more the "chains" of this foolishness.

May the Lord give US strength and perseverance to "eradicate" "the works of the devil" I John 3:8.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

The money, show me the money that is going to pay for all the proposed changes the gorbies want to institute. Folks, we are broke. I don't know how many people have to keep repeating this. You can't invest billions into green technology when you (1) don't have concrete evidence that what you are presently doing is causing harm, (2)you don't have the money to invest. Trillions of dollars in debt, doesn't that sink in? Could you pay your portion of that debt if the government says ante up? You want to add more to pay for a green technology that presently is causing job losses. Your nuts.

Karlm,

So taking Federal grants (YOUR tax dollars) for research and deliberately falsifying results is not criminal? At the very least you have to admit that it is wrong.

I agree with you on some points. We need to wean ourselves off oil, especially the foreign variety. Also, as you say, we need to be 100% certain that man's activities have ANY effect on climate change before we go crippling our economy with 'cap & trade.'

So far, I don't see a single dotted i let alone any crossed t's.

No need to investigate, of course it's Bush's fault!

I don't understand Al Gore's unbelievable turn to greed - when he was VP, he was a financial dolt. He had around $600,000+ worth of real estate and a rental house on a farm in TN. According to Kiplinger, he had no mutual funds, no investments, spent most of his wealth on his kids' education and weddings. I remember thinking, what a breeze of fresh air for a politician to be so honest, not on the take. Boy, was I wrong in re to honesty!

Dear Brian,

Reply to your comment.

I'm afraid that your reference to "falsifying results" was part of the "smear campaign" and a deliberate attempt by vested powerful interests to derail any limits on our fossil energy consumption.

Just a coincidence these cherry picked exchanges (that were really not fully explained by those accused at the time!)were broadcasted right before the summit (sounds rather convenient to me!)

OK, speaking of "federal money", how much has gone to oil, gas and coal concerns?

Dear Brian, Cap and Trade will only "enrich" the financial industry (aka Wall Street), that is why they are pushing it not Dr. James Hansen!

As far as weaning ourselves of foreign oil, well how are we to do it... read T. Boone Pickens book on "domestic" oil potential. Palin is wrong if you all think drill, drill, drill will solve it here in the good old USA!

Keep on living the fantasy folks. Hope one of your dear loved ones isn't brought home in a body bag from the Middle East because we need to protect our "vital interests".

As far as dotting the i's and crossing the T's... it's all been done. Unfortunately, folks want to believe what is convenient not the truth...

the planet (yes, that includes the oceans) is warming because of man-made burning increasing the carbon levels. We are only speaking the difference between 2-4 degrees c.that will mean life as we know it and diaster.

As I stated before, unlike health care reform (i'm poking fun here folks), time has run out for in action. It's NOW or NEVER!

Let;s study the last sentence and got back to me in ten years!

Climate Change, Global Warming, is all about money!

The perpetrators of this falsehood are in it to gain power and wealth. The reports from around the world is the whole thing is a fantasy. The U.S. Government should now roll back any and all rules, taxes, bills from Congress etc., from enforcement to allow our country to return to prosperity. The "Climate Change" rules recently ordered by the EPA should be totally repealed and ruled un constitutional.

Karlm, If the scientific method is adhered to, then fine. But if the scientific method was bastardized for political power or advancing agendas, then what confidence is there in anything scientific. If the world is round, it's round; but for political reasons, you can't keep touting that the world is flat and expect confidence from thinking people!

Fristly, I'm the Brian who left the first comment, the back-and-forth with Karlm is NOT me. Secondly, Karlm is mistaken. To imagine that man is in any way responsible for ANY changes in the earth or its environment is the height of human arrogance. Human history is but an eye-blink of time on a geological scale. That's like saying the dinosaurs caused their own extinction. The earth and its environment are part of a daynamic system, which, by definition, is in a continual state of change. I distinctly remember in grade school in the late 70's being told we were headed for a new ice age. To the climate change fear-mongers, I say, you can't have it both ways no matter what the Democrats tell you. And drilling for domestic oil would, without doubt, wean us off imported oil. And, the EPA has so far exceeded its original mandate that it's laughable, or it would be, if I didn't feel like screaming instead.

I do disagree with George a little. Global warming might have occurred and thus is not a fantasy but the case for man being the cause is fantasy. About five centuries ago the earth went through a period of warming. That was when Europe prospered and was able to build huge cathedrals. Then we went into the "Little Ice Age" and the "Dark Ages". Now that we might be returning to better temperatures, some would use warming as a means of grabbing power and wealth.

Does the atmosphere contain more CO2? Probably it does. If the sun warms the water on earth, millions of tons of CO2 are released with a small increase in water temperature.

If CO2 is a problem on earth, we have the means to freeze CO2 and shoot the dry ice to the sun. By doing so we could reduce the amount of CO2 on earth and at the same time cool the sun. We could also bankrupt everyone on earth with such a harebrained scheme. It would also give unbelievable power to governments. Power taken from the people.

Imagine an environment where the climate has not changed for eons. The species in such an environment would have no need to migrate. Inbreeding would destroy the species in such a stable environment. What we have is unstable weather patterns which change the local environment and force species to move ahead of the change. With said movement, each species gets intermixed with new members of their species and the gene pool grows and thus prevents that species from dying out due to interbreeding.

If you buy my hypothesis that climate change is necessary to maintain viable species, you must decide for yourself if said change is by accident or due to Intelligent Design. Regardless of what caused the change, does mankind have enough information to make a sound decision about how to fight the change? Do we even want to try to fight the change?

I do disagree with George a little. Global warming might have occurred and thus is not a fantasy but the case for man being the cause is fantasy. About five centuries ago the earth went through a period of warming. That was when Europe prospered and was able to build huge cathedrals. Then we went into the "Little Ice Age" and the "Dark Ages". Now that we might be returning to better temperatures, some would use warming as a means of grabbing power and wealth.

Does the atmosphere contain more CO2? Probably it does. If the sun warms the water on earth, millions of tons of CO2 are released with a small increase in water temperature.

If CO2 is a problem on earth, we have the means to freeze CO2 and shoot the dry ice to the sun. By doing so we could reduce the amount of CO2 on earth and at the same time cool the sun. We could also bankrupt everyone on earth with such a harebrained scheme. It would also give unbelievable power to governments. Power taken from the people.

Imagine an environment where the climate has not changed for eons. The species in such an environment would have no need to migrate. Inbreeding would destroy the species in such a stable environment. What we have is unstable weather patterns which change the local environment and force species to move ahead of the change. With said movement, each species gets intermixed with new members of their species and the gene pool grows and thus prevents that species from dying out due to interbreeding.

If you buy my hypothesis that climate change is necessary to maintain viable species, you must decide for yourself if said change is by accident or due to Intelligent Design. Regardless of what caused the change, does mankind have enough information to make a sound decision about how to fight the change? Do we even want to try to fight the change?

Scientists backing up bogus theories with made up statistics. Hmm...where have I seen that before? If the internet were around when Darwin was cooking up theories (and the world were as small as it is now) who knows what could have happened?

Dear Responders,

Thank you for your replies. Judging from which, it appears we will dwell on this issue until it is too late. When the climate has responded in an obvious manner that this upon us from our actions, it will be out of our control to stop and "rollback"(as Wallmart promotes: some humour).

As far as drilling for domestic oil, from one of the replies, that in itself speaks of the lack of reality!

In our society we are "entitled" to our own opinions and beliefs. So I will not infringe on your own derived from the materials you have encountered. Remember all worldly human knowledge is limited. Not to get religious here, but a quote, "Forgive them for they do not know what they do."

One scientific law that will stare us down is the laws of thermodynamics. Please folks do not post doubts about this!

Energy can be used but not destroyed.

It becomes converted (entropy: usable to unusable in simple terms).

By our massive (ever increasing amounts) of fossil fuel energy use we have created an energy unbalance that have directed "changes" ( we are already witnessing, ice melt, specie movement).

The sad aspect of it all, the solution will be both good for society and the planet.

Unfortunately, most do not change until they have no choice;

the time is upon us, we have no choice.

Please pick up a copy of Dr. Hansen recent book.

Also, Jeremey Rifkins classic title; "Entropy; A New World View", lays out the the above in everyday

terms.

Finally. How about accounting for money that has been spent on

this. i.e. who got how much?

Shouldn't the tax-payer be informed.