happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 20, 2015 10:57:15 GMT -5
happyhoix, Because some of us complain or question different rules, regulations or policy's, that we want no rules or regulations?? No, we all complain about regulations and taxes. That's a given What concerns me is the growing sentiment that I've heard expressed from multiple GOP politicians that the EPA has done their job, they've cleaned up the environment, and now there is no longer anything left for them to do except start piddling in stuff that really isn't an issue, like climate change, so we should disband the organization and get out of the way of business. It's one thing to try to amend a regulation that's stupid or counterproductive. It's another thing to completely dismantle a whole agency because you think it has no purpose at all anymore, except interfere with industry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 11:36:07 GMT -5
happyhoix, Because some of us complain or question different rules, regulations or policy's, that we want no rules or regulations?? No, we all complain about regulations and taxes. That's a given What concerns me is the growing sentiment that I've heard expressed from multiple GOP politicians that the EPA has done their job, they've cleaned up the environment, and now there is no longer anything left for them to do except start piddling in stuff that really isn't an issue, like climate change, so we should disband the organization and get out of the way of business. It's one thing to try to amend a regulation that's stupid or counterproductive. It's another thing to completely dismantle a whole agency because you think it has no purpose at all anymore, except interfere with industry. Who wants to dismantle the whole agency ?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 20, 2015 12:59:57 GMT -5
GOP presidential candidates- not all of them of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 13:35:29 GMT -5
GOP presidential candidates- not all of them of course. That would be kind of crazy. I would have to file that under attention getting stunts.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 20, 2015 19:31:11 GMT -5
True- it was Bachman, Perry and some others. No candidates with an actual chance of winning. But the idea is nuts.
Just read this about the new fracking rules on federal land- that the companies plan to sue over because of the 'burden':
in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/usa-fracking-lawsuit-idINL2N0WM23Y20150320
In what could be the start of a broad industry assault on the rules, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance sued the U.S. Interior Department. Other industry groups and companies are expected to follow suit.
The new regulations would require companies to provide data on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and to take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federally owned land. They do not cover wells on private land
Provide data on chemicals and try to prevent leaks- what a freaking outrageous burden
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 23, 2015 10:38:44 GMT -5
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 24, 2015 11:09:29 GMT -5
I noticed we post things from scientific sourses to back up our position. Are all scientists creditable?? Or just the one we use in our post? news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html The scientist that wrote this report are creditable, Right?? After all they are scientist!! I really noticed a lack or response to this, you are usually quick to take me to task on something questionable. Sometimes I have it coming. I put this in the same class as Cali runs out of water in one year, Does this mean that in one year, you turn on the tap, there is no water any where in Cali?? I don't think so. But it has to be true because an NASA scientist said so.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 11:44:17 GMT -5
I noticed we post things from scientific sourses to back up our position. Are all scientists creditable?? Or just the one we use in our post? news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html The scientist that wrote this report are creditable, Right?? After all they are scientist!! I really noticed a lack or response to this, you are usually quick to take me to task on something questionable. Sometimes I have it coming. I put this in the same class as Cali runs out of water in one year, Does this mean that in one year, you turn on the tap, there is no water any where in Cali?? I don't think so. But it has to be true because an NASA scientist said so. This has been a chronic problem of the science since the 1970's: their inability to predict how the climate will change, and how severely. I agree that when they predict tens of millions of "climate refugees" by 2010, and these fail to materialize, and huge sea level rises, and these fail to materialize, and an ice-free arctic, and this fails to materialize, and every time their response is to double down on how urgent and horrible the issue is, one really begins to wonder if they have any clue at all what they're doing. The problem is that we can't dismiss their greater thesis just because they're consistently wrong in their predictions. They may eventually be right. The parameters of Earth's atmosphere are slowly changing, after all. What we as an informed public should do is ensure TPTB don't get away with using AGW as a basis for instituting useless, corrupt policies--with carbon credits being the granddaddy of all useless, corrupt policies. AGW as a starting point for weening western society away from fossil fuels, I have no problem with. Our reserves aren't going to hold out forever; future reserves will undoubtedly be needed for oil's many other uses besides energy; and cars, industries, etc. putting out fewer emissions is generally a worthwhile goal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 24, 2015 11:56:02 GMT -5
Actually there is a town in Cali that is at the point where it is running out of water. They showed them on the news last week, having a public meeting where they are asking their residents to cut water use by 50% (previously, they were at 30%). They have the option of installing a new inlet pipe into a deeper part of the lake, but it's astronomically expensive. Due to where they (and their water source) are located, they might be the first Cali residents to run out of water, but if the drought continues, they won't be the last.
Doesn't take a NASA scientist to predict water problems - look at pictures of the Cali lakes that normally serve as reservoirs. They should be fat and full of snow melt water right now, from the mountain snows, and they're very low. Way too low to supply some parts of Cali with water all summer. And even in non-drought years, those areas don't usually get a lot of rainfall in the summer.
It's easy to claim greenhouse gas impacts are imaginary, but kind of hard to pretent you don't have a water problem when your water reservoir is just a muddy spot in a field.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2015 9:11:38 GMT -5
I would like to take a moment to thank Virgil for putting an educated definition to my uneducated rant. Thank you Virgil
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 8:55:12 GMT -5
It's easy to claim greenhouse gas impacts are imaginary, but kind of hard to pretent you don't have a water problem when your water reservoir is just a muddy spot in a field. It's also easy to confuse correlation with causality. Unsubstantiated beliefs are a cause for some types of claims however.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 30, 2015 7:10:59 GMT -5
It's easy to claim greenhouse gas impacts are imaginary, but kind of hard to pretent you don't have a water problem when your water reservoir is just a muddy spot in a field. It's also easy to confuse correlation with causality. Unsubstantiated beliefs are a cause for some types of claims however. Yes I'm very aware of that. Just look at how many people claim Obamacare has been disasterous for the country, based on unsubstantiated beliefs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2015 14:09:40 GMT -5
It's also easy to confuse correlation with causality. Unsubstantiated beliefs are a cause for some types of claims however. Yes I'm very aware of that. Just look at how many people claim Obamacare has been disasterous for the country, based on unsubstantiated beliefs. 9 out of 10 persons involved in accidents have drunk water within the previous 2 hours. therefore, water is responsible for traffic accidents.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:37:22 GMT -5
It's also easy to confuse correlation with causality. Unsubstantiated beliefs are a cause for some types of claims however. Yes I'm very aware of that. Just look at how many people claim Obamacare has been disasterous for the country, based on unsubstantiated beliefs. Here's your statement. (It's easy to claim greenhouse gas impacts are imaginary, but kind of hard to pretent you don't have a water problem when your water reservoir is just a muddy spot in a field.) Here's my answer. ( It's also easy to confuse correlation with causality. Unsubstantiated beliefs are a cause for some types of claims however.) Are you now saying the ACA is the cause of the reservoir turning into the muddy spot in a field, or is it still AGW, that you usually post as the cause for any negative weather happenings ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:44:23 GMT -5
Yes I'm very aware of that. Just look at how many people claim Obamacare has been disasterous for the country, based on unsubstantiated beliefs. 9 out of 10 persons involved in accidents have drunk water within the previous 2 hours. therefore, water is responsible for traffic accidents. Man has introduced extra carbon into the atmosphere previous to California's drought. Therefore, carbon emissions is the cause of California's drought. (Insert sarcasm emoticon here) Thanks for making my point.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Apr 3, 2015 11:59:32 GMT -5
It's those damned dust bowl refugees that brought that scourge with them...it just took 70 years to catch up to them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2015 13:06:47 GMT -5
9 out of 10 persons involved in accidents have drunk water within the previous 2 hours. therefore, water is responsible for traffic accidents. Man has introduced extra carbon into the atmosphere previous to California's drought. Therefore, carbon emissions is the cause of California's drought. (Insert sarcasm emoticon here) Thanks for making my point. it only makes your point if there is no evidence that the basic facts of both cases are untrue.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Apr 3, 2015 14:57:09 GMT -5
Cold in the eastern half of North America this winter. But many seem to not know/forget/ignore/don't want to acknowledge the fact it was warm in western North America this winter. We had a number of days where my city was colder than Anchorage, Alaska was this winter. Beating Anchorage Alaska temperatures is not a big deal. Local weather reporters always try to make their local viewers look colder than Alaska for the fun of it. Anchorage does get cold, but also pretty warm, due to the Pacific currents and wind patterns. Now if you were beating International Falls, Minnesota, you might have something there. We in Indiana actually had some colder days than at the north pole this year. Now that is scary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 15:11:05 GMT -5
Man has introduced extra carbon into the atmosphere previous to California's drought. Therefore, carbon emissions is the cause of California's drought. (Insert sarcasm emoticon here) Thanks for making my point. it only makes your point if there is no evidence that the basic facts of both cases are untrue. Double negative nonsense. You're going to have to do better to dispute not making my point.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2015 15:24:34 GMT -5
it only makes your point if there is no evidence that the basic facts of both cases are untrue. Double negative nonsense. You're going to have to do better to dispute not making my point. sorry, you lost me there. what double negative? in order to show lack of causality, you have to EITHER show the same correlation between the data and other factors that are totally unrelated to the observed phenomena OR you must show that there is no evidence whatsoever that one thing causes the other. that is pretty obviously true in the case of water causing traffic accidents. are you saying that there is NO evidence for AGW? NONE? i think that is a pretty wide stretch, myself. i think there is some evidence, not none. therefore, you can't really say whether the causation is there or not. right? as an aside: you know, calling something "nonsense" doesn't actually improve your argumentative outcomes? it's true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 11:19:44 GMT -5
Double negative nonsense. You're going to have to do better to dispute not making my point. sorry, you lost me there. what double negative? in order to show lack of causality, you have to EITHER show the same correlation between the data and other factors that are totally unrelated to the observed phenomena OR you must show that there is no evidence whatsoever that one thing causes the other. that is pretty obviously true in the case of water causing traffic accidents. are you saying that there is NO evidence for AGW? NONE? i think that is a pretty wide stretch, myself. i think there is some evidence, not none. therefore, you can't really say whether the causation is there or not. right? as an aside: you know, calling something "nonsense" doesn't actually improve your argumentative outcomes? it's true. Just following the lead from your post #74 and how it was humorous nonsense. Then applied it to the usual AGW argument in reply #76. It was eerily similar. As an aside, there is also evidence we are going to move into another mini-ice age, but there are theories everywhere. So until one is provable, yes, nonsense.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 22, 2015 12:45:30 GMT -5
True- it was Bachman, Perry and some others. No candidates with an actual chance of winning. But the idea is nuts.
Just read this about the new fracking rules on federal land- that the companies plan to sue over because of the 'burden':
in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/usa-fracking-lawsuit-idINL2N0WM23Y20150320
In what could be the start of a broad industry assault on the rules, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance sued the U.S. Interior Department. Other industry groups and companies are expected to follow suit.
The new regulations would require companies to provide data on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and to take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federally owned land. They do not cover wells on private land
Provide data on chemicals and try to prevent leaks- what a freaking outrageous burden
Well, Bachmann believes that the Rapture is right around the corner, so no need for environmental concerns. Perry believes that no matter what happens, it can be prayed away. Your politicians are very "special", in the French sense of the word. That is to say "bat-chit crazy".
www.rawstory.com/2015/04/michele-bachmann-explains-gods-time-clock-iran-nuclear-deal-makes-christs-return-imminent/
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 22, 2015 14:23:34 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 15:34:04 GMT -5
sorry, you lost me there. what double negative? in order to show lack of causality, you have to EITHER show the same correlation between the data and other factors that are totally unrelated to the observed phenomena OR you must show that there is no evidence whatsoever that one thing causes the other. that is pretty obviously true in the case of water causing traffic accidents. are you saying that there is NO evidence for AGW? NONE? i think that is a pretty wide stretch, myself. i think there is some evidence, not none. therefore, you can't really say whether the causation is there or not. right? as an aside: you know, calling something "nonsense" doesn't actually improve your argumentative outcomes? it's true. Just following the lead from your post #74 and how it was humorous nonsense. 1) where did i claim it was nonsense? 2) i was giving an example of why the logic was flawed.
Then applied it to the usual AGW argument in reply #76. It was eerily similar. except for the fact that i never used the word "nonsense". right? edit: and i responded to it in #78 in a respectful way, i thought.
As an aside, there is also evidence we are going to move into another mini-ice age, but there are theories everywhere. So until one is provable, yes, nonsense. i think a little iceage is less threatening to life on Earth than global warming, don't you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 17:31:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 11:50:53 GMT -5
Just following the lead from your post #74 and how it was humorous nonsense. 1) where did i claim it was nonsense? 2) i was giving an example of why the logic was flawed.
Then applied it to the usual AGW argument in reply #76. It was eerily similar. except for the fact that i never used the word "nonsense". right? edit: and i responded to it in #78 in a respectful way, i thought.
As an aside, there is also evidence we are going to move into another mini-ice age, but there are theories everywhere. So until one is provable, yes, nonsense. i think a little iceage is less threatening to life on Earth than global warming, don't you? I really don't know which one would possibly cause more hardship (threat?). I do know the US has about 600 coal fired power plants with about 150 due to be retired soon. India has approximately 340 million people without electricity and is planning to remedy that by building 455 coal fired power plants. China also has about 400 more being built. That's just two major countries. An uncountable amount in smaller countries are also being built. Even if the US eliminates coal power plants under the guise of every little bit helps, our coal will be exported and burned elsewhere. Huge increases in natural gas production. Leaps in oil production every year. Best to hope that I'm right and AGW is just the next passing phase of climate zealots, because nobody is going to give up their electricity because some meteorological nut bag is squawking on the television, or elsewhere.
|
|