Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again (Read 169129 times)

omnigun

Who wants acid rain? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants.  (proven fact)

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that.  (proven fact)

Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases.  (proven fact)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637


I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!

punaperson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 10:20:09 AM »
Who would be foolish enough to attempt to disagree with you and all your "proven fact(s)"?  :rofl:

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 10:52:40 AM »
Who would be foolish enough to attempt to disagree with you and all your "proven fact(s)"?  :rofl:

especially from a "scientist at heart"

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 10:57:21 AM »
Who would be foolish enough to attempt to disagree with you and all your "proven fact(s)"?  :rofl:

If you can prove that those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth I will apologize and say you are correct.

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2017, 10:59:19 AM »
If you can prove that those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth I will apologize and say you are correct.

especially from a "scientist at heart"

You sure love that quote.  Yes, I do hold science dear to my heart.  I believe in it yet I am not an accredited scientist, so that's all I can really say.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2017, 11:21:11 AM »
Who wants acid rain? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants.  (proven fact)

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that.  (proven fact)

Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases.  (proven fact)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637


I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!

Please explain who said anything close to the statements you attributed to members here.

Then explain why the last line of the bill is anything other than common sense.

Quote
Before proposing or finalizing regulations or policies, the Environmental Protection Agency must analyze the net and gross impact of those regulations and policies on employment.
Regulations and policies may not take effect if they have a negative impact on employment, unless they are approved by Congress and signed by the President.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2017, 11:37:35 AM »
Please explain who said anything close to the statements you attributed to members here.

Then explain why the last line of the bill is anything other than common sense.

There have been many threads on similar issues of humans effecting the environment.  Which most members here deny exists.  Co2, green house gasses etc.  Also it appears most members are anti EPA and environment regulation.


Yes approved by congress and signed by the president.  It even making it to a potential law is scary.  The president in all his wisdom elsewhere is an idiot on the environment.

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2017, 11:45:03 AM »
There have been many threads on similar issues of humans effecting the environment.  Which most members here deny exists.  Co2, green house gasses etc.  Also it appears most members are anti EPA and environment regulation.


Yes approved by congress and signed by the president.  It even making it to a potential law is scary.  The president in all his wisdom elsewhere is an idiot on the environment.

"most" members deny?
do you have data to back that up?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2017, 11:47:39 AM »
There have been many threads on similar issues of humans effecting the environment.  Which most members here deny exists.  Co2, green house gasses etc.  Also it appears most members are anti EPA and environment regulation.


Yes approved by congress and signed by the president.  It even making it to a potential law is scary.  The president in all his wisdom elsewhere is an idiot on the environment.

I disagree.  "humans affecting the environment" is not the same as "humans are causing climate change."  Stop twisting what people say to suit your premise.

For someone who's "a scientist at heart", you sure don't have a very logical approach to scientific discussions.  You're really quite emotional, aren't you?

As for the law making, you seem to trust a power-hungry EPA with little real oversight making the rules versus the people elected to take a more balanced view of the issues, huh?  Giving the EPA too much power has lead to all sorts of problems.  For every benefit they can claim for the environment, they have negated them with destructive policies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/epa-caused-colorado-river-disaster-2015-8

The EPA accidentally ripped a hole in a toxic mine in Colorado — it ruined a river and people are furious

Quote
Last week, the Animas River, which flows from southwest Colorado to New Mexico, started filling up with a toxic yellow stew from an old gold mine.

It’s changed the color of the river to a mustard yellow, and so far it's stretched more than 100 miles, heading toward the Colorado River.

The Environmental Protection Agency was working on the mine when the spill occurred, dumping millions of gallons into the river.

So how did it happen?

- The Environmental Protection Agency was using heavy machinery to try and make a safe way to get into the old mine. They were hoping to access the contaminated water so they could investigate what was in it.
- The goal was to treat the water so that there was less metal pollution coming out of the mine.
- Ironically, actual iron, copper and zinc began to pour out after a plug holding it all in was released.
- Water tested by the EPA has also come back with higher levels of arsenic and lead.
- About 3 million gallons were spilled into the Animas, which flows into the San Juan River and later meets up with the Colorado River.
- This isn’t the only mine with toxic waste — there are thousands across the western
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2017, 12:03:54 PM »
I disagree.  "humans affecting the environment" is not the same as "humans are causing climate change."

my point exactly
one correction, though, he said, "humans effecting the environment"

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2017, 12:06:30 PM »
my point exactly
one correction, though, he said, "humans effecting the environment"

Yes, one more thing he was wrong about!  "Affect" is used as a verb.  "Effect" is something that was influenced.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2017, 12:10:28 PM »
Yes, one more thing he was wrong about!  "Affect" is used as a verb.  "Effect" is something that was influenced.

obviously, he is not a grammarian/linguist at heart

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2017, 12:25:58 PM »
Who wants acid rain? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants.  (proven fact)

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that.  (proven fact)

Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases.  (proven fact)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637


I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!
Since YOU don't know how this bill is going to effect our environment why would anything said here by anyone else be wrong in any way shape form or manner? Don't answer, this is a rhetorical question.

First, this bill is designed to stop the overpowering overreach of the EPA. Which is a good thing since all the regulations set forth by this department has no congressional oversight. It has over stepped its bounds and caused massive job loss, massive tax loss for the government, and in exchange for that YOU AND I pay higher taxes to make up for that power that one department should never have had under any circumstance in the first place.

Second, this bill does not stop any state from enacting their own environmental regulations. If a state wants to hurt their own economy, they are more than welcome to do so. All this bill is doing is pushing some of the responsibilities back to the states where it belongs. The EPA should have never been created without congressional oversight. And it should have never been given as much power as it has. Period. This was an extremely stupid mistake by Jimmy Carter.

Third, no company is going to start polluting just because this bill was enacted. If they do then they will have to deal with the local and state level residents and governments. And in the case of a gross polluter, the federal government and the EPA. They would be stupid in this day and age to not voluntarily continue to be good environmental citizens.

Fourth, the EPA still can come in and monitor and fine any violators of any federal environmental laws. All the EPA can no longer do is to enact regulation that starves the economy by reducing employment without congressional approval.

Fifth, this bill does not stop congress from researching and analyzing the data and re-enacting all the deregulation put forth in this bill. All this bill is doing is not allowing the EPA to set forth the regulations without congressional approval. The EPA can request all these things be re-enacted to congress. They just need to provide evidence that these regulations are important enough and won't significantly impact employment. If all of what you say is true then it won't be long before all this regulation is put back, right? Because no one in their right mind can deny climate change, right?

Sixth, all of the issues you mentioned in the first few lines are all pollution issues. And as you already know and cannot argue with is the fact that we humans cannot affect the climate in any significant amount. The numbers just don't lie and you have no argument that can contradict the numbers. And in case you don't remember my posting, here it is again: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26274.msg232658#msg232658.

Finally, you are doing exactly what the democrats/progressives/socialists/environmentalists want you to do and that is to act hysterically and to panic. JMHO
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

punaperson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2017, 01:03:18 PM »
Who wants acid rain? I have no idea. Exactly what pH are you referring to? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants.  (proven fact) Okay, I'll take your word for it that it's a "proven fact" that The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants. Does anyone deny that that requirement was part of The Clean Air Act?

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that.  (proven fact) Yes, "if perflourocarbons are the cause of that" THEN... WHAT? You write a conditional clause but neglect to include a consequent clause. Are we supposed to guess the consequent? And if the consequent is along the lines of "then the ozone layer will have another/larger hole"? If so, please provide the "proven fact" that the hole in the ozone layer will have consequences that outweigh the costs of eliminating perflourocarbons.

Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases.  (proven fact) How "potent" are they compared to water vapor? What relative percentage of "warming" is due to water vapor compared to those two gases? How do you plan to eliminate the potent water vapor from the atmosphere?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637

I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment! We didn't want to keep you waiting too long. That would have been seriously impolite.
If you can prove that those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth I will apologize and say you are correct.
There is no logical relationship between "prov(ing) [what no one claimed] those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth" and claiming there is a lack of proof that those chemicals, as presently used, will cause catastrophic environmental problems that will risk the survival of humans on the planet. No relationship at all. I.e. "beneficial" is not the same as "relatively harmless". I don't recall anyone claiming that those chemicals were "beneficial" (for the climate. Obviously they are beneficial as a consequence of their various uses that benefit humans).

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2017, 01:39:47 PM »
Science means questioning everything.

Well, except global warming of course, you can't question that...

because "science!"
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2017, 01:45:34 PM »
First, this bill is designed to stop the overpowering overreach of the EPA. Which is a good thing since all the regulations set forth by this department has no congressional oversight. It has over stepped its bounds and caused massive job loss, massive tax loss for the government, and in exchange for that YOU AND I pay higher taxes to make up for that power that one department should never have had under any circumstance in the first place.

-I'm perfectly fine "paying more taxes, getting job losses" for the sake of protecting our environment.  Congress isn't some magical system that makes everything right.  Half the members are morons on the environment.  Would you dictate what parts the mechanic fixes your car with to the state congress?

Second, this bill does not stop any state from enacting their own environmental regulations. If a state wants to hurt their own economy, they are more than welcome to do so. All this bill is doing is pushing some of the responsibilities back to the states where it belongs. The EPA should have never been created without congressional oversight. And it should have never been given as much power as it has. Period. This was an extremely stupid mistake by Jimmy Carter.

-See the problem with this is our politicians are bought by large companies who don't give a flying fuck about our environment.  The people elect our government for the best interest of its people.  We all live on this earth, breathe its air and drinks its water.  You wouldn't trust a congress committee for your personal heath right?  You would see a doctor who specializes in your health.  Just like the EPA specializes in the environment.  You doctor sometimes says stuff you might not agree with and or want to hear, like you need to loose weight, drink less etc.  But in the end its for your good.  This is just like what the EPA is.

Third, no company is going to start polluting just because this bill was enacted. If they do then they will have to deal with the local and state level residents and governments. And in the case of a gross polluter, the federal government and the EPA. They would be stupid in this day and age to not voluntarily continue to be good environmental citizens.

-No company goes out and tells people its going to start polluting.  They just do it and hope no one finds out.  It won't happen overnight but it will negatively effect our environment. With this law there can be no gross polluters for those specific chemicals/pollutants.

Fourth, the EPA still can come in and monitor and fine any violators of any federal environmental laws. All the EPA can no longer do is to enact regulation that starves the economy by reducing employment without congressional approval.

-Did you read the bill? 

Fifth, this bill does not stop congress from researching and analyzing the data and re-enacting all the deregulation put forth in this bill. All this bill is doing is not allowing the EPA to set forth the regulations without congressional approval. The EPA can request all these things be re-enacted to congress. They just need to provide evidence that these regulations are important enough and won't significantly impact employment. If all of what you say is true then it won't be long before all this regulation is put back, right? Because no one in their right mind can deny climate change, right?

-What?  This bill is basically saying everything the EPA researched is wrong and deregulate everything.  Its basically saying climate change doesn't exist.

Sixth, all of the issues you mentioned in the first few lines are all pollution issues. And as you already know and cannot argue with is the fact that we humans cannot affect the climate in any significant amount. The numbers just don't lie and you have no argument that can contradict the numbers. And in case you don't remember my posting, here it is again: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26274.msg232658#msg232658.

-Let me just let you know that perfluorocarbons have been documented to fuck up our ozone.  Its 100% human made and 100% effected the environment.


Finally, you are doing exactly what the democrats/progressives/socialists/environmentalists want you to do and that is to act hysterically and to panic. JMHO

-What I'm doing is not being a sheep and pretending the world is all good.  We need to fight for this earth its our one and only home. 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 01:56:51 PM by omnigun »

Heavies

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2017, 01:46:12 PM »
"I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself, and then make a change"

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2017, 01:47:48 PM »
"I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself, and then make a change"

I would like to say I've changed quite a bit to help the environment.  Went solar,  bought and installed all low energy products.  Don't litter or pollute.  Try and buy environmentally friendly products.  Next step I am trying to take is an electric car.

omnigun

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2017, 01:49:24 PM »
Science means questioning everything.

Well, except global warming of course, you can't question that...

because "science!"


Science is to question everything until proven.  Please don't tell me you are still questioning that the earth isn't the center of the universe.  Or the sun revolves around the earth.  Or gravity exists.