(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

Non-elected officials whose paycheck is signed by a liberal entity that has an agenda. Re: Oblunder.

(03-14-2017 06:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The vast majority of environmental issues go beyond state lines.

Then you get the DOJ involved. That's their job....to enforce federal law.

Quote:We can't even get Indiana to come to a meeting on phosphates in Lake Erie but they contribute 18% of the phosphates that go into the tributaries that feed in.

So what you are saying is that the EPA doesn't work, but we need to keep it.

You have a political party that does everything it can to neuter the EPA then when a problem crops up they blame them for it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes.

We know what we need to do to limit phosphates. We don't have the political will to pull the trigger on the solutions.

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

Have you called your congressman?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-14-2017 04:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

That is how it's "supposed" to work yes, but that's not how it works in reality and we all know that. We are talking about a group that has approval ratings in the teens to single digits yet incumbents win roughly 90% of the time.

Start a movement. The only environment fight that has happened in congress is the Keystone Pipeline.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-14-2017 06:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You have a political party that does everything it can to neuter the EPA then when a problem crops up they blame them for it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes.

If the EPA was doing it's job they wouldn't need neutering. But after eight years of colluding with radical environmental groups be it over regulations (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...reen-grou/) or legislating via litigation (https://www.uschamber.com/report/sue-and...osed-doors) or tries to regulate mud puddles (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/27/gr...-waterway/ or woodstoves (http://www.independentsentinel.com/epa-i...ar-behind/) it's not doing it's job.....it's doing the bidding of the radical environmentalists.

Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

(03-15-2017 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

(03-15-2017 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

Just another slanted blog article.

(03-16-2017 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

Just another slanted blog article.

Why say this? If you read it, I can't imagine you'd take this position. If you haven't read it, there's no basis for having an opinion on it.

As I noted earlier in the thread, in response to another ad hominem attack: The author actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

(03-17-2017 12:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

Just another slanted blog article.

Why say this? If you read it, I can't imagine you'd take this position. If you haven't read it, there's no basis for having an opinion on it.

As I noted earlier in the thread, in response to another ad hominem attack: The author actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

It's very easy to take that position.

For one thing, you're talking about an administration that wants to cut (or eliminate) the budget for "work on this". There is no intention to study it further. And what is the better theory on why the globe warmed? Where is the evidence for that? A quote saying "it could be this" doesn't amount to a theory.

Even if CO2 wasn't the only reason for warming, that doesn't absolve it from having a large impact on it. There are a whole bunch of things in there that I would question even knowing only a small fraction of what the climatologists know. Even the quotes from people in the article that don't entirely dismiss Pruitt's statement are changing his words to something completely different than what Pruitt said.

And we know about positive feedback loops. Snow is one of the most obvious, due to the change in albedo.

(03-17-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 12:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea, I'm going to believe somebody like Pruitt before I believe the scientists that have FAR more knowledge about it. Sure. What the hell is going on? I understand that business interests want global warming to not be an issue. That doesn't make it not an issue, regardless of how many times you tell yourself that.

Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

Just another slanted blog article.

Why say this? If you read it, I can't imagine you'd take this position. If you haven't read it, there's no basis for having an opinion on it.

As I noted earlier in the thread, in response to another ad hominem attack: The author actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

It's very easy to take that position.

For one thing, you're talking about an administration that wants to cut (or eliminate) the budget for "work on this". There is no intention to study it further. And what is the better theory on why the globe warmed? Where is the evidence for that? A quote saying "it could be this" doesn't amount to a theory.

Even if CO2 wasn't the only reason for warming, that doesn't absolve it from having a large impact on it. There are a whole bunch of things in there that I would question even knowing only a small fraction of what the climatologists know. Even the quotes from people in the article that don't entirely dismiss Pruitt's statement are changing his words to something completely different than what Pruitt said.

And we know about positive feedback loops. Snow is one of the most obvious, due to the change in albedo.

OK; thanks. I appreciate you reading the post. My main point was basically that it wasn't some slanted and uninformed take and didn't deserve ad hominem criticism, but I'd like to respond to your points.

First, I completely agree that having no plan to either study or "work on it" is a mistake but I admit I haven't paid attention to the president's proposed budget. In my opinion the lower range of warming (1 degree C) doesn't mean we don't do anything, it means we don't take drastic measures that are harmful economically. I think it's worthwhile to incentivize technological adaptation to minimize greenhouse gas production, and I'd expect that if we do in a reasonable way that we can solve the AGW portion of the problem before it gets out of hand.

There doesn't have to be a better theory for why warming has occurred, because the trends are consistent with what we'd expect from human sources. The problem isn't with what has happened, it's with what's been predicted. And that's where I think we're challenged by the positive feedback modeling. Not to say positive feedback doesn't exist; of course it does. Credible skeptics argue it's not well enough supported to say that it'll cause warming that is multiples of the current warming rate. This is all in the models right now and is not reflected in measured temperatures.

Pruitt doesn't say AGW doesn't exist. And he did say "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis." I'm hopeful he (and his boss) mean what they say and continue to look to make improvements in how we care for the environment. I'll be pissed if we end up with an administration that decides AGW is nothing to worry about. Just about as pissed as I was at the last administration that thinks we need to panic.

(03-17-2017 02:10 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 12:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Another, "I'm going to comment even though I haven't read the article and don't know what it says."

Just another slanted blog article.

Why say this? If you read it, I can't imagine you'd take this position. If you haven't read it, there's no basis for having an opinion on it.

As I noted earlier in the thread, in response to another ad hominem attack: The author actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

It's very easy to take that position.

For one thing, you're talking about an administration that wants to cut (or eliminate) the budget for "work on this". There is no intention to study it further. And what is the better theory on why the globe warmed? Where is the evidence for that? A quote saying "it could be this" doesn't amount to a theory.

Even if CO2 wasn't the only reason for warming, that doesn't absolve it from having a large impact on it. There are a whole bunch of things in there that I would question even knowing only a small fraction of what the climatologists know. Even the quotes from people in the article that don't entirely dismiss Pruitt's statement are changing his words to something completely different than what Pruitt said.

And we know about positive feedback loops. Snow is one of the most obvious, due to the change in albedo.

OK; thanks. I appreciate you reading the post. My main point was basically that it wasn't some slanted and uninformed take and didn't deserve ad hominem criticism, but I'd like to respond to your points.

First, I completely agree that having no plan to either study or "work on it" is a mistake but I admit I haven't paid attention to the president's proposed budget. In my opinion the lower range of warming (1 degree C) doesn't mean we don't do anything, it means we don't take drastic measures that are harmful economically. I think it's worthwhile to incentivize technological adaptation to minimize greenhouse gas production, and I'd expect that if we do in a reasonable way that we can solve the AGW portion of the problem before it gets out of hand.

There doesn't have to be a better theory for why warming has occurred, because the trends are consistent with what we'd expect from human sources. The problem isn't with what has happened, it's with what's been predicted. And that's where I think we're challenged by the positive feedback modeling. Not to say positive feedback doesn't exist; of course it does. Credible skeptics argue it's not well enough supported to say that it'll cause warming that is multiples of the current warming rate. This is all in the models right now and is not reflected in measured temperatures.

Pruitt doesn't say AGW doesn't exist. And he did say "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis." I'm hopeful he (and his boss) mean what they say and continue to look to make improvements in how we care for the environment. I'll be pissed if we end up with an administration that decides AGW is nothing to worry about. Just about as pissed as I was at the last administration that thinks we need to panic.

I would argue that the article IS slanted. If it wasn't, they would not have made a whole bunch of the statements they did in the article. Or if it isn't slanted, it just shows a serious lack of knowledge about something they spent the time to write about. It appears that I even know more than the author does, and I wouldn't presume to write an article like that, agreeing with a statement by someone else who apparently also doesn't know much about the topic. Or if they do know more than they are letting on, they are being purposely deceptive.

(03-17-2017 02:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 02:10 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 12:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Just another slanted blog article.

Why say this? If you read it, I can't imagine you'd take this position. If you haven't read it, there's no basis for having an opinion on it.

As I noted earlier in the thread, in response to another ad hominem attack: The author actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

It's very easy to take that position.

For one thing, you're talking about an administration that wants to cut (or eliminate) the budget for "work on this". There is no intention to study it further. And what is the better theory on why the globe warmed? Where is the evidence for that? A quote saying "it could be this" doesn't amount to a theory.

Even if CO2 wasn't the only reason for warming, that doesn't absolve it from having a large impact on it. There are a whole bunch of things in there that I would question even knowing only a small fraction of what the climatologists know. Even the quotes from people in the article that don't entirely dismiss Pruitt's statement are changing his words to something completely different than what Pruitt said.

And we know about positive feedback loops. Snow is one of the most obvious, due to the change in albedo.

OK; thanks. I appreciate you reading the post. My main point was basically that it wasn't some slanted and uninformed take and didn't deserve ad hominem criticism, but I'd like to respond to your points.

First, I completely agree that having no plan to either study or "work on it" is a mistake but I admit I haven't paid attention to the president's proposed budget. In my opinion the lower range of warming (1 degree C) doesn't mean we don't do anything, it means we don't take drastic measures that are harmful economically. I think it's worthwhile to incentivize technological adaptation to minimize greenhouse gas production, and I'd expect that if we do in a reasonable way that we can solve the AGW portion of the problem before it gets out of hand.

There doesn't have to be a better theory for why warming has occurred, because the trends are consistent with what we'd expect from human sources. The problem isn't with what has happened, it's with what's been predicted. And that's where I think we're challenged by the positive feedback modeling. Not to say positive feedback doesn't exist; of course it does. Credible skeptics argue it's not well enough supported to say that it'll cause warming that is multiples of the current warming rate. This is all in the models right now and is not reflected in measured temperatures.

Pruitt doesn't say AGW doesn't exist. And he did say "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis." I'm hopeful he (and his boss) mean what they say and continue to look to make improvements in how we care for the environment. I'll be pissed if we end up with an administration that decides AGW is nothing to worry about. Just about as pissed as I was at the last administration that thinks we need to panic.

I would argue that the article IS slanted. If it wasn't, they would not have made a whole bunch of the statements they did in the article. Or if it isn't slanted, it just shows a serious lack of knowledge about something they spent the time to write about. It appears that I even know more than the author does, and I wouldn't presume to write an article like that, agreeing with a statement by someone else who apparently also doesn't know much about the topic. Or if they do know more than they are letting on, they are being purposely deceptive.

You aren't giving any examples of "slant."

Seems like the only argument for not taking drastic action is the belief that it would damage the economy.

And that, in of itself, is just a belief!

(03-17-2017 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Seems like the only argument for not taking drastic action is the belief that it would damage the economy.

And that, in of itself, is just a belief!

???

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-17-2017 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Seems like the only argument for not taking drastic action is the belief that it would damage the economy.
And that, in of itself, is just a belief!

One other argument against taking drastic action is that we don't have any drastic actions available. There aren't any alternatives that work as well as conventional sources.

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Flint is nothing.

Fukishima is by far the biggest environmental crisis in the world and we don't even talk about it.

(03-17-2017 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Seems like the only argument for not taking drastic action is the belief that it would damage the economy.

And that, in of itself, is just a belief!

And the restriction of liberties.....
And the fact that action on CO2 could lead to increases in other pollutants
And ....