Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[astralis]

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.

[Wooglin]

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?

[Parihaka]

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.

[astralis]

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."

[Parihaka]

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.

[tbm3fan]

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.

[Parihaka]

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.

[astralis]

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.

[astralis]

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? :-)

[Wooglin]

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?

[Parihaka]

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.

[astralis]

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.

[Parihaka]

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.

[Ironduke]

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. :-)

[astralis]

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.