Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

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

  • pari,

    No, my argument is that subbing religious views for scientific ones invalidates the EPA.
    again, if you follow MY original argument, it is that politically if you want a government that is environmentally-friendly, your sole choice is to go with an administration/EPA that includes the principle of anthropocentric global warming.

    because under a Republican administration you get an EPA stuffed with industry lobbyists.

    there's no option C, "environmentally friendly administration that doesn't include the principle of anthropocentric global warming."
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
      pari,



      again, if you follow MY original argument, it is that politically if you want a government that is environmentally-friendly, your sole choice is to go with an administration/EPA that includes the principle of anthropocentric global warming.

      because under a Republican administration you get an EPA stuffed with industry lobbyists.

      there's no option C, "environmentally friendly administration that doesn't include the principle of anthropocentric global warming."
      I must accept religious doctrine if I want to save the planet.
      Or, what's worse, an EPA stuffed with industry lobbyists, or stuffed with religious lobbyists?
      By the way, it's commonly referred to as anthropogenic, though I do like the religious associations of anthropocentric.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        no, because the ACA wasn't meant to be solely regulatory. it was also meant to expand insurance availability.

        the function of the EPA is different. again, my use of the 'tobacco lobbyist being the Surgeon General' is very appropo because that is essentially what this is. or, if you like, Goldman Sachs lobbyists running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
        Except we're talking about an advisory board. One of many, that will still include academics.... or did vox not mention that part?

        Comment


        • wooglin,

          Except we're talking about an advisory board.
          yes, the board that advises the EPA's prime scientific arm.

          bottom-line, this is a move that is meant to make the EPA more industry-friendly. my original statement still stands.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            wooglin,



            yes, the board that advises the EPA's prime scientific arm.

            bottom-line, this is a move that is meant to make the EPA more industry-friendly. my original statement still stands.
            As in considering impact and cost before enacting regulation that destroys businesses and makes energy more expensive. Good. You say it like that's a bad thing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              The cult of global warming. It's faith based, therefore religious.
              Well, in your personal non-scientific opinion you are entitled to that. Being heavily science oriented I don't see it that way.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                Well, in your personal non-scientific opinion you are entitled to that. Being heavily science oriented I don't see it that way.
                Actually in my scientific opinion I am entitled to that. Given you believed that CO2 was at 4% of the the atmosphere I'm sceptical you have any background in meteorology or climatology?
                Last edited by Parihaka; 09 May 17,, 07:19.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  Given you believed that CO2 was at 4% of the the atmosphere I'm sceptical you have any background in meteorology or climatology?
                  Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                    Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.
                    Then my apologies.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                      Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.
                      Actually you said "when nearing 4%", which of course it's not. Have to wonder what the point of the comment was when 4% is 100 times current levels and nowhere near anyone's climate reality, and the fact that even at 4000ppm exposure it is harmful to nobody. In fact, it's the average level on many subs.

                      So I have to wonder, since you were "being scientific", what was your point exactly?

                      Comment


                      • I don't miss so much of this "debate".

                        (Hi Pari!!!)

                        So are we warmer or cooler? Is the Sun cooler or warmer?

                        Dumbasses.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                          I don't miss so much of this "debate".

                          (Hi Pari!!!)

                          So are we warmer or cooler? Is the Sun cooler or warmer?

                          Dumbasses.

                          -dale
                          Hey Dale, ya been good?
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • hey look, the plants sure are happy

                            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              hey look, the plants sure are happy

                              https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth
                              Up to a point. Experiments have pretty much confirmed the range of CO2 concentration levels over which rising levels are beneficial for plant growth. Above a certain point the positive effects of rising CO2 levels plateau out so that any 'positive' impact on plant growth is transitory. Its a really complex topic because a large part (not all) of the extra carbon stored in leaves, stems and trunks etc gets recycled every year back into the atmosphere due to natural decay processes. Over really long time frames increased plant growth rates will trap carbon but not in the short term.
                              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                                Up to a point. Experiments have pretty much confirmed the range of CO2 concentration levels over which rising levels are beneficial for plant growth. Above a certain point the positive effects of rising CO2 levels plateau out so that any 'positive' impact on plant growth is transitory. Its a really complex topic because a large part (not all) of the extra carbon stored in leaves, stems and trunks etc gets recycled every year back into the atmosphere due to natural decay processes. Over really long time frames increased plant growth rates will trap carbon but not in the short term.
                                Okay I'll bite: where's the "certain point"?
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X