Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

I’m A Bad Influence, According To NPR.



Jim Gooch, a Democratic state representative in Kentucky, may be under a bad influence.

Me.

From Erica Paterson of WFPL, an NPR radio station:
A bill pre-filed in the General Assembly would declare Kentucky a “sanctuary state” for people and companies who don’t want to follow federal environmental laws that will restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The bill is sponsored by state Rep. Jim Gooch, a Democrat from Providence in Western Kentucky. It would block the state Energy and Environment Cabinet from promulgating regulations on carbon dioxide under any federal rule or plan unless either the General Assembly authorizes the action, or the U.S. Congress officially designates carbon dioxide as a criteria pollutant. The measure also declares Kentucky a sanctuary state from the regulations.
So far so good, but then came this revelation a few paragraphs later:
The idea of states creating a sanctuary for carbon dioxide pollution — with identical logic — is one that’s also been floated by conservative West Virginia blogger (and former newspaper columnist) Don Surber in a blog post last month. Though similar sample legislation on fighting the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations has been drafted by the influential conservative group American Legislative Exchange Council, nothing similar is published on the group’s website.
Oh yes, that post: "Declare West Virginia a sanctuary state for carbon dioxide."
Cities across the land can ignore federal immigration laws by declaring themselves sanctuary cities.
West Virginia should do the same and declare itself a sanctuary state for carbon dioxide.
Science after all is on our side.
In West Virginia, we believe in science, including photosynthesis, which basically takes two nutrients -- water and carbon dioxide -- to create the various sugars that are the basis for plant and animal life on this planet. We mine coal, then burn it for electricity, releasing plenty of carbon dioxide from the bowels of the Earth, while providing cheap energy to run our schools and our hospitals.
I am not really sure why opponents of coal hate education and health care.
Now I do not know if Representative Gooch reads my blog. I doubt it. Most Americans don't. But in the off chance he does and I gave him this idea, I ask him -- beg him -- to kindly please keep that information to himself, because I do not want to have to register as a lobbyist in Kentucky. I'm retired. Anything that looks like work, I avoid -- and registering looks too much like work.

By the way, NPR, how do you designate "carbon dioxide as a criteria pollutant"? It is a nutrient.

Oh wait, we are in George Orwell's America. I withdraw my question.

At any rate, if you can defy federal immigration laws, why not regulations on carbon dioxide?

32 comments:

  1. States just need to label CO2 as an "undocumented citizen" and the Fed EPA will lay off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NPR thinks you're a bad influence? Congratulations!

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  3. You needed NPR to tell you you were a bad influence?!? #WhatElseIsNew #ThumpingLeftiesSinceDontEvenAsk

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Co2 were a heat source the lower atmosphere (satellite measurements) would be warming faster than surface measurements (GISS TEMP).
    Instead we have GISS reporting record hot years at the surface stations while RSS and UAH (satellite records) show no warming at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Record hot years are easy when you back-edit the database. For best results, always be sure to hide those edits and refuse to allow others to review your work. Because deniers!

      Delete
  5. Shouldn't NPR and WFPL register as lobbyists, given their blatant propagandizing for the Climate Scam?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Co2 is a coolant, just like H2O (the supposedly dominant "ghg") is a coolant.

    You can check this fact with a Pepsi, a bottled water, and a couple aquarium thermometers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your 2:59 comment is excellent: scientifically literate and key to the debate. This one gives the opposite impression.
      It's true that the temperature in an (unheated) aquarium is lower than the surrounding air. It's also true that putting the same aquarium in a humid room will raise its temperature relative to a dry room. Both are caused by evaporative cooling. Neither is relevant to changes in global temperatures.

      Delete
    2. Is editing the raw GISS dataset without disclosing what you've done and allowing others to review the changes relevant?

      Delete
    3. Is ANYTHING relevant to changes in global temperature? Anyone? Buehller?

      Delete
    4. The Co2 boils off keeping the Pepsi colder longer than the water, given that they both start at the same temp, straight from the fridge.

      Try it first before you criticize.

      Delete
  7. We are in an age where the government enforces laws it likes and lets the rest slide.

    The Feds are likely to descend like a ton of bricks on CO2 sanctuary states.

    Still, cute idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We are in an age where the government enforces laws it likes and lets the rest slide.

    The Feds are likely to descend like a ton of bricks on CO2 sanctuary states.

    Still, cute idea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The layers of the atmosphere are defined by temperature. If you would like to check the troposphere, where weather happens, ends and the tropopause begins at the temperature (extreme cold) where Co2 condenses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >>By the way, NPR, how do you designate "carbon dioxide as a criteria pollutant"? It is a nutrient.

    This is, quite literally, the modern liberal version of "original sin".

    Of course they don't believe in God or traditional sins, but by current enrironmentalist theory, every human being. . .just by dint of being alive. . .creates and exhales carbon dioxide at all times. Since CO2 is destroying the planet (rather than feeding plants), every single human being is guilty of fundamental environmental sin and must "atone" by paying carbon tax, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I am not really sure why opponents of coal hate education and health care."

    It's worse than that, they're straight up racists. What color is coal?

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Apparently, I look away, and you become a bad boy. And by bad, I mean good.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Water is a nutrient, so you can't be drowning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Water is also the most potent greenhouse gas. Several times more significant than CO2. How about calling it a pollutant? It qualifies for the appellation more than CO2, and no one ever drowned from CO2, either. I realize that theoretically speaking one could die from breathing solely carbon dioxide, but as a physician l have never seen it. Nice try. No cigar.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    3. Dose makes the poison. Burning megatons of coal makes the air poisonous. That ain't the smell of freedom in the skies of Beijing. I'd pass on the cigar anyway.

      Delete
    4. And while water vapor is most responsible for the greenhouse effect on Earth, CFCs are more potent.

      Delete
    5. Not even right in Antarctica where water vapor is frozen out and CFCs are supposedly dominate.

      Show me any condition where water vapor is a heating source. Because a vapor based evaporative water heater would be such a billion dollar invention, if only it was physically possible.

      Always the if.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Water vapor doesn't generate heat in the atmosphere, but it does trap some, and does it more efficiently than CO2, but not as well as CFCs. Just like a greenhouse contains heat without generating it. They named that greenhouse effect after it.

      Delete
    8. Heat is molecular motion. Water vapor just like any molecule acquires the ambient motion of it's surrounding environment. WV never goes faster that the surrounding "sea" of nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
      How do I know this? Because if it trapped heat (increased it's speed to faster than the ambient motion of the surrounding air) then it wouldn't condense into cloud.

      Delete
  14. Ya gots yer Instalanche here, Don, and NPR is greatly irritated by you, so you can rest easy as a two-time winner for this post.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Illegal aliens & sanctuary, disregarding enacted law.
    CO2 regs, NOT ENACTED LAW, onerous EPA overreach.
    Big difference.

    ReplyDelete