Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Exorcist
    replied
    From the FOUNDER of The Weather Channel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUD...ature=youtu.be

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I wouldn't say it is broken; it follows cycles, some of which are not happy events for Humans.

    The problem we have is that we only have about 118 years of systematic, wide-spread hard data, and about three times that with patchy data.

    Which is akin to have about an hour of a multi-year cycle. We can extrapolate possible future events, but it tends to be heavy of guesswork.
    It gets worse. There's stuff we're not even looking at. For example, before 9/11, jet contrails were not being studied as a potential source of climate change. Now they're just beginning to get serious study and it looks like they're potentially a bigger contributor than CO2...

    But, the fix for contrails is easy, doesn't hammer industries the Left considers evil, doesn't involve lots and lots of money, and wouldn't upend the world's economy. That makes it unappealing to the Left.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

    I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

    A case in point;
    Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget
    I wouldn't say it is broken; it follows cycles, some of which are not happy events for Humans.

    The problem we have is that we only have about 118 years of systematic, wide-spread hard data, and about three times that with patchy data.

    Which is akin to have about an hour of a multi-year cycle. We can extrapolate possible future events, but it tends to be heavy of guesswork.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

    I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

    A case in point;
    Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget
    There is no certainty in science...

    Scientific theories are not mathematical theories in which humans create the math rules and use logic to prove mathematical propositions. Scientific theories are based on physical rules we try to discover and we use logic and experiments to constantly test our interpretation (theories) of how nature works . So, even though experimental results can disprove the validity of a theory (as for example when they produce results that contradict the predictions of a scientific theory) they can never prove that the scientific theory is 100% correct. Tis does not mean that all scientific theories have equal standing. Some have withstood more tests over time than others or their predictions have been corroborated by more numerous and diverse experiments. But even in such cases, there is always the possibility that such theories do not capture 100% the real picture of the universe. Still, science and civilization move forward based on such theories despite the lack of an absolute proof.
    Last edited by pamak; 16 Apr 18, 19:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    This is pretty much what I was driving at (or alluding to).
    IMO, ignorance (or disregard; or even dismissal) of the fact that cooling and warming cycles have always been a natural part of this planet's climate is a major hinge on the whole thing.
    I believe it is this very same ignorance/disregard/dismissal that is instrumental to the more extreme views regarding human-caused climate change.

    As I see it, there can of course be little doubt that human activity must have had, and must continue to be having, at least SOME influence on climate.
    The big question is, how much? IMHO, that question is very difficult to address with real certainty; in some areas at least.
    I guess the whole topic will continue to generate heated discussion.

    In consideration of all the above, I would say that we (that is, humanity) DO need to take climatic/environmental factors seriously and make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts.
    I guess there will always be differences of opinion on how much we need to do, and what, and where, and how the potential costs - where they exist - are to be managed.
    Some of the answers will not be easy.
    Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

    I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

    A case in point;
    Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    More Non-science and nonsense;
    March for Science draws smaller crowds than last year, but attendees are still passionate

    Crowds turned out in cities around the world Saturday for the second annual March for Science.

    Saturday's crowds were notably smaller than those that showed up for the first march in April 2017, but attendees expressed as much optimism and hope as they did last year.

    According to the non-partisan March for Science organization, the main event was set to take place in Washington, while more than 230 satellite events were scheduled around the world in different forms, be they marches, rallies or science exhibitions.
    ...
    Participants aimed to hold public officials accountable and push them to implement policy based on scientific evidence, according to the march's website.
    ...
    Mittleman, who works in science communications, told CNN she was advocating for "so many things!"

    The foremost issue for her was how the United States and the world are being impacted by climate change, and she wanted to see more action taken to fight it.

    "I also believe science education in school and beyond is vital to create future generations of scientists and develop innovative research and cure various diseases," Mittleman said. "Also to help with the communication of facts and research to help educate people that may not have the resources they need to understand science and its impact on everyone."
    ...
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...L&ocid=msnbcrd

    More REAL science education and this sort of oxy-moron would be reduced.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Something expressed often and many places here, such as this thread;
    http://<a href="http://www.armchairg...ng a Hoax?</a>



    Actually, many of the Pro-ACC/AGW have sought to ignore or at least blur this obvious fact ~ part of the dialogue.



    More to the point, the Pro-ACC/AGW crowd ignore the historical flux and natural variation, acting as if "Climate Change/Global Warming" is a relative new phenomena and one solely the result of human activity. Compounded by the concept that climate can/should be relatively stagnant and something that can be set to a rather narrow range of variation, like the thermostat of one's home HVAC/furnace.
    This is pretty much what I was driving at (or alluding to).
    IMO, ignorance (or disregard; or even dismissal) of the fact that cooling and warming cycles have always been a natural part of this planet's climate is a major hinge on the whole thing.
    I believe it is this very same ignorance/disregard/dismissal that is instrumental to the more extreme views regarding human-caused climate change.

    As I see it, there can of course be little doubt that human activity must have had, and must continue to be having, at least SOME influence on climate.
    The big question is, how much? IMHO, that question is very difficult to address with real certainty; in some areas at least.
    I guess the whole topic will continue to generate heated discussion.

    In consideration of all the above, I would say that we (that is, humanity) DO need to take climatic/environmental factors seriously and make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts.
    I guess there will always be differences of opinion on how much we need to do, and what, and where, and how the potential costs - where they exist - are to be managed.
    Some of the answers will not be easy.
    Last edited by panther3485; 13 Apr 18, 20:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    EPA’s Pruitt: Agency will no long use junk ‘secret science’ to push climate change hoax



    https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018...e-change-hoax/

    Its about time, eh?

    Oh, I can hear it already; "You should be shut down! The masses are asses and you ain't smart enough or have the right to know what the elite knows about what we are trying to force them to do!!!"

    Guess again, comrades.
    When EPA got started and in gear, back about late 1960s, USA had some serious air pollution and water pollution issues. Within a few decades, both had been largely corrected and cleaned, but like many Guv'mint agencies, once the initial mandate and reason for existence has been met, a new emerges in form of preservation of agency/jobs/funding.

    Hence we now find compliance standards that are beyond even natural background levels, a near impossible to achieve movement of goal posts, but also a huge economic strain to try and comply. One quick "game change" was to jump on the ACC/AGW bandwagon and declare "greenhouse gas" Carbon Dioxide(CO2), essential for 99+% of life on this planet, a "pollutant".

    Meanwhile, returning to OP and from the original linked article, QUOTE:
    ...
    In the past, that level of secrecy was employed by the EPA to hide suspicious methodologies used to conclude, mostly, that climate change is being driven by human activity. Though conservatives have pushed for a more open process, Democrats have fought to keep study methodologies hidden.

    “If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what — rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt told The DC.
    ...
    To date, there isn’t a single study that has been published in its entirety proving human activity is causing the planet to warm or the climate to change.

    Nevertheless, Democrats and Left-leaning environmentalists have used a flawed survey to claim that 97 percent of climate scientists have formed a “consensus” that human-caused warming is real.

    But as James Taylor, president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation noted in 2013, “Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.”

    “After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-percent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics,” he continued.
    ...
    “At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism,” Taylor wrote.

    Also, as reported by Investors Business Daily last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, frankly admitted that the overarching goal of the “global warming/climate change” hoax is to reorient the world’s economic model away from capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said, the paper reported.

    https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018...e-change-hoax/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Climate-gate was just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years climate scientists have lied to the public repeatedly. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no validity to global warming but it does mean that the wrong people are doing the research.
    Actually, it seems that in some cases they are doing the research they are being paid for, it's just that those grants and payments only go for those whom do research to prove the case for ACC/AGW, i.e. a priori results.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Humans can and do alter "climate" through history. The Romans encouraged farming in North Africa and the loss of water caused made it dryer and warmer. The Sahara advanced towards the coast as a result. Cutting down the forest in Southeast Brazil took a lot of moisture out of the area and it dried up.
    A point to consider/remember is that until the past century or two, human knowledge and science base had little understanding of environmental effects or idea how to mitigate or repair such. I'm not sure we still know or understand all that comes into play, such as how many parts of Earth's land went from forest covered to grassland/plains where herds of grazers roamed.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The Amazon basin was once changed by man. The soil was changed and some rivers diverted and catch basins created. The people also plated a lot of nut and fruit trees. ...
    Documented some in the book;
    '1491': Vanished Americans
    https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/b...americans.html

    1491
    New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
    https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/i...mber/1649/1491

    Where it is pointed out that some of the Amazon rain-forest cleared and farmed in pre-Columbus times later reverted back to rain-forest when these native-Americans died off and dwindled due largely to disease.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    ... The Southwest Plateau was desertified when Indians tried to farm the lands, build houses and grow maize. The loss of the Pinon trees caused soil erosion and there was nothing to hold water

    The list goes on. The problem is more of stopping development in deserts and maybe try to replant some areas that have not blown away.

    Pruitt
    Many desert areas can be revived via irrigation and slow, proper land management, re-planting. Sort of like designed terra-forming.

    What is also seldom considered is that along with increase of human activity such as industrialization, and use of carbon resources for fuel, causing rise in carbon dioxide(CO2) levels, we have also experienced a near comparable decline in Flora biomass that would have consumed that CO2.

    A more practicable, less involved, less expensive and less disruptive "solution" to reducing current CO2 levels (if such should really be pursued) would be extensive replant and reforestation to increase current flora biomass levels.

    (BTW, too soon to rep you again)

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    (My bold) From a strictly scientific view so far as I can see, global warming - as well as global cooling and climate change in general - have always been part of a natural cycle on this planet.
    Fossil records and geological evidence, in general, do appear to support this. ...
    Something expressed often and many places here, such as this thread;
    http://<a href="http://www.armchairg...ng a Hoax?</a>

    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    ...The argument has never really been about that.
    Actually, many of the Pro-ACC/AGW have sought to ignore or at least blur this obvious fact ~ part of the dialogue.

    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    The argument, such as it is, revolves around the question of human activity contributing to, or influencing, climate change patterns.
    Some folks don't seem to acknowledge that distinction and this can cause misunderstandings, IMO.
    More to the point, the Pro-ACC/AGW crowd ignore the historical flux and natural variation, acting as if "Climate Change/Global Warming" is a relative new phenomena and one solely the result of human activity. Compounded by the concept that climate can/should be relatively stagnant and something that can be set to a rather narrow range of variation, like the thermostat of one's home HVAC/furnace.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    do you put a price on what is corruption? That's the major problem now days. Anything for a price, with most people. Including turning a blind eye. SHAME.
    Bold in red is my doing. Would seem everyone does anything "for a price".

    Consider that the many whom claim to be "in service to their nation/community, etc.". i.e. Civil or Military, still expect to collect a paycheck and benefits, including pensions, from the Guv'mint; a.k.a. OPM via the taxpayers. I've yet to find the one whom does such out of their own pocket.

    Try being realistic and honest ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
    Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

    But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.

    do you put a price on what is corruption? That's the major problem now days. Anything for a price, with most people. Including turning a blind eye. SHAME.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    and if you want really specific big dollar amounts, just read the whole article. I just posted exerpts which did not include things like

    Chmielewski told congressional investigators that he had personal knowledge -- through a conversation with Jackson -- that Pruitt was involved in the raises given to his agency attorney and the scheduling director.
    Pruitt denied in a Fox News interview that he knew of the raises prior to a report by The Atlantic that uncovered the raises -- one for $57,000 and another for $28,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
    Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

    But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.
    Not really


    Pruitt spent more than the $5,000 allowed by law to decorate his office, including refinishing an antique desk, buying a standing desk and paying leases for art on loan from the Smithsonian.
    It does not say that $5,000 is the highest dollar amount

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X