Slashdot Mirror

Honestly, I feel I have to chime in here.

Snow,
Unless I misunderstand your stance here, you feel that complex laws are not only needed, but unavoidable.
You also seem to be arguing that it is the responsibility of the citizen to actively understand the laws that relate to actions they may choose to take.

On the surface, I agree with both of these assertions.

You have been very good at giving examples of laws which support your arguments.
For example, you have referenced Basic Traffic law, manslaughter, and hunting.

However, your choices for example themselves are flawed.

All of these are easily read, understood, and (generally speaking) follow commonly accepted behavior patterns.
These are areas of law where an average person has at least a chance to understand the what and the why that the law is meant to address, and most of these laws specify in (fairly simple terms) exactly what actions are and are not allowed.

I believe that I have found an extreme enough example (currently on the books, and affecting anyone who owes money to the state of ohio) to make sjames' point.

Please go look at This Link. (I will copy the pertinent sentence below, but for readability, it will be below my comment. )

Now, can you explain what that sentence means? I have a vague idea, but I am fairly confident that no lawyer would be willing to bet on his ability to accurately summarize that wall of text.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of pages of law that look almost exactly like this. Tax code in the USA is almost entirely this type of language, but the criminal code in many places is equally guilty.

The federal penal code is an excellent example. There are enough regulatory laws on the books that just about everyone has broken at least a few of them.
The primary issue isn't that people aren't aware of these laws, it's that you probably can't understand them.
Even the example i gave above has several references to other laws and documents.
""under section 118.19 of the Revised Code""
""under Section 6 of Article XIII and Section 13 of Article XVIII, Ohio Constitution""

So how many pages of law does this sentence actually reference?


Additionally, as sjames stated below, there are many laws on the books that aren't actively enforced.
These aren't just obscure laws about outdated, silly things like eating oranges in hotel rooms.
Many of them are regulatory requirements for documentation or storage requirements, with mandatory sentences.

Often, these lesser known, normally unenforced laws are used as an alternative method for "punishing criminals" who were acquitted of other crimes (or got on the wrong side of a law enforcement officer).

For example, without a hazmat placard and a Commercial drivers license you cannot transport more than 1000 lbs of liquid fuel (including the weight of the tank it is stored in).
This means that any of the larger RV camper trailers with 150gallon tanks are technically illegal to drive across state lines!
NOTE: I confirmed this limit with 3 law enforcement officers and the local fire department dispatch, but not a single one of them could cite the reference number for the law, only that it was a federal regulation. I managed to narrow it down to an epa regulation from 1981 but the search on http://nepis.epa.gov/ does not appear to work correctly.


So, if you get pulled over for a "seatbelt check" or "random traffic stop", and the officer decides he doesn't like you, you may find yourself being charged with Illegal transport of hazardous materials.

Good luck finding these laws ahead of time, even knowing about this one, I still couldn't locate it!

Nuclear testing is done far away from where people live or intend to live.

Myth. Wrong. The primary US nuclear testing facilities (NTS) were (are) located 65 miles from Las Vegas.

Also it is contained underground most of the time, *that* is why the radiation from testing has not been a big problem.

Myth: Still wrong. here's a graph of aboveground test yields. Here is data that breaks out aboveground tests from belowground tests. If you're too lazy to read, then I'll just tell you: The vast majority of tests prior to 1962 were aboveground, and there were a shitload of them.

At least half of the casualties of the bombing of Hiroshima were from the effects of radiation long after the war ended

Yes, of course, we dropped a nuclear weapon on them! Good grief, it's like shooting a rabbit for dinner and then complaining because you found a hole in it! How many soldiers and civilians died during and after the war because they had only one lung, or spinal injuries, or brain damage, or whatever? Get this through your head: When you fire off a weapon at someone and you don't miss, you're going to hurt them. They may die immediately, they may be severely injured and die some amount of time later, or they may linger on, or they may heal. That's what weapons do. That's the point!

What you're talking about here isn't about "fallout", it's a primary weapons effect. You haven't just moved the goalposts, you changed fields entirely here. I am perfectly ready to stipulate that if you drop a nuke on someone, there will be deleterious effects. lol!

But I'm the "cluetard", whatever.

No, I think that was far too kind, actually. You're clearly an idiot.

The rest of your post is either equally ignorant or sociophathic(sic), so I won't bother to continue.

lol. Yeah, well, given your success rate - zero - maybe it's time to hang up your debating hat anyway. Calling me ignorant for pushing the facts in your face is pretty funny too. But you get on with your bad self. On the Internet, you're a superhero. A legend in your own lunchtime.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/response-volume3.pdf and http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf

From the English Wikipedia:

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]"

[7] is http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
[8] is http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html

So, if they say that 7-10% causes already unconsciousness in a few minutes (at the upper echelon of 10%), you can imagine what a bit more than that must do. It's just like anesthetics. Up to a certain ratio, you only feel numbness and mild euphoria; at some percentage you fall unconscious; a little bit more than that and you reach induced coma; a little bit more and you stop breathing or your heart stops beating (depends on the drug).

Just like with anything -- water, oxygen, sugar, etc. -- the dose and circumstances determine what is a poison and what not.

Secondly, CO2 has never been called a "pollutant" in the sense these "scientists" want to portray

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252

(OTOH, studies have shown that a good portion of the atmosphere's CO2 - and about 1/3 of the methane - comes from termites. So try to keep the little critters out of your local wooden artifacts, OK? ;-)

Actually, studies have shown that 0.1-1.5% of methane comes from termites (depending on the paper). And those meat factories that all the vegetarians like to blame do about 3%.

The problem with disqualifying someone with a Geology background is that some of strongest arguments that climate change is man-made are inferred from the geologic record: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

It is actually an 8 year 80,000 mile warranty for certain emission related parts while others are covered by a 2 year 24,000 mile warranty. For reference see this document from the EPA that covers the regulation.

The EPA exists to protect businesses from lawsuits.

No. Environmental services companies exist to protect businesses from lawsuits caused by EPA noncompliance. In addition, the EPA is yet another underfunded government regulatory agency, so they don't have the resources to patrol the discharges of every industrial and commercial company in the area (but they did sell them the permit, if they have one).

The legal limit just protects them from the EPA. If someone suffered harm from the discharge, the harmed could sue. I would expect a reasonable judge would get the company for all they're worth. Most people avoid doing things that would be obviously bad for them so people swimming in concentrated industrial discharge are few or already earned a darwin award.

So if libertarians had their way, Gamber's ruin would cause a greater imbalance in the distribution of wealth: the people with fewer resources would not have the government (EPA) to protect them, and the people with more resources could buy people that can fix their problems.

Asbestos isn't really a problem when submerged. Its risks come due to tiny particles becoming airborne and getting stuck in the lung where they're an irritant. Underwater, it just clumps, and fish don't have lungs to irritate.

In fact, the standard protocol when dealing with asbestos (removal, etc). is to cover it with water. The EPA also had no problem with asbestos-filled subway cars into artificial reefs

The turbines are produced by Halliburton — I've seen the red Halliburton truck dragging one up Bottle Rock Rd. on a massive flatbed.

Sorry but no. Most of the Geysers turbines were manufactured by Toshiba Corp (sorry, PDF), with the exception of 2 turbines which were manufactured by GE (these may be retired now). New or replacement turbines are definitely competitively bid, since my company bids on them. Halliburton doesn't make steam turbines. If indeed you have seen Halliburton at the geysers, they must have been a transportation contractor or something like that.

As for the "superfund site", I can't find anything on this that is less than 15 years old. And this report from 1983 says there is nothing hazardous at the Geysers. I'll agree it is a very old report and standards have changed since then, but the only other EPA document available is in 1995- they seem to have capped some wells that had the potential of a hydrogen sulfide explosion. Hardly the "drums full of toxic chemicals" that you are implying.

The official EPA mileage tests are done at 70F (I think) with the engine warmed up.

You can read the full standards (all 180 pages) at http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf

There was a recent EPA report that found water was contaminated by fracking. Yes, it's just one report, but it has only been a recent issue* so we will have to see as more studies are done. I won't claim fracking needs to be stopped immediately, but I'm not about to support the practice without more time for research.

*So far as I am aware, they only relatively recently started fracking horizontally, the "for decades" claim people love to use seems misleading.

Ask where the bacteria come from to begin with.

Most people dont know what happens to our waste once we flush the toilet.

Hint - EPA Title 40 Section 503 - Land application of Sewage Sludge.
Hint #2 - if it doesnt say USDA Certified Organic on label, the winning bet is human sewage was part of production cycle.

www.sludgefacts.org
www.sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com
www.deadlydeciet.com
Big problem in PA
Big problem in CA
Big problem in VA

ROUNDUP, a carcinogenic herbicide.

Citation needed. The EPA would disagree with you: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf

ends up on *your* dinner table with significant levels of herbicide residues in it.

Do you even know what an herbicide is? Do you have any idea how much herbicide you eat that is naturally produced by plants? Just because it's an herbicide does not mean it's toxic to animals. Also, you say "residues". Are you saying there is glyphosate on your food? Or, like, some calcium deposits from the water mixture used to spray it? That's a "residue", right? And what is a "significant level"? I assume you can't mean statistically significant to cause harm, because that would be a LOT of glyphosate. Could you please elaborate here and cite your sources?

Please stop assuming everything you read on the Internet is true, especially from sites already biased to your viewpoint.

There's this 1987 EPA report. And there's this report saying fracking likely caused ground water contamination in Wyoming. And then there are the storage ponds that leak. And what about Dimmock, PA? Industry claims that there are no documented instances of groundwater pollution from fracking are a bit like cigarette companies claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer in the 1950s and 1960s.

Up until a week or so ago, you'd be right.

However, the EPA has released a draft report of a study that says otherwise.

Expect most news sources to continue to spout "the debate over fracking is likely to continue" B.S. until there is high test coming out of your ice maker. We already saw this go down with global warming: The energy companies deny everything and make the problem as bad as they can until there is irrefutable proof that the problem exists.

Once the studies are done and the problem is confirmed to exist, they continue to make it worse (to their profit) while arguing that there is no proof that the problem is caused by them.

The next step, once there is evidence that they are at fault, is to say that cleaning up after themselves is impossible. This will take a third round of studies to prove that cleanup is possible.

If the offending parties face any punishment, it will be a fine that is insignificant next to the profits they've made by pissing in the community pool.

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf

Alternative explanations were carefully considered to explain individual sets of data. However, when considered
together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by
hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA disagrees with you.

According to the EPA, they're the third largest source -- http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html . And, that's primarily from old landfills that predated modern regulations requiring modern landfills to capture methane. Since today's garbage isn't going into those old landfills, it's not affecting that amount.

Not a bad idea but there are opponents to that idea who claim that a pay per bag (or less common pay per weight) disposal charges, while increasing recycling, will also lead to increased illegal dumping. Other opposition to pay per bag comes from large families, who believe that they are being punished more than small ones because they will have more bags, etc. Some disposal companies aren't particularly excited by pay per bag because it encourages people to try to shove everything they can in to the one bag, resulting in overloaded bags that split open and make a mess if you just look at them wrong. Still though, there are studies that indicate that, for the most part, these are just fear mongering and with the right diligence and enforcement of penalties for illegal diversion, pay per bag systems do seem to work... http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/top8.htm

Organics in landfills produce methane, which is more potent than carbon dioxide. Also, there's no chance to reclaim the nutrients, as pretty much everything in a landfill ends up toxic.

As for the jobs claim, it might be silly, or not. The soil is sold, so there might be some relative value to those jobs compared to landfill jobs. And there are other positive externalities, such as reduced need for landfill space (which is a different ongoing cost than labor).

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm

Not true; they can mess with the disinfecting chemicals.

Most of the disinfection chemicals do exactly that: disinfect. They have very little effect on taste or odor problems. Chemicals such as powdered activated carbon or potassium permanganate can be added to try to combat undesirable tastes, odors, and colors in the water, but they're costly and not terribly effective. Since controlling taste, odor, and color are all secondary standards according to the EPA, water treatment processes don't typically spend too much money trying to perfect the taste of their water. As I said, this isn't new; GGP is just used to the flavor of bottled water now.

Philadelphia, for instance, adds enough chlorine that the tap water burns your throat going down.

I very much doubt it. The EPA regulates chlorine residuals in drinking water. Adding too much chlorine would be expensive and serve little useful purpose in addition to making the water unpalatable; additionally, if free chlorine is used, it can create harmful disinfection by-products. 2-4 PPM chlorine is typical for a disinfection residual. A quick internet search didn't provide any information about high levels of chlorine in Philadelphia's drinking water.

Other municipalities use chloramines rather than straight chlorine, which produces a different taste.

Free chlorine tastes like chlorine; water treated with chloramines doesn't taste like chlorine. I am well familiar with this fact. However, the quality of water produced by one municipality wouldn't vary based on chlorination/chloramination unless it switched from one to the other, and municipalities don't change their treatment process that often. The taste of water between different municipalities will vary, but that's to be expected.

Not true; they can mess with the disinfecting chemicals.

Most of the disinfection chemicals do exactly that: disinfect. They have very little effect on taste or odor problems. Chemicals such as powdered activated carbon or potassium permanganate can be added to try to combat undesirable tastes, odors, and colors in the water, but they're costly and not terribly effective. Since controlling taste, odor, and color are all secondary standards according to the EPA, water treatment processes don't typically spend too much money trying to perfect the taste of their water. As I said, this isn't new; GGP is just used to the flavor of bottled water now.

Philadelphia, for instance, adds enough chlorine that the tap water burns your throat going down.

I very much doubt it. The EPA regulates chlorine residuals in drinking water. Adding too much chlorine would be expensive and serve little useful purpose in addition to making the water unpalatable; additionally, if free chlorine is used, it can create harmful disinfection by-products. 2-4 PPM chlorine is typical for a disinfection residual. A quick internet search didn't provide any information about high levels of chlorine in Philadelphia's drinking water.

Other municipalities use chloramines rather than straight chlorine, which produces a different taste.

Free chlorine tastes like chlorine; water treated with chloramines doesn't taste like chlorine. I am well familiar with this fact. However, the quality of water produced by one municipality wouldn't vary based on chlorination/chloramination unless it switched from one to the other, and municipalities don't change their treatment process that often. The taste of water between different municipalities will vary, but that's to be expected.

http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/work2.html

Really? The EPA budget jumped to 10B in 2010 (stimulus), and dropped back down to 8.6B in 2011. In 1988, it was $5B. In inflation-adjusted dollars, it's at best flat since 1988, and there were many more dip years than 2010 years.

You know at first I didn't think that the number you gave was accurate-thought it was too low... Then I actually did some research into it:
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/wot/pdfs/book_waterontap_full.pdf
"The national average cost of water is $2.00 per. 1000 gallons."
So $0.002 / gallon.
Assuming 16 glasses of water / gallon (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042500884) we get:
$0.000125 / glass of water.

The EPA has been all but dismantled by the last few administrations.
Are you serious? I about choked when I read your post. If anything, the EPA has only INCREASED it's power over the last 30 years. Here, look for yourself at the budget numbers. Note, this doesn't even consider the increased regulatory power they have by issuing new rules, edicts, etc.

Methinks you are a little too mired in the day to day of politics to notice but the EPA has been growing and getting more powerful over the last 3 decades. Like all of government.....

Good explanation! I feel though that it should be noted that his neighbors reported Pozsgai because THEIR PROPERTIES WERE FLOODING as a result of him filling in the wetlands: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact15.html

"Dead fuel is free energy; its that simple." It's not FREE. Not even remotely. So are you telling me the environmental destruction from the Alberta Tar Sands is FREE? http://s.ngm.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/img/candian-oil-sands-615.jpg. Are you saying that the cancer causing elements that are spewed into the air from fossil fuels are FREE? http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html. Your misnomer is one of the reasons we are in this situation. And there are a thousand other articles and studies that say that fossil fuels are harmful to you and me. If you want me to site them I will.

It's great that you made your argument on your opinion. But let me give you some information about alternative energy that is from reputable sources. From MSNBC (and others...FYI from a study funded by Google): "Clean, accessible, reliable and renewable energy equivalent to 10 times the installed capacity of coal power plants in the U.S....What's more, the energy can be tapped with existing technology, according to the researchers. That's largely due the recent development of drilling techniques that make methods such as enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) possible." TEN TIMES what we get from coal on an annual basis without the mining destruction nor the carcinogens in the air. THAT IS FUCKING FREE ENERGY. http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/27/8509629-energy-from-hot-rocks-abounds?chromedomain=cosmiclog. Or CNET if you prefer: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20125837-54/geothermal-potential-reaches-coast-to-coast/

Or maybe you'd like to hear the opine of a nobel prize laureate in economics about the economic reality of solar power? Is there a Moore's Law to solar power? Actually there probably is, but if the fossil fuel industry has it's way it will probably be stymied....oh wait it already has. " In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year."--AND--"Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html?_r=1&hp.

So the question remains smarty are you with us or against us? Please give any sources that are not your opinion and actually sited to a reference to the contrary.

Thanks.

Not to mention its potential impact on local groundwater:

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/

Even assuming the methane originates from a "carbon neutral" source (such as grass), most animal feed lots produce a large amount of excess methane which increases the effect of global warming. That is why preexisting farms, such as this one in Brazil, are eligible to receive "carbon credits" by capturing the methane from their animal waste and burning it before returning it to the atmosphere. (As a side effect, this "methane capture" system produces a significant amount of electrical power, it nearly eliminates the risk of environmental pollution due to animal waste run-off, the "digested" animal waste can be used as high-quality and environmentally-friendly fertilizer, and the rancid stench that usually permeates and surrounds an animal feed lot is greatly reduced. The system is also financially solvent and according to the workers at Preto farm, it actually reduces the amount of labor required to run the farm.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fFIg5WLnm0

Many food types including fish contain mercury. Are you saying that eating fish is not safe?

Yep, eating fish (especially from some inland lakes) on a daily basis is discouraged for that very reason.
Here's a link.

why would someone buy a 20yo house instead of a 100yo house? Hmm...lets think on that a sec...

Don't forget the best part, asbestos !

From EPA ...

EPA says it is Blue and has a smell http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/sc_fact.html "Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor."

EPA ALSO says it is colorless and odorless. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/air/pd-l/ozone.htm "Ozone is an odorless, colorless gas composed of three atoms of oxygen. "

--
Seems that it is and isn't odorless. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat of Chemistry ;)

From EPA ...

EPA says it is Blue and has a smell http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/sc_fact.html "Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor."

EPA ALSO says it is colorless and odorless. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/air/pd-l/ozone.htm "Ozone is an odorless, colorless gas composed of three atoms of oxygen. "

--
Seems that it is and isn't odorless. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat of Chemistry ;)

Great, an Anonymous Coward who claims to "work in the water industry". Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, but many water districts are switching to chloramines because of DBPs like Trihalomethane, and because the EPA now regulates them and suggests using chloramine instead. It's right on their website:

Chloramine can help reduce some disinfection byproducts, such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids

http://www.epa.gov/dclead/disinfection.htm

And you expect us to believe that chlorine "evaporates" from underground pipe distribution networks? Bullshit.

This isn't about disinfecting water in the pipes. It's about disinfecting everything within 100 ft of any city water supply. This is totally obvious cronyist bullshit. Big business either privatizes the water systems or pays off the captured regulatory agencies to mandate ridiculous untested long-lived poisons (that just so happen to also be agricultural run-off) be added to the water supply for dubious "health" reasons. As we head into depression and 100-year droughts, if you try to grow a garden you'll be forced to disinfect your entire yard with water contaminated by overpriced agricultural waste that is impossible to economically remove. Meanwhile the price of water can go up right along with the 100% rise in the price of food over the past decade and those who profit from it will be the now-privatized water agencies, big-agribusiness and chemical producers at the expense of everyone else. All the while you're getting the same dose of carcinogens that you were getting from the previous round of "helpfully" government-mandated disinfectants.

This country is going straight down the fucking tubes and if you really get a government paycheck you would be smart to use it to buy gold and silver rather than anonymously trolling /. with these transparent lies. No one believes any of it any more.

I agree that this probably won't create a significant amount of ozone. However, regarding ozone not being a problem in the lower atmosphere, that's not what I've read. I've read the ozone can be found in harmful levels anywhere that smog is a problem (e.g California, New England, DC):

http://www.epa.gov/region1/airquality/
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/23c.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/report-finds-that-washington-baltimore-among-smoggiest-cities-in-the-country/2011/09/21/gIQAYqv8kK_story.html

If you Google it, you can probably find a bunch more.

Go check out the EPA's page of Air Pollutants. You won't find CO2 listed. http://epa.gov/air/airpollutants.html

Yessir, I live in Newark, NJ and I am glad that they cleaned up the Passaic River and got rid of all of those other Superfund sites in the Garden State.

BRB, going for a swim with the three-eyed fishes.

It's about time the EPA had its funding cut. There's nine billion that few would miss.

Why not cut the Department of Defense or the the FAA instead? I suggest this because they have just as much to do with the Fish and Wildlife Service as the EPA.

In case I am being too subtle, the FWS is not part of the EPA. In fact the service predates the EPA by about 100 years.

It's about time the EPA had its funding cut. There's nine billion that few would miss.

BTW - CO2 is just one part of the input to the system. Methane and N2O have been and continue to rise and have an significant effect as greenhouse gases.

Details here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf
And this is an interesting read: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warnin
 

Two feet per a century is one of the more conservative estimates http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrmaps_probability.html. Even one foot by 2050 could be potentially devastating. 3 feet in a hundred years (which is not at an extreme estimate) will be economically devastating. Areas like Tuvalu are already running into problems.

The sad thing about the whole green movement is how it is so directed at private individuals, who are supposed to massively inconvenience themselves by buying green cars and bicycling and recycling and buying green clothes and green food and using CFL's (god those are ugly) and use all of there disposable income to help Mother Earth! But in reality it's the corporations who are telling us we should be green, while corporations are responsible for 95% of all carbon emissions. Yes, 95%. If every person in the world stopped using their car, it would make virtually no difference to carbon emissions. The biggest single source is industry and energy generation, which accounts for the lions share.

This is true world wide and in developed nations (US http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html).
However in developing nations industry is even worse.

Reminds me of this guy and his water+naptha stuff
http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinventions/a/water_fuel.htm
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600r980035.pdf

I'm not going make a statement one way or the other on fudged data. If his actions were clearly inappropriate there are plenty of scientific bodies whose only reason for existence is managing scientific professional integrity. If he has done something truly inappropriate, he will be dealt with.

What I will respond to is THE VAST body of work pointing to dramatic changes in global climate. I ask those with an ideological position to defend, to stop for just a moment look at the remarkable amount of indisputable evidence that is now available. Its positively mind numbing.

Your comment about temperature is both uninformed and ludicrous. Scientists have taken wood samples from redwoods and bristlecone pines and with that information they can give you precise climatic information for specific areas including annual rainfall, temperature, and occurrence of catastrophic events. By analyzing human dwelling all over the world we can accurately determine climate through fauna and flora for those regions, spores, seeds and pollen. They tell us precisely what grew, and tell what the climatic conditions were there and when. We have antarctic ice cores with trapped atmospheric samples, we have ocean cores with samples of everything from diatoms to volcanic ash, we have fossils and minerals with trapped air and water going back millions of years, we have rock cores which elegantly give us clear records of temperature over centuries. The body of evidence is overwhelming and rich. Thousands of different sources from hundred of different fields of study, all forming a clear and cohesive picture. Whatever you've been reading, its inaccurate, incomplete, and puts ideology before simple fact and truth. You can absolutely criticize one or two individuals for their poor performance, but that doesn't even begin to indict the work of tens of thousands of scientist all over the world who work in vastly different fields but have all come to the same inescapable conclusion.

The models and theories make specific predictions. Many of those predictions have come to pass. Here are just a few recent facts which are completely incontestable:

• The ice caps are melting: If you haven't read about the disappearing artic ice cap in summer try this source. While some would applaud the economic benefit of opening a new shipping lane, the loss of extinction of many vital species including the loss of arctic krill would produce a devastating crash in global fish stocks and the probable extinction of a variety of whales, seals, penguins, and polar bears.
• Glaciers everywhere are vanishing: Look here for a synopsis. The impact of this is that nearly half the worlds population uses glacial melt for drinking water and for agriculture. When they melt the economic cost (not to mention the cost in human suffering or destabilized governments) will be profound.
• The oceans are changing: Rising sea levels, dropping salinity, increased acidity due to CO2, increasing temperature, and changing currents are all occurring as we speak, and all predictable results of global climate change. The impacts will grow and be devastating. Some include loss of coastal land and cities, weather changes, crash in vital fish populations, crash in all marine life, The ocean are the engine behind climate. Disturbing its integrity has far reaching impact. Already, low lying islands in Polynesia are disappearing and their inhabitants are being displaced.
• Animal are migrating away from the heat: Research is now showing us how climate change is impacting animal migration and we are only now beginning to under

The alternative hypothesis is the null hypothesis - global warming and global cooling and even global temperature stability are natural phenomena... Or do you deny that climate ever changed before humans came along? :)

No, I realize there is natural climate change. But the sudden change in CO2 concentration and temperature over the last few decades do not fit the pattern of change in the last several hundred thousand years. We're living in a climate outlier unprecedented to homo sapiens.

Diesels are generally pretty good, but using raw miles per gallon to compare diesel to non-diesel is slightly off, since they're gallons of different stuff. In particular, a gallon of diesel and a gallon of petrol aren't the same in terms of hydrocarbon content or CO2 emissions: diesel is more carbon-dense, releasing 22.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned, versus 19.4 for petrol.

Admittedly, diesels generally have better fuel efficiency by more than that difference: for a diesel to come out ahead of a 35 mpg Civic, it needs to get over 40 mpg, which many do. However, this "mid 40s" on the Cruze doesn't sound like a huge win; that's comparable to high 30s for a gasoline car, which is only mildly better than a Civic, and worse than a hybrid. Now, 65 mpg, that's something.

The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast. They even recommended that all clothing that came in contact with any of the CFL be destroyed. I assumed this also meant the wall-to-wall carpeting in my son's bedroom where he plays.

You are a liar, an idiot, or both. That you are modded up shows how willing people are to moderate their ideology rather than facts.

Here are the EPA instructions for cleaning up after a broken CFL. Please show me where it says to dispose of clothing, and if you claim a historical version please provide a link to a cached version of that page.

I probably got that information here: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/