New EPA Rule could end bracket racing

[Larry]

Go For It , protect what you love !

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...posal-prohibit-conversion-vehicles-racecars-0

 

[rckymtn3]

The interesting thing is it’s the IPCC’s scientists who are on a payroll, and dissenting scientists are shouted down and marginalized – even when they present solid evidence contrary to AGW. When you read the IPCC Assessment Report it’s full of scientists admitting to uncertainty and insufficient evidence. But most only read the Executive Summary - the one written for non-scientists (i.e. policy makers). There they suggest taking action only out of an abundance of caution. Politicians latched on to that and began hysterically proclaiming all kinds of doom and gloom nonsense; but at the same time saw an opportunity for a power/money grab.

Meanwhile, Mann’s “Hokey Stick” (misspelling intentional) was proved a hoax; Gore’s “Inconvenient…” movie is rife with errors and misrepresentations; and green agenda malfeasance has been unearthed all over the world. But did that stop politicians? Nope. Because they saw power and dollar signs.

I trust science. I don’t trust scientists on the payroll of the UN who have a global control agenda. Pay them enough and they'll produce any results you want! Want to see what kind of people these are? Check out http://www.green-agenda.com/ and also learn about Agenda 21. Both center on the UN's global control aspirations; and “climate change” is the tool they’ll use to get it - true or not. It’s in their own words - you can’t make this stuff up!

Your definition of "full of scientists admitting to uncertainty and insufficient evidence" and "solid evidence" is a lot different from mine. One result is a data point. A thousand results is something you can actually work with.

The IPCC has no payroll for scientists. Any and all that provided information for the IPCC did so freely, and without payment.

Bleh.

People will work long and hard to come up with this instance, or that instance, and wish to debate it all-the-while skirting the elephant in the room, the actual discussion. If you honestly believe the overwhelming majority of climate scientist are wrong, there's nothing further to discuss.

And please understand, there's scientists, then there's scientists who are in the field of study that apply to a discussion. Asking the opinion of a research scientist that studies the nervous system of bivalves is nice to have if you're discussing bivalves.

As they say. "Never Trust A Skinny Chef."

 

[Marchboom]

The last thing politicians care about is the climate. The first thing they care about is MONEY. This crap from the corrupt EPA (EPA is not accountable to the taxpayers) has nothing to do with making the air cleaner. It has everything to do with making some people a LOT of money...at our expense. The only thing we have to do is determine how serious we are about stopping the EPA. And then act.

FWIW, The EPA idiots complain about race cars polluting the air. Serious race cars are the most energy efficient vehs out there.

 

[funnycarguy]

There are many many articles and youtube videos by Patrick Moore the co-founder of Green Peace. He completely disagrees with the current thinking.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07...cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/

 

[Randy]

Can anyone tell me what is the normal temp? Normal CO2 levels? Normal sea ice? Nope. But the MMGW crowd seems to think they know.

For perspective, here's a great read from "The American Thinker."

With the Obama administration calling for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and the nation in the grip of the most severe economic downturn since 1929, it would seem prudent to re-examine the debate on the causes of global warming before tossing aside entire industries and technologies in favor of untried, and possibly infeasible and unprofitable, "green" technologies.

Wholesale acceptance of human-caused global warming does not, in fact, exist. Indeed, many scientists believe that the highly politicized global warming scare is one of the greatest scams inflicted on the planet. They hold it responsible for enforced political restrictions on legitimate scientific inquiry and dissent and feel that a deliberate attempt has been made to silence prominent atmospheric and climate scientists who offer legitimate criticism.

The Politicization of Global Warming

The politicization of global warming was at play in February 2007, when in response to a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming, syndicated columnist, Ellen Goodman, proclaimed global warming an unequivocal, alarming fact. Ms. Goodman, who holds no scientific credentials, exclaimed that global warming deniers were on par with Holocaust deniers.

A meteorologist with the Weather Channel, Heidi Cullen, subsequently recommended that the Meteorologist Seal of Approval be revoked for any meteorologists skeptical of the human causation of global warming. And although scientists are far from unanimous in their opinions of human responsibility for climate change, Oregon governor, Tel Kulongoski, went so far as to consider firing the state's climatologist for disagreeing with the U.N. conclusions.

Dr. James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who pioneered the research on global warming and politicized the issue with Al Gore's widely debunked Academy Award-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth, has referred to skeptics as being guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature." He has called for mass civil disobedience at the coal-fired capital power plant in Washington, D.C.

Voices of Dissent

Yet, much doubt exists over the IPPC climate change theory. Hansen's own supervisor at NASA claims that Hansen has "gone off the deep end" with insufficient evidence and has violated NASA policies by arguing against the agency's official position on climate.

Recently, a group of Japanese scientists from a government advisory panel publicly announced their disagreement with the IPCC report and declared that climate change is driven by natural cycles related to solar activity and has nothing to do withCO2 emissions. The climate modeling used to support claims of man-made global warming was dubbed "ancient astrology" by a program director for the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology.

Skepticism over human-caused global warming was also raised as recently as February 25th at a U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing hosted by Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe. There, Dr. William Happer, Princeton University professor and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (1990-1993), presented some of his key findings on climate change. One of just four scientists invited to address the forum, Dr. Happer, who supervised all DOE work on climate change, is a climate crisis skeptic. In his presentation, he noted that 650 prominent international scientists, including both former and current IPCC participants, have challenged the claims made by the 52 scientists who authorized the U.N. panel's report. He also called CO2, a compound singled out by the IPCC as a major contributor to global warming, as, in fact, a beneficial compound essential for life on earth.

CO2Levels

In his analysis of CO2 as a factor in climate change, Dr. Happer affirmed that CO2 is not a cause for alarm, as it is neither a pollutant nor a poison. Indeed, Happer argued that CO2 limitations, such as the 450 ppm (parts per million) standard recommended by the IPCC to "stabilize" CO2 in the atmosphere, will actually damage the environment.

According to Dr. Happer, the current warming period (which actually ended 10 years ago) began in 1800 following the close of the little ice age (1300-1650 AD), which was preceded by a Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD). Happer noted that the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were curiously omitted from the IPCC report and that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today. Clearly at that point in time, global warming had nothing to do with the burning of fossils fuels. Also, Dr. Happer explained that several warmings have existed over the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, thus confirming that climate change has occurred multiple times absent mankind's actions.

Furthermore, plants and our primitive ancestors evolved when atmospheric CO2was 1000 ppm. This compares to our current level of 380 ppm. Dr. Happer reported that higher levels of CO2 benefit the environment because they result in higher crop yield and more drought-tolerant plants. He cited a modern day example: greenhouse operations that are typically maintained at 1000 ppm. In truth, Happer said we are actually in a CO2 famine as most of the earth's CO2levels throughout the planet's history have been at least 1000 ppm or higher. At these points in time, "the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it's baffling to me that we're so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started," he said.


Dr. Happer also cited examinations of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as further evidence of his claims. From that data, past temperatures and concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined. The findings indicate that first temperatures rose and about 800 years later, CO2 levels rose from the CO2 released from warmer oceans. This finding is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of global warming advocates who believe that higher levels of CO2 cause warmer temperatures.

The Fallacy of Scientific Consensus


Dr. Happer, who ironically was fired by Al Gore for disagreeing with his views on climate issues, cautioned the Senate committee members about the dangers of creating a crisis mentality and of demanding or aiming for consensus among scientists on climate theory. He observed that scientific breakthroughs and discoveries have never been determined by consensus, quite the contrary. As an example, he cited the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia when the majority of physicians wrongly believed in a bleeding cure for the disease. A few contrarians noticed that yellow fever victims were more likely to survive by foregoing these ministrations but were summarily ignored. Today, global warming proponents point to the rise in the incidence of malaria and yellow fever as evidence of the ill effects of rising temperatures. However, according to Dr. Happer and other scientists, this phenomenon has more to do with controlling mosquitoes than controlling temperatures.

The late Michael Crichton had this to say about scientific consensus, "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The great scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus."

Dr. Happer maintains that the current climate crisis is a political creation that does not enjoy consensus but has the backing of the media, influential politicians, certain scientific societies and well-funded non-profit organizations. He cautions that climate warming dogma, absent critical analysis and the presentation of contrary data, is being taught in our schools along with the widespread viewing of the seriously flawed film The Inconvenient Truth.

Impact on Our Energy Supplies

Contrary to what the media and U.N. have portrayed, no evidence exists that today's climate changes differ qualitatively from in the past. In fact, not global warming but a slight cooling has taken place over the past 10 years which clearly negates the predictions of the IPCC models. As Happer concludes, climate alarmism is unrealistic and more a function of politics than scientific truths. His belief that climate change is driven by natural cycles rather than human activity is gaining currency against the hysteria of global warming doomsayers who want to institute ill-advised energy use and taxation programs that will alter our way of life and harm our economy unnecessarily.

Climate change alarmists continue to rail against our use of the conventional sources of energy that have contributed to our economy prosperity. They have amassed significant support in Washington for "cap and trade" taxation schemes and prohibitions on drilling and energy exploration. The United States should not yield to political pressure and penalize energy use in an effort to garner new taxes. Common sense and good science should rule the day and politicians should not let more than 2,340 global warming lobbyists in Washington, clamoring for "cap and trade" regulation, allow us to seriously drag down our already flailing economy. Our economic health and growth should not be sacrificed for an unproven theory that is fast loosing support from the scientific community.

Given the present administration's call for legislation to curb greenhouse gas emission allegedly in the service of climate control, the testimony of scientists like Dr. Happer warrants serious consideration.

We are being duped.

Here's the link to the article. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/03/the_farce_of_global_warming.html

 

[Randy]

Here's a more recent article:

New Reports: There Is No Global Warming.

• 
  
• The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.
  
  They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”
  
  Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?
  
  Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.
  
  But how much has the world really warmed?
  
  It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).
  
  To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.
  
  But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
  
  According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
  
  That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.
  
  So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?
  
  Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.
  
  According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
  
• 
  
• 
  Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
  
  The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!
  
  As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.
  
  Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.
  
  This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.
  
  In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.Seven years from now.”
  
  Al Gore could not have been more wrong.
  
  However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.
  
  For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
  
  Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.
  
  The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”
  
  Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.
  
  A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .
  
  • Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”
  • Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.
  • Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).
  
  It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.
  
  Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going?

Link to article is here. http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

But the MMGW slurpers would have the US sign our economy over to the UN, and sign our rights away as well.

 

[Gordon]

Many good & valid points made here, and not surprisingly this thread is working it's way towards being moved to the politics section. I'm not going to dig up more articles or links because, lets face it, the internet has made it so people can find anything they're looking for online, no matter how far-fetched it may be. That doesn't mean it's accurate. Instead, I'm going to ask everyone this one, simple question. And no, it has nothing to do - directly anyway - with the original post. I've asked it in the past (not here) and the result is ALWAYS the same, so I'm curious to see what kind of feedback I get here.

Forget manipulated statistics and media driven bias for a second or two and attempt to name one, just one, federally managed program that is operating efficiently and/or effectively? This isn't a party based question, and it isn't intended to put one party (or administration) above or below another - it's a general question aimed at our federal government. Good luck.

And once you've reached the conclusion that the above question will almost certainly lead you too, how can you trust ANYTHING the federal government is trying to sell you? No, it's time we fix ourselves and quit asking (or expecting) the feds to do it for us.

BTW, for the record you can put me in the "global warming is most certainly a farce" category.

 

[Rajunz]

The Science is Settled:

 

[mike]

I don't see how anybody, on any side of the political spectrum, can see this as anything but catastrophic for our sport/hobby.

 

[parrotwhisperer]

This "policy" was made by the EPA. It was not made in the Congress. Congress gave the EPA guidelines and from there the EPA does as it pleases with a board of so called expects making policy. SEMA was not expecting this and admits they missed it. SEMA gives excuses but they are just that - excuses. SEMA missed it. No one else noticed it either. By law the EPA has to give a time period for responses on policy changes. They did so and the time period passed before SEMA even noticed what the policy said. So the EPA does not have to listen to or consider any responses or complaints made now. SEMA said in a press release earlier this week we they do not know/see how the EPA can/will enforce the policy. The EPA followed with their own press release saying the policy means exactly what it says. That is what they intended and, yes, they do intent to enforce it. Each of you needs to telephone your Congressman and Senators and strongly state your position. At this point it is about all we can do but do not expect much. Even if Congress acts they are fighting Obama and the Congress's actions will not necessarily mean a lot. Obama and the EPA played by the rules in pulling this fast one. Obama and the EPA do not have to back down regardless of what the Congress does. Technically we are screwed.

 

[Rajunz]

Further clarification..
http://www.hotrod.com/news/1602-the...=10153244039107540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539

 

[Mr. Fix It]

The last thing politicians care about is the climate. The first thing they care about is MONEY. This crap from the corrupt EPA (EPA is not accountable to the taxpayers) has nothing to do with making the air cleaner. It has everything to do with making some people a LOT of money...at our expense. The only thing we have to do is determine how serious we are about stopping the EPA. And then act.

.

No truer words have been spoken. It simply is about the money. Ever wondered where those million, perhaps billions of dollars in fines go when the EPA snags someone? One other thing, I never understood carbon credits and the ability to swap them or sell them. Must be more money there too.

 

[Epper]

Ya gotta figure, with this current regime in the Whitehouse writing hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations over the last 7 years - eventually they are going to reach out and touch all of us in some way. This one really sucks.
http://thehill.com/regulation/admin...record-year-for-federal-regulation-group-says

Dale

 

[John]

Hit the SEMA link and sign the petition.