[ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

What rational basis is there for regulating CO2?

The argument that CO2 has a hazardous effect on the environment is stupid, because even if 
we pretend that climate change is driven by athropogenic CO2, the environment would 
continue to thrive without regulations.  If the seas should rise or fall, if the temp should go up 
or down, the result would be a healthy environment no different from some other periods in 
the earth's history.

The argument that CO2 will produce conditions hazardous or otherwise unfavorable to 
humans is also stupid, because even if we pretend that climate change is driven by 
athropogenic CO2, none of the threatened cataclysmic changes are happening fast enough 
to be really threatening.  If New York City goes 30' underwater during the course of our 
lifetimes, the worst thing about that is that people would have to move.  So?  Currently the 
government can seize your property, make you move, and use your land for some other 
purpose.  And it doesn't matter whether you are on the coast or not, so clearly government is 
a much bigger threat than global warming.  Heck, maybe New York could be the new Venice.

But we can stop pretending, because the leaked emails and climate model code shows that 
AGW is a huge hoax.

OTOH, there is a rational argument for CO2 regulation that is strictly political. A large 
segment of the population is not able to evaluate the evidence for AGW fraud and cover up, 
and they are going to feel (not think) that it is good to regulate CO2.  That segment is going 
to want to vote for the party that seems more environmentally friendly because they have 
been fed the same false message for so long that they can't help but act this way.  

It doesn't matter what the facts are.  It doesn't even matter what the politicians actually 
believe.  Both parties will be forced to pose as "eco-friendly" until the general public 
recognizes AGW for the scam that it is.  Its either that or political suicide.

-Gary Isenhower

On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:01, John R Johnson wrote:

Ed

Did the EPA say that carbon dioxide EXPOSURE was hazardous? I thought they 
said that its effect on the environment was hazardous.

John

***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
604-676-3556
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca