"In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants."
Do you think CO2 and other GHGs are pollutants? Should the EPA regulate emissions of CO2 and other green house gases? What's your opinion?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 683 reads
There were at least 3 or 4 pages a few days ago. But now there are only 2. What happened to the rest?
HMMM now its back again. weird!!
Its a state issue issue in my mind. I think states should set their own standards and neighboring states should feel free to colaborate with one another, but broad federal regulations are absolutely unnecessary.
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
As libertarians, we should oppose ALL EPA regulations.
Nobody has the right to tell us what we can't produce. We should be allowed to poison our environment if we please, because we don't owe anybody anything. Our goal is to be happy, and seeing people sick from my pollution is happiness. As long as I haven't directly harmed anybody.
Also, God made nature so perfectly we can't possibly ruin it THAT much. So what if polar bears die out?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Some government regulations are OK, but the danger is in thinking that if a little bit of regulation is good then a lot must be better. An example; OSHA regulations which require safety gates on injection molding machines or presses are a good thing. They aren't very expensive and they keep people from getting their hands cut off. But when OSHA wants to come into my home office and see if my keyboard is designed to prevent carpal tunnel that's going too far and it's not good. By the same token regulating lead, NOx, SO2 and other known toxins is OK but regulating CO2 which is naturally occuring, non-toxic and beneficial for plants is not OK.
What are safety nets to prevent a slippery slope?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
It is a slippery slope. The first problem I have with government regulations such as OSHA, EPA, and auto safety, is there is no constitutional basis for them, at least at the federal level. That's a serious problem. However I admit that some of those regs have produced good results.
Many years ago you could see raw sewage, including toilet paper, floating in Lake St Claire and the Detroit river. But today thanks to pollution control rules they are both very clean.
Seat Belts have undoubtedly saved lives and they don't cost much either. Air bags also saved lives but not as many and at a higher cost, and air bags in a few cases actually killed people. The latest generation of air bag rules increased cost and complexity significantly and will likely save few lives. So as the regulations increase we seem to get less bang for the buck.
To be honest I don't know what to do with either the constitutional issue or the problem of government overdoing it and regulating things to the point of silliness. Someone suggested passing regulations at the state level. That might work in some cases but for auto safety or emissions it would potentially force automakers to comply with 50 different sets of rules for 50 different states. That would drive everyone nuts and increase costs greatly.
All I can say is that regulating CO2 is over the top in my opinion.
I call foul on your tally.
Since you really really really need a list:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
OK now the score is;
Me 30,000
You 11
BTW One of the 11, Michael Mann, is the author of the famous Hockey Stick graph which is highly controversial. It has been criticized both for its statistical methods as well as the fact that it eliminates the Midieval warm period and the little ice age.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228
Richard Evans is a programmer - not a climatologist. Writing an accounting program does not make you an authority on climate research.
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate - rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans - completely reversing his position.
Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.
“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.
Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases - “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” - which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.
“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.
Evans highlights data collected from satellites positioned around the globe that indicates temperatures have dropped about 0.6C in the past year - back to 1980 levels. Such figures are complimented by anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern - China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. Canada also experienced one of its coldest winters in the past 12 years.
Evans also cites historical climate change and the fact that CO2 does not cause, but in fact lags behind temperature increase by as much as 800 years.
“The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect,” he writes.
“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion,” writes Evans.
Evans warns that the insistence on behalf of the man-made advocate establishment that “the debate is over,” despite the fact that a CO2 link to climate change “was merely asserted, not proved,” and the glee with which governments have adopted measures to fight global warming under this false assumption, will cause economies to be wrecked and as temperatures cool further, authorities will have to face charges of “criminal negligence” for deliberately lying to the public about climate change.
Evans’ public reversal of his position arrives on the back of two peer reviewed scientific papers, one of which documents how C02 emissions in fact cool the planet’s temperature and another that shows how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
The myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.
Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.
Patrick Michaels is another corporate shill, who in fact misrepresented Hanson before Congress:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
He also had to leave his professorship in disgrace:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Michaels
I wouldn't feel it was worth my time if I were Hanson.
With regard to Gore and whomever debating, the last thing I care about is what politicians think about scientific conclusions - except to the extent that they do something based on them. I'm not holding my breath with regard to action on climate change based on scientific understanding. It's nice that Al has been so outspoken since his presidency was stolen, but he is also in a position to do little about it and has little to lose by discussing it.
In a previous post I gave a link discussing scientific organizations supporting climate change, the following is from that page:
"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
You haven't named a single scientist who supports AGW except Hansen whom I named.
So far the score is:
Me 30,000
you 0
Apparently the IPCC did not in fact ask them to do anything. Those two contacted the IPCC to see the draft report and then had to sign a form saying they would not publicly comment on the draft before the final version came out. If I had had the foresight I could have been an "IPCC Expert Reviewer."
http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
"Sources do matter."
Yes sources matter. So who are the scientists who support AGW theory? Wally I don’t want to be argumentative or rude, but you haven’t provided a single name of a scientist who supports AGW. All you have done is assail any scientist who is skeptical of AGW.
Let me name one scientist who supports AGW, Dr. Jim Hansen. Hansen is a NASA climatologist and a leading AGW advocate. He was recently asked to debate AGW skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels by a student group at the college of William and Mary. Michaels accepted the challenge, but Hansen’s reply was “not interested”. Why wouldn’t Hansen debate? He didn’t indicate that he had a conflict. He just said “not interested.”
http://media.www.vainformer.com/media/storage/paper1335/news/2008/04/23/...
And another AGW advocate Al Gore has been challenged to debate by at least two skeptics:
Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, and also by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Al Gore has refused to debate either of them. Why? If his case is so strong he should be able to win easily. Why won’t he debate?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
Apparently the IPCC thought they were qualified enough to be reviewers. But the point of my last post is that the number of scientists who actually were involved in the chapter which said; “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years” is not 2500. Its more like 62.
Sources do matter.
Vincent Gray is working with Tim Ball (Friends of Science) and is not a climatologist, the last paper he published was on coal research - 17 years ago.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
Ross McKitrick - ECONOMICS PROFESSOR - not a scientist. Gets his bills paid by Exxon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1313
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
"Why do I have to go to some website and ask pro-AGW scientists to identify themselves?"
Because the problem of AGW has nothing to do with posting links and taking sides. It is a scientific problem that science is working on, using the methodology of science. If you have some science to contribute, by all means, send it out for peer review.
Let other scientist look at it and dissect your arguments.
As in all scientific inquiry, being "right" simply means coming to a better understanding of what the truth is.
Science is apolitical, but your argument is purely political and has no relevance to the science of AGW.
People other than me have also been asking the question; which scientists agree with the AGW theory? Two such researchers summarized their findings here. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Following are some excerpts from their article:
“An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense. “
When the statement is made that thousands of scientists support the IPCC's claims people tend to accept that as proof. "Well if all those scientists say its true then it must be." But as you can see from the above article it seems that far fewer scientists were actually involved.
I think it was Einstein who said that 100 scientists can be refuted by one fact. I would certainly agree with that comment. But it seems that with regard to AGW that fact has not revealed itself, so we are stuck listening to the opinions of various scientists. In such a situation we would surely like to know the number of scientists on each side of the issue.
Well first of all I hope you are not sick with cancer or any other disease. But if you were, I think you would visit at least two doctors and get their opinion. But you would know who those doctors are and you would have talked to them personally. But I don't think you would start cancer treatment just because someone told you that 90% of the world's doctors think you have cancer, without even knowing who those doctors are, or how many there really are compared to how many who don't think you have cancer .
BTW this is somewhat off topic, but I'd like to extend the cancer analogy a bit further:
Two good friends of mine were diagnosed with cancer in their early 60's. Both cases were most likely the result of smoking. One got it in the jaw and the other in the lungs. Both men were active and not visibly sick at the time of their diagnosis. One guy had half of his jaw removed and then started chemo. He immediately became bedridden and then died within a few months. The other one got radiation treatment which put him in the hospital. Then the cancer spread to the brain. Then he got chemo and then he was dead. All of that happened within a few months. Now considering that both men were active at the time of the DX, I firmly believe that both of them would have been better off if they had done nothing. They would have remained active longer and perhaps would have lived just as long. Anyway the point is that sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.
Back to the climate issue, I think it would be entirely fair to ask the pro-AGW side to provide a list of the scientists who agree that the .7C warming observed over the last century is due to manmade CO2 emissions and that the continued production of CO2 will be detrimental overall to life on earth.
Go to this website and ask the scientists themselves who they are.
Better to be well versed than ignorant when you take science into the political realm.
http://realclimate.org/
This is getting ridiculous. I've provided links to 4 different lists of scientists who refute AGW. Why do I have to go to some website and ask pro-AGW scientists to identify themselves?
It is repeated over and over by the media and the pro-AGW crowd that the overwhelming majority of scientists support the AGW theory. Ok where's the list? Who are those scientists? And what are there credentials? Is that too much to ask for?
I am sick and 99% of the worlds doctors conclude that there is a 90% chance I have cancer but it will take another year to be 99% sure. They also tell me if I do have cancer it will definitely be terminal by that point. I think I might go ahead and begin chemotherapy until the more extensive tests come back.
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
I will agree with you that there were exaggerations in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and the UK court's inconsistencies are dead-on. It does not however mean that it does not present a clear and present danger to life as we know it. I will point out that Al is a politician and not a scientist. There are few politicians who do not exaggerate or are hypocritical simply because they would have little influence if they told the full truth. Al did not lie persey, simply cherrypicked data and played wordgames to attract attention to the highly probable (90% certianty) and dangerous circumstance we find ourselves in.
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
At one time the IPCC was claiming 2500 scientists supported their claims of AGW. But Professor Richard Lindzen, who was an IPCC member, has pointed out that the 2500 number includes many people who are not scientists and that none of the scientists were asked if they agreed with the conclusions. Lindzen is a skeptic and is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. His credentials are impressive. You can read his bio here http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
He is not the only skeptic with impressive credentials. You may choose to discredit some of the skeptics I listed earlier but you cannot discredit all of them. Perhaps I could discredit some of the scientists who support AGW if we knew who they were. But we don't. That's one reason I asked for a list. I've asked for such a list on many blogs before but as yet no one has offered one. Perhaps you could be the first.
In an earlier post you discredited one scientist because he was a biologist and not a climatologist. I’m not sure that’s a fair disqualification. If some of the historical climate data is based on tree ring growth then perhaps a biologist is exactly what is needed. Also looking at the broader question; of what effect would increased CO2 levels and temperatures have on plant and animal life, again a biologist would be the person to ask. You also discredited one skeptic because he is an economist. But if you want to know the economic effects of a warmer world then an economist should probably be involved.
I don’t mean to argue with you. I only point out that the cost of reducing CO2 emissions could be very high and it could retard our development. But development is what we need to find long term workable energy sources. If it was truly a closed case that we face global catastrophe then we should indeed try to reduce CO2 output. But it is not a closed case. And in my opinion there should be an open debate before the public, with both sides making their cases. That seems like a very reasonable thing to do be we embark on a CO2 reduction plan which could in itself produce catastrophic results.
David-
Please see below:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.
Placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extraordinary.
I know a lot of people believe that Climate Change is a conspiracy. There are and have been conspiracies in the scientific community before: asbestos, tobacco, fluoride, magnesium fumes from welding rods, and probably a few others I am not aware of. The typical structure for scientific conspiracies is industry buying science from less-credible scientists or institutions. The fact is that the evidence supports this type of manipulation has taken place, but as a result of fossil fuel interests.
I've got a petition here that urges God to stop making bad stuff happen:
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopgod/petition.html
10,000+ signatories
Does that mean there is a god? Does that mean if there is one he makes bad stuff happen? Not really.
The below is from: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism
[Another frequently cited list is the Oregon Petition, which recently published a second version of their list. The fact that they created an entirely new version rather than continuing to add to their original list raises some questions. The reason for the abandonment of the original list was that many signatures were found to be fraudulent.
"Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
The original version contained approximately 17,000 signatures and the newly released version contains 31,000 signatures. However, it's important to note that in addition to the apparent ease of adding false signatures to this list, the only requirement of signatories is to have any kind of college science degree. In other words, a guy who got a bachelor's degree in biology 40 years ago and knows absolutely nothing about global warming can sign the Oregon Petition.
Even disregarding the obviously weak signature criteria, consider the fact that in the USA there are tens of millions of people with bachelor's (or better) degrees in science. If just 10% of the US population has such a degree (according to the US census, 25% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or better), then the 31,000 names on the Oregon Petition make up ~0.1% of the pool of possible signatories. So what exactly is one-tenth of one percent supposed to prove?
Essentially the only purpose of these lists is to confuse people into thinking there is no consensus on the subject, because 400 and 31,000 sound like large numbers. In reality, even disregarding the many flaws with these lists, these are fractions of a percent of their respective populations.
If you look at the names on the list and the percentages of the groups they are in you will find that the actual people who are experts in the field and who are not getting their money from fossil fuel interests are extremely small.]
Take for instance some of the following names:
From the petition of 60:
Dr. Tim Ball - one of the biggest corporate shills to walk the earth. One of the "Friends of Science" who regularly receive money from the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
Madhav Khandekar - another "Friend of Science" on their "scientific advisory board"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
Ross Mckitrick- an economist, nuff said.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick
From the petition of 17,000 "scientists":
Dr. Earl Aagaard - A Biologist and a proponent of intelligent design. Zero expertise in climatology.
http://biology.southern.edu/gullo.html
Charles H. Antinori, PhD - is in fact an MD - and a SURGEON for that matter - a chop-jockey. NOT A SCIENTIST IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-re...
Those are the two from that petition that I could find, most names could not be found referenced anywhere but the petition in a Google search - which tells me they are not on the faculty pages of any universities, and most likely common schlubs with a bachelors degree in whatnot.
Sources do matter.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1316
People who dispute the AGW theory are usually attacked as shills of the oil industry. But how about the people who do support the AGW theory? Al Gore is the most visible and vocal proponent of the AGW theory. But Al is the Chairman of Generation investment company, a company that invests in sustainable energy technology. http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
If government enacts legislation which forces us to use those technologies, then Al Gore stands to make a profit. So he has a vested interest in promoting AGW theory. BTW he has promoted such things to congress without revealing his financial interest.
And most scientists who work on AGW research receive funding from government. If AGW were to become a non-issue that funding would dry up. So the researchers also have a vested interest in keeping AGW theory alive.
BTW where is the list of scientists who do support the AGW theory?
Former Vice President Al Gore claims the debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming is over and that no serious scientists disagree with the theory. That statement is absolutely false. There are many well qualified scientists who disagree with the AGW theory. At the end of this post are links to four documents refuting AGW, signed by qualified scientists. The number of signatories for each document range from 60 to over 30,000. Among the statements in those documents are the following:
1) CO2 is not a pollutant and is in fact necessary for all life.
2) That the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false.
3) Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.
4) That warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.
Al Gore has been the most vocal and the most visible proponent of the AGW theory. His film “An Inconvenient Truth” has been instrumental in presenting the AGW issue to the people of the world. But the film was recently challenged for accuracy in a UK court. The court found the film to contain nine inaccuracies. http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
Those inaccuracies are in some cases gross exaggerations and in others cases are unsubstantiated by fact. Overall they produce a very misleading impression of disaster associated with global warming.
Following are links to four documents signed by qualified scientists who refute the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treatiesRef http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87...
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
Over 700 scientists signed the Manhattan Declaration refuting AGW
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&...
31,000 scientists signed a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories.
Regulations aimed at curbing CO2 emissions could be very costly and could adversely affect the way we live. Before the EPA starts issuing such regulations it would behoove the agency to be very certain of the facts, the costs and the benefits likely to be derived.
1) The EPA should demand a statement from the pro-AGW side stating their claims and including a list of qualified scientists who agree with the claims.
2) A public debate should be held with representation from both sides of the issue, so that the American people can understand the issues, the proposed rulemaking and the likely costs and benefits.
Greenhouse gas emissions are causing unprecedented global warming and need to be regulated. Foundations like the "Friends of Science" are just front-organizations for the fossil fuel industry. They are paying for tobacco science. They even use the same legal team as asbestos and smoking industry players have previously. This point cannot be stressed enough. We've had two warnings already. All the people that died from Asbestos exposure post-WWII didn't have to; the science was in long before WWII. Yet the industry fomented public uncertainty and many died needlessly. Same with the smoking industry. This time the effects of muddying the waters for industry gain will not be limited to their workers or customers but the planet.