Carbon dioxide emissions; defers USEPA enforcement of any standards or cap and trade provisions. (HB1398)

Citizens beware of this new taxpayer fund-wasting action! It could deflect our state Attorney General from his important work which includes consumer protection (ID theft is a priority), anti-corruption investigations, and criminal prosecutions such as narcotics traffickers and gangs.
The Mad Hatter Tea Party people are targeting the EPA, one of the best consumer protection agencies (think asthma, austism, cancer protection)we have. And polluting businesses have to be brought in line with current technologies that reduce or eliminate harmful byproducts from their operations. That is just the cost of doing busimess, and besides I think shareholders are plenty rich, and some would even support their companies doing the right thing for public health for a change.
The Virginia AG should be investigating those corporate polluters that violate existing laws and endanger all of us.

Well this bill has really nothing to do with asthma, autism, greedy rich shareholders or evil "Tea Party people." The bill is in response to the EPA deciding it can go ahead and force job-killing CO2 caps on Virginia even after such measures were roundly rejected by both Congress and the American public last year as more and more evidence comes to light about the likelihood (or lack thereof) of CO2 being the significant anthropogenic cause of a severe global warming trend, especially given the observed cooling in recent years as CO2 levels continue to climb.

With or without passage of this bill, the EPA will ultimately have to prove in court that it has the authority to act on its own under the Clean Air Act by adequately proving that current levels of CO2 emissions are proven to be an "air pollutant" affecting human health. Personally I can't WAIT for the evidence (including the true outcomes of global warming models and predicitions) to come under the scrutiny of the law instead of just the media. But in the meantime what this bill does is delay any rash actions by the state that would hurt Virginia's blue-collar workers and raise energy costs before these points regarding the EPA's authority are decided in court.

more and more evidence comes to light about the likelihood (or lack thereof) of CO2 being the significant anthropogenic cause of a severe global warming trend

That's the opposite of the truth. Every single scientific body of national or international standing agrees that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, and there has been no published papers that have demonstrated anything to the contrary for many years.

especially given the observed cooling in recent years as CO2 levels continue to climb

Again, the opposite of the truth—temperatures are climbing ceaselessly, as they have for decades now. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Waldo Im not for polluting of any kind but this is getting nuts. CO2 is the basis of life. WE ARE CARBO BASED LIFE FORMS. Plants absorb CO2 and exhaul Oxygen. Over 700 scientist during senate hearings dissent over Man made global warming. Check out jesse venturas conspiracy theory on global warming. Has alot of facts and believed global warming. follow the money and power. carbon taxes, carbon rationing system, surftem.

Look up Climate-gate. Also want to point out that that Im expected to believe that the same who cant tell me with any great accurancy what the temp will be next month is going to tell me what temp it will be 20-50-100 years from now. This same group who claimed London by year 200 would be under water. These people are the old commies that now lead the green movement.

So what role does the sun play? Id think a large part of it. Sun spot activity plays a large role.

With all that said can we please get off this BS carbon rationing system that the elites want on us. Cant we work on the REAL pollution? Like Murcury in our air and water, the pestisides in our water and killing large parts of the gulf of mexico. fluoride in the water IS NOT good for you. Fluoride is only good topical. It causes cancer rates to raise, IQ points to go down. check it out yourself fluoridealert . org . They have the studies. Also see where was it first used in the water supply and why. Youll be shocked. Lets work on the real issues.

Waldo Im not for polluting of any kind but this is getting nuts. CO2 is the basis of life. WE ARE CARBO BASED LIFE FORMS. Plants absorb CO2 and exhaul Oxygen.

All of that (well, most of that) is true, but it's not relevant. Uranium is perfectly natural, but it's still a pollutant when we gather it all up, purify it and then, say, put it into drinking water. Water is also the basis of life, but people still drown in it every day.

A tiny, tiny amount of Earth's atmosphere is CO2. About 0.0387%. Since it's a greenhouse gas—that is, it traps the sun's energy, keeping it from radiating back into space—we really don't want that level to go up, since it would cause the planet to become much warmer. Let's do the math. Given that Earth's atmosphere collectively weighs about 5 x 10^18 kilograms—75% of it within 11 kilometers of the planet's surface—then that means that CO2 weighs 1.935 x 10^15 kilograms. Now, the we collectively emit 2.85 x 10^13 kilograms of CO2 annually, or about 1.47% of all of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. And that's a problem. Because that means that, every year, we're emitting slightly more CO2 than is naturally absorbed (by seawater, primarily).

In short, each year we get about 0.5% more CO2 in the atmosphere. This didn't used to be the case. Throughout humans' existence on the planet, there have been lows of 180 ppm and highs of 300 ppm of CO2. Right now we're at 390 ppm. That's never happened in human history—it's the highest in 20 million years.

If you're thinking "the planet will do fine," then you're right. But we, on the other hand, are right and truly screwed.

Over 700 scientist during senate hearings dissent over Man made global warming.

Even if we accept that is true, how many of those scientists' expertise is in the field of climatology? (I can answer that for you: zero.) If a dendrologist dissents about anthropogenic climate change, I can't see of what interest that is.

Look up Climate-gate.

I have. There were four independent investigations launched into it, and every one of them concluded that there was no scientific malpractice or wrongdoing on the part of anybody involved. You can read Penn State's report for yourself.

Also want to point out that that Im expected to believe that the same who cant tell me with any great accurancy what the temp will be next month is going to tell me what temp it will be 20-50-100 years from now.

You're confusing climate and weather. They're very different things. This is like confusing health and aging. I can't tell you whether you'll have a cold next Thursday, but I can tell you that in a few decades you'll have reduced heart functionality, significantly decreased skin elasticity, and a reduced sense of smell.

This same group who claimed London by year 200 would be under water.

That's simply not true.

So what role does the sun play? Id think a large part of it. Sun spot activity plays a large role.

You might think that, but study after study has concluded that sunspots have nothing at all to do with it, which is to say that there's zero evidence of it.

"Every single scientific body of national or international standing agrees that C02 is a significant cause of global warming." That's great dude, I can actually see where you lifted that line from "Wikipedia." Hilarious.

When people make absurd statements like "temperatures are climbing ceaselessly" or my personal favorite "there has been no published papers that have demonstrated anything to the contrary for many years" it's a flapping red flag that that person either very little idea what they are talking about or they are unable to think about the topic beyond what they saw in an Al Gore movie or heard in a third grade classroom. Even a 10 second internet search shows that both of these statements are false.

Since you apparently like Wikipedia, the user-created online encyclopedia, as a primary source for what constitutes a global scientific consensus, here is a brief listing of scientists from that website who disagree with the alarmist viewpoint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

As you can see, the very first person on the list is the chair of the atmospheric sciences department at MIT, which makes your claim of "zero" climatologists as you would say, "the opposite of the truth." There are in fact a great many climatologists who disagree with you and science wiz Al Gore on the what the observable and proven drivers of climate change are. Again, even a 10 second internet search brings up hundreds of peer-reviewed papers by these scientists and many others- REAL scientists, not the collection of political activists, environmentalists, elementary school science teachers, park rangers and divinity school assistants whose names were found of the list supporting the IPCC's now discredited conclusions.

Also, you may think that a few peers and sympathizers scrambling to cover their exposed disgraced buddies through the guise of "independent investigations" fully exonerates their lies and outright fraud, but the greater scientific community and the general public dont agree with you. But ok, if these guys did nothing wrong and temperatures are proven to be "climbing ceaselessly" could you please explain to me why Michael Mann was caught in an email confessing to have used a "trick" to "hide the decline" that the data he was working with showed, and why Phil Jones, director of CRU and another Climategate culprit admitted afterwards that there has been no warming of any statistical significance for 15 years and that in fact between 2002 and 2009, the global temperatures had DECLINED 0.12C (0.22F). Weird that he would have to do that given that, you know, global temperatures have been "climbing ceaselessly."

NASA relies on data by NOAA and both groups have been caught many times trying to manipulate and produce graphs that present their politically-motivated and long-holding viewpoints are rather than what their own underlying data shows (never mind the fact that the data itself has become highly controversial if not fully discredited.) Foir a brief shellacking of the Hansen-led NASA's methodology and that exact "ceaselessly climbing" graph go here:

http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever?

Global warming is very real, and the long term warming trend since the last mini-ice age is very observable. Scientists DO seem to agree that at least a portion and maybe even a significant portion of that warming is due to human activity. It's something we should be all concerned about, particularly replacing our long-term use of fossil fuels which we should be doing for other reasons anyway. But long-term climate change is inherently variable and extremely complicated having to do with a great many factors including land usage, solar activity, changes in ocean currents, the Earth's magnetic fields, cyclical trends, and a great many other things. By the way, there are a great many gases that humans and their cattle produce that have a far greater greenhouse gas effect than C02, for example methane. Anyone who clings to this claim its been somehow proven that there's an immediate climate crisis caused exclusively by carbon dioxide emissions is likely doing so in pursuit of grant money, their unquenchable hatred for corporations and political enemies, or for the purposes of satisfying their own massively inflated ego.

"Every single scientific body of national or international standing agrees that C02 is a significant cause of global warming." That's great dude, I can actually see where you lifted that line from "Wikipedia." Hilarious.

"Lifted"? That was a citation—that's why I linked to it.

As you can see, the very first person on the list is the chair of the atmospheric sciences department at MIT, which makes your claim of "zero" climatologists as you would say, "the opposite of the truth."

You're rebutting something that I never said. James wrote: "Over 700 scientist during senate hearings dissent over Man made global warming." And I responded: "Even if we accept that is true, how many of those scientists' expertise is in the field of climatology? (I can answer that for you: zero.)" If you have any evidence that the chair of the atmospheric sciences department at MIT addressed the Senate during hearings over anthropogenic climate change and claimed that climate change is not anthropogenic in nature, I'd love to hear about it.

Not incidentally, Richard Lindzen doesn't believe what you claim he believes. Your own source says that Lindzen believes that global climate change likely has a anthropogenic basis—but he thinks that the current IPCC projection is too high.

Finally, as long as I'm correcting your mistakes, Lindzen is not "the chair of the atmospheric sciences department at MIT," as you claim. Not only does MIT not have an atmospheric sciences department—it's the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, much broader in mission—but the head of that department is Maria Zuber.

There are in fact a great many climatologists who disagree with you and science wiz Al Gore on the what the observable and proven drivers of climate change are. Again, even a 10 second internet search brings up hundreds of peer-reviewed papers by these scientists and many others- REAL scientists, not the collection of political activists, environmentalists, elementary school science teachers, park rangers and divinity school assistants whose names were found of the list supporting the IPCC's now discredited conclusions.

Please, humor me. Could you please provide me with a list of hundreds of contemporary peer-reviewed papers by climatologists that challenge anthropogenic climate change? That should be really easy for you, since it only takes "a 10 second internet search."

Also, I hope that you will then inform the good folks at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, who recently published a study finding that "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." I'm sure that they would benefit substantially from your knowledge in this realm, since they were not able to locate the "hundreds" of papers that you found.

But ok, if these guys did nothing wrong and temperatures are proven to be "climbing ceaselessly" could you please explain to me why Michael Mann was caught in an email confessing to have used a "trick" to "hide the decline" that the data he was working with showed, and why Phil Jones, director of CRU and another Climategate culprit admitted afterwards that there has been no warming of any statistical significance for 15 years and that in fact between 2002 and 2009, the global temperatures had DECLINED 0.12C (0.22F).

As we have already discussed here, there were four independent investigations launched into it, and every one of them concluded that there was no scientific malpractice or wrongdoing on the part of anybody involved. You can read Penn State's report for yourself. You'll find that those investigations explain things far better than I can, especially since one of them was launched by an opponent of anthropogenic climate change—no doubt he was disappointed by his own findings.

Foir a brief shellacking of the Hansen-led NASA's methodology and that exact "ceaselessly climbing" graph go here:
http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever?

Did you really just attempt to rebut thousands of papers published by hundreds of researchers with...some blog entry by a TV weatherman on non-peer-reviewed website?

Scientists DO seem to agree that at least a portion and maybe even a significant portion of that warming is due to human activity.

"Do seem to...a portion?" No. As I've written, 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That rate was basically 0% 50 years ago, a rounding error 30 years ago, and far lower 15 years now. Now, it's a near-universal position among experts in the field.

hat have a far greater greenhouse gas effect than C02, for example methane. Anyone who clings to this claim its been somehow proven that there's an immediate climate crisis caused exclusively by carbon dioxide emissions is likely doing so in pursuit of grant money, their unquenchable hatred for corporations and political enemies, or for the purposes of satisfying their own massively inflated ego.

Am I to believe that research scientists have more of a profit motive than...oil companies? Really?