Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

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

  • Parihaka
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    What religion would that be?
    The cult of global warming. It's faith based, therefore religious.
    Myself, I would classify CO2 more as a dangerous gas and would prefer not to be breathing it when nearing 4% being scientific that is.
    CO2 is currently 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    The EPA defined CO2 as a pollutant in 2009. That's a religious stance, not a scientific one.
    What religion would that be? Myself, I would classify CO2 more as a dangerous gas and would prefer not to be breathing it when nearing 4% being scientific that is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    pari,



    so your argument, essentially, is that subbing industry lobbyists for scientists makes the EPA a more scientific/environmentally friendly organization? :-)
    No, my argument is that subbing religious views for scientific ones invalidates the EPA.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    Edit: Did Obama include the insurance industry in discussions before enacting the ACA? Did you have a problem with that?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    pari,

    I did. The NYT is posing the EPA as a scientific review board. It's not, it's a religious organisation. defining CO2 as a pollutant is a religious view, not a scientific one. Quick, every animal stop breathing and freeze the oceans to prevent outgassing of pollutants.
    so your argument, essentially, is that subbing industry lobbyists for scientists makes the EPA a more scientific/environmentally friendly organization? :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied

    is it this difficult for you to go through one single debate without using personal attacks?
    It's not a personal attack. It's just a statement of fact. Sheesh.

    and your example just showed how one branch of government, ah, regulates another. and do you think industry lobbyists had nothing to do with the original court case?
    After the damage is done? So all branches of government should implement policy and regulation without consideration of cost and impact and wait until someone sues? No, I don't think that's intended and I'm not sure why anyone else would.

    again, the EPA's mission isn't to balance industry concerns with that of the environment/citizen's health. it's to protect the latter.
    As if they are somehow decoupled. Without assessing cost/benefit and impact of regulations you are potentially causing more harm than good. You assume we are just talking about money? You would be wrong.

    Or, as the court put it...

    The court made it clear that the EPA “must consider cost – including, most importantly, cost of compliance – before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.” But it also found that cost “includes more than the expense of complying with regulations; any disadvantage could be termed a cost.” The court continued: “EPA’s interpretation precludes the Agency from considering any type of cost – including, for instance, harms that regulation might do to human health or the environment. The Government concedes that if the Agency were to find that emissions from power plants do damage to human health, but that the technologies needed to eliminate these emissions do even more damage to human health, it would still deem regulation appropriate. No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good.”

    Good business people understand cost/ benefit analysis and not wasting billions for little to no benefit because it feels good. Having people involved that actually have working area expertise who understand cost /benefits analysis seems like a long overdue common sense move to me.

    using your argument, it would make perfect sense for Trump to appoint a tobacco industry lobbyist as Surgeon General because they'll analyze "common sense factors" before enacting regulations.
    Then you clearly don't understand the argument. Hopefully the above helped.

    Edit: Did Obama include the insurance industry in discussions before enacting the ACA? Did you have a problem with that?
    Last edited by Wooglin; 08 May 17,, 21:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    refer back to post #3721 that started this.
    I did. The NYT is posing the EPA as a scientific review board. It's not, it's a religious organisation. defining CO2 as a pollutant is a religious view, not a scientific one. Quick, every animal stop breathing and freeze the oceans to prevent outgassing of pollutants.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    refer back to post #3721 that started this.

    even if you don't subscribe to the anthropocentric global warning aspect of the environmental movement, there is no political alternative where environmental protection is embraced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    lol, the point of the EPA is to -protect human health and the environment-.
    The EPA defined CO2 as a pollutant in 2009. That's a religious stance, not a scientific one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue View Post
    Well its a big subject. Just wanted to cover a few bases. I read it, only took two cups of coffee!
    You can't pour a gallon of milk into a shot glass. Get 128 shot glasses instead. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    wooglin,

    Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about and again using assumptions as facts.
    is it this difficult for you to go through one single debate without using personal attacks?

    Good thing they'll actually analyze common sense factors like cost/benefit BEFORE they start enacting regulations now.
    and your example just showed how one branch of government, ah, regulates another. and do you think industry lobbyists had nothing to do with the original court case?

    again, the EPA's mission isn't to balance industry concerns with that of the environment/citizen's health. it's to protect the latter.

    using your argument, it would make perfect sense for Trump to appoint a tobacco industry lobbyist as Surgeon General because they'll analyze "common sense factors" before enacting regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    lol, the point of the EPA is to -protect human health and the environment-.

    do you think industry lacks in lobbying power to weigh in on the 'impact and cost side' of the equation? and it's interesting that you assume that scientists just 'rubber stamp what environmentalists want'.

    this is akin to using wolves to protect the chicken shed.

    like i said, we're in a situation where if you're interested in environmental protection at all, you either side with the party that also believes in anthropocentric global warming or you get diddly squat.
    Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about and again using assumptions as facts.

    I guess industry didn't get to weigh in on this one beforehand.

    https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-pa...enefits-matter

    On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency acted unreasonably when it wrote its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule. The agency failed to consider cost as a factor when making its threshold determination that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. The court remanded three consolidated cases – referred to as Michigan v. EPA – to the D.C. Circuit, where the MATS rule will be reconsidered. Even if the appeals court vacates the MATS rule, it will make little difference for power companies that have already shut down coal-fired power plants to comply with the rule. It will also do little to help energy consumers who now face higher electricity rates and reduced electric reliability. Nonetheless, the ruling may force the EPA to justify their regulations with more reasonable cost-benefit analyses in the future.
    Good thing they'll actually analyze common sense factors like cost/benefit BEFORE they start enacting regulations now. Oh, the horror!!
    Last edited by Wooglin; 08 May 17,, 19:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    lol, the point of the EPA is to -protect human health and the environment-.

    do you think industry lacks in lobbying power to weigh in on the 'impact and cost side' of the equation? and it's interesting that you assume that scientists just 'rubber stamp what environmentalists want'.

    this is akin to using wolves to protect the chicken shed.

    like i said, we're in a situation where if you're interested in environmental protection at all, you either side with the party that also believes in anthropocentric global warming or you get diddly squat.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X