Fox News finally does a good news report:

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

“This is not an ‘either-or’ moment. It’s a ‘both-and’ moment,” she said. “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” “So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment,” the official said.

What EPA means is that if Congress doesn’t pass the cap-and-trade bill, they will just make CO2 a pollutant and regulate it that way. It’s ridiculous.

  1. gooddebate says:


    The idea that CO2 is a pollutant is based on the idea that too much of it is harmful to the environment by causing a rise in temperature through the greenhouse effect. To have a convincing argument though, you’d have to find at least one piece of evidence that that shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures.

    BTW, if cow farts are the problem then why is the left throwing around the idea that livestock should be regulated?

  2. Mr. Fusion says:


    Fusion. Thanks for showing that you’re great at bullying.

    Bullying? And then you accuse me of ad hominem attacks? What kind of an idiot are you? You were the one that wanted to change the debate. You were the one that created your own strawman challenge. You are the one with all the accusations that have no foundation. And you call me a bully.

    Show me one piece of evidence that shows the greenhouse signature (That would be warming about 10 km above the surface, which should be especially pronounced in the tropics).

    Question. Are you going to fund my research?

    I can tell you right now that is a bullshit quest. The air at that level is extremely low density. That means very little specific heat. Since there is so very little at that height that effects human activity it would be a low priority for any earth scientist. The true indicators are those areas of high specific heat. At the earth’s surface the most obvious is water and ice.

    What a typical right wing nut comment. No substance, just “answer the question, you’re wrong if you can’t.”

  3. Mr. Fusion says:

    #67, nodebate,

    To have a convincing argument though, you’d have to find at least one piece of evidence that that shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures.

    Ice cores.

    Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature.

    This is accepted science. If you want to challenge it YOU provide the evidence.

  4. gooddebate says:

    First, the preliminary ice core data used to support the idea but there is better data now. Closer study of the ice core data now shows that CO2 follows temperature by an average of 800 years.

    Second, if CO2 was driving temperature then we would have to explain why the greenhouse effect doesn’t keep going as CO2 rises. The theory is that it should gain momentum and we’d be in a runaway situation. But something else stops this process from continuing. That means that there is something more powerful than CO2 but none of the models account for this.

    According to the ice core data, climate change (yes, the climate changes) can’t be explained by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Bad Behavior has blocked 12934 access attempts in the last 7 days.