I've only read estimates that man contributes to Climate Change at a rate of 8%-12% (10% average).  I've also seen it much lower depending on the other factors that negate the impacts.

No it's a "proven fact"
Because omnigun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think of this like cancer research.  Right now to everyone it might appear to be a total waste.  We still haven't found the cure yet, and have spent billions making huge cancer research companies rich.  But, with only that thinking and if everyone pulled the funding we will never find the cure.  But if people keep funding the concept of a cancer free world and research and innovation continue to be done one day it will happen.  That's the basic idea behind "green" tech. Its not perfect now, in some cases its worse on the environment but the idea behind it is good.   It will only get better and soon (in some cases now)  there will be a net positive impact on the environment.   In the end everything is about money, greed exists but greed isn't necessarily bad.  We live in a capitalist world all sides want to make money.   People who make green products do.  Companies who sell oil do.  Everyone does. What you should do is pressure companies to improve and look long term.  Even if you think oil solves everything why change the simple idea that oil is a finite resource should get you to want to change.

I don't see cancer research as a waste.  Nor do I see investment in green or sustainable energy technology to be a waste.  You seem so hell bent on defending and proving what you believe that you end up grasping at anything to support your assertions. 

Again, I agree that green and sustainable energy technology should be pursued and invested in.  I was just pointing out that there are serious flaws with current technology and manipulation of the industry.  That people are buying into it as this total savior type technology, where in many cases it has been documented that hazardous waste from the production of the materials as well as waste after the product's service life are KNOWN problems.  They poison people, they poison drinking water, etc.  If you have bought into PV, electric car technology as your way to save the environment, whatever based on your beliefs, that's fine.  Up do you.  No one is going to change your beliefs.  However, it doesn't change the facts of the matter. 

Heres a simple point that shows that climate change is not settled science and is no where near being proven.

The premise behind the Climate change theory is that Mans actions have a significant influence on the world climate and that we are (currently) accelerating global warming.

If this is true then at what rate are we accelerating at influencing climate change.


To say that humans are a significant/main cause of climate change there must be a measurable amount of change attributed to humans.

I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.

I don't doubt that man has an impact on the environment.  That said, as mentioned many times, this planet's history is millions of years.  That's like saying I ate a cheeseburger yesterday and today I was 1 lb lighter is proof that cheeseburgers cause weight loss.  Reminds me of an experience I had with an elderly family member who is going through some health issues.  Recently, he was convinced that a certain treatment causes his nausea.  This was after it happening over the course of 3 days.  Well, he's been having that treatment for over 2 months without ill effects.  But what had changed right before the nausea was the start of an antibiotic.  I said that I believe that the antibiotic was the likely cause as they had not had the nausea previously. But no, he was ABSOLUTELY convinced it was the treatment.  Sigh.  Well, a few weeks later and the antibiotics are done and guess what, no nausea. . .

The short term data may APPEAR to indicate a cause and effect correlation.  Could be coincidence or it could really be connected.  If the data shows a change, like it does with recent trends in hotter temperatures, sea level rise, shrinking of polar ice caps, etc.  It's easy to link those phenomenon to man's recent actions.  It seems common sense and easy for anyone to grasp.

I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.

I don't doubt that man has an impact on the environment.  That said, as mentioned many times, this planet's history is millions of years.  That's like saying I ate a cheeseburger yesterday and today I was 1 lb lighter is proof that cheeseburgers cause weight loss.  Reminds me of an experience I had with an elderly family member who is going through some health issues.  Recently, he was convinced that a certain treatment causes his nausea.  This was after it happening over the course of 3 days.  Well, he's been having that treatment for over 2 months without ill effects.  But what had changed right before the nausea was the start of an antibiotic.  I said that I believe that the antibiotic was the likely cause as they had not had the nausea previously. But no, he was ABSOLUTELY convinced it was the treatment.  Sigh.  Well, a few weeks later and the antibiotics are done and guess what, no nausea. . .

The short term data may APPEAR to indicate a cause and effect correlation.  Could be coincidence or it could really be connected.  If the data shows a change, like it does with recent trends in hotter temperatures, sea level rise, shrinking of polar ice caps, etc.  It's easy to link those phenomenon to man's recent actions.  It seems common sense and easy for anyone to grasp.

Wrong, it's a "proven fact" and we're all too stupid to see it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong, it's a "proven fact" and we're all too stupid to see it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.

I don't doubt that man has an impact on the environment.  That said, as mentioned many times, this planet's history is millions of years.  That's like saying I ate a cheeseburger yesterday and today I was 1 lb lighter is proof that cheeseburgers cause weight loss.  Reminds me of an experience I had with an elderly family member who is going through some health issues.  Recently, he was convinced that a certain treatment causes his nausea.  This was after it happening over the course of 3 days.  Well, he's been having that treatment for over 2 months without ill effects.  But what had changed right before the nausea was the start of an antibiotic.  I said that I believe that the antibiotic was the likely cause as they had not had the nausea previously. But no, he was ABSOLUTELY convinced it was the treatment.  Sigh.  Well, a few weeks later and the antibiotics are done and guess what, no nausea. . .

The short term data may APPEAR to indicate a cause and effect correlation.  Could be coincidence or it could really be connected.  If the data shows a change, like it does with recent trends in hotter temperatures, sea level rise, shrinking of polar ice caps, etc.  It's easy to link those phenomenon to man's recent actions.  It seems common sense and easy for anyone to grasp.

I read an article a few years ago from the scientific community. And not long after that I could no longer find it. I still can't so everything I am saying here is from memory so I apologize in advance if I don't get everything straight.

The article I read was from a group of climate scientists that were concerned with the climate change hysteria. Basically they were saying pretty much everything that was being thrown out about global warming and climate change was pretty much invalid. They went on to say that in order to determine a trend in our climate system the scientific community had all agreed that it must be studied in 100 year increments before any trends and facts can be pulled from the data. And that we have only started studying the gasses and other pollution that was only thought to affect the climate in the 60's (if my memory is correct). And that it would take 100 years minimum to determine if any of the greenhouse gases and pollutants actually affected in any way. They went on to say that it would probably take more like 2-300 years before they could be absolutely certain about any results obtained.

They went on to say that they were being pressured by their respective countries to not present these facts to the public. If my memory about all of this is correct then I would think that all this climate change hysteria is all BS.

Again, this all from memory so if I didn't get something quite correct I do apologize. I have searched endless hours trying to find that paper since I first read it and I can no longer find it. I wish my memory was better about these things but it is what it is.

Watch! The insanity is overwhelming.

YouTube comment from a viewer on the above video:

This  fucktard is no environmentalist. Leo owns a private island of the coast of Belize near where I'm from and he has striped the sea bed around it with a dredger barge to fill in his beaches for his deluxe resort. Except dredging the sea around your island and bringing up the sand from the sea bed completely destroys the fish habitats and lobster spawning grounds. Leo cares more about his tan then he does the sea creatures. So fuck Leo.

YouTube comment from a viewer on the above video:

All of these so called environmentalists are like that. They don't practice what they preach.

All of these so called environmentalists are like that. They don't practice what they preach.

Also makes you wonder, are they paid somehow to promote this climate change stuff?

(This is a counter argument to "paid deniers" -- because obviously these high profile proponents do not ACTUALLY believe in climate change).

Also makes you wonder, are they paid somehow to promote this climate change stuff?

(This is a counter argument to "paid deniers" -- because obviously these high profile proponents do not ACTUALLY believe in climate change).

I am a believer in the climate change is big business. When I saw all the major countries buying, trading and selling carbon credits it struck me as odd until I realized that the countries/government leaders/billionaires are all in the climate change business. Every country/government leader/billionaire is getting rich off the hysteria except those who are hysterical. This is why you see those who create the hysteria (Gore, Leo, etc.) are not worried about climate change at all. You see it not in their words but in their actions.

And when you look at how much money is changing hands between countries/government leaders/billionaires you realize it is chump change compared to big oil. But all of this is JMHO.

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.

Science is a method. You don't need to be an accredited scientist to apply the scientific method which is applicable in even day to day life.

While I think there is some over reach by the EPA I also think they are necessary. Climate change aside, who will regulate harmful chemicals and how they affect the environment, especially when it crosses state lines? I don't think the industry would ever self regulate to a satisfactory degree. The question then is how and who should regulate if not the EPA?

While I think there is some over reach by the EPA I also think they are necessary. Climate change aside, who will regulate harmful chemicals and how they affect the environment, especially when it crosses state lines? I don't think the industry would ever self regulate to a satisfactory degree. The question then is how and who should regulate if not the EPA?

Not sure exactly what you are referring to? The EPA is not going away. And their role in monitoring and fining gross polluters is not being being limited unless I missed something? The ability of the EPA to have regulations passed has changed to having to have the regulations approved by congress before they go into effect. So I guess to answer your question is the EPA with approval by congress will continue to regulate.

The way I see this move is that with the additional requirement of congressional approval it means that the people have a say in what regulations should be passed and which should not.

Science is a method. You don't need to be an accredited scientist to apply the scientific method which is applicable in even day to day life.

The problem is where people "use" science only where it supports their argument.  Then then when it doesn't, they say stuff like "you can never be sure", "I believe it to be so despite the evidence", "I have faith in _____". 

Not sure exactly what you are referring to? The EPA is not going away. And their role in monitoring and fining gross polluters is not being being limited unless I missed something? The ability of the EPA to have regulations passed has changed to having to have the regulations approved by congress before they go into effect. So I guess to answer your question is the EPA with approval by congress will continue to regulate.

The way I see this move is that with the additional requirement of congressional approval it means that the people have a say in what regulations should be passed and which should not.

The executive order that Trump signed saying there have to be 2 regulations removed for every new one has me worried. At some point you are going to run out of bad regulations to remove and you either end up having to take out good ones or can't pass a new good one.

Some people do seem to think the EPA is useless, or at least in political rants they don't seem to recognize any value of the EPA. I would dispute that.

I do like congress oversight into the EPA and agree that an agency effectively creating its own laws (regulations) can be a dangerous combination. Having said that I also recognize that congress can be very inefficient at addressing the smaller things that a department regulation might cover, such as quickly addressing a new found danger from a particular chemical.

The executive order that Trump signed saying there have to be 2 regulations removed for every new one has me worried. At some point you are going to run out of bad regulations to remove and you either end up having to take out good ones or can't pass a new good one.

Some people do seem to think the EPA is useless, or at least in political rants they don't seem to recognize any value of the EPA. I would dispute that.

I do like congress oversight into the EPA and agree that an agency effectively creating its own laws (regulations) can be a dangerous combination. Having said that I also recognize that congress can be very inefficient at addressing the smaller things that a department regulation might cover, such as quickly addressing a new found danger from a particular chemical.

Between 2009-2015, the EPA issued NEW, FINAL rules numbering 3,373.   That equals 29,770 pages of new regulations.

It'll take them creating over 1,600 more new rules to undo the rules created under Obama's presidency.

The executive order that Trump signed saying there have to be 2 regulations removed for every new one has me worried. At some point you are going to run out of bad regulations to remove and you either end up having to take out good ones or can't pass a new good one.

Some people do seem to think the EPA is useless, or at least in political rants they don't seem to recognize any value of the EPA. I would dispute that.

I do like congress oversight into the EPA and agree that an agency effectively creating its own laws (regulations) can be a dangerous combination. Having said that I also recognize that congress can be very inefficient at addressing the smaller things that a department regulation might cover, such as quickly addressing a new found danger from a particular chemical.

I think that is a valid concern. I would like to think that since EO can be stopped as quickly as they can be signed and started that they have a list of the bad regs and when they reach the bottom of the list they just nullify the 2 for 1 EO. Have you read the order to see what it actually says? I tried looking for the exact EO and I had no luck finding it. There might be some sort of limit. Just guessing.

I am not a true conservative as I believe in a small amount of regulation and I know that companies will turn off their scrubbers at night and during a rain to save money. So the EPA has to be there to monitor and fine. They should also set the regulations they feel are proper for each industry. Of course with congressional oversight. I don't think the EPA is useless if properly used to uphold regs and laws for the people. I feel they should just not be able to over step their bounds and become a little kingdom that is run by one person without orversight.

Congress is the very definition of inefficiency. But, there is a methodology (not sure what it is called) that they can put aside normal operations and concentrate on something of major importance. That should be a function of the head of the EPA to go to congress and be able to request an emergency regulation to be voted on.

Overall I believe that every EO, law, regulation etc. has unforeseen consequences that we may never know or see for many years. I am curious to see what unforeseen consequence the job portion of this EO is going to create.

Watching the news and a commercial literally popped up just now from American Petroleum Institute with the message "Power Past the Impossible".



Something that seems to be missing out of the climate debate is the reason why deepwater drilling, fracking, and shale are buzzwords these days. Eventually it will get so expensive to extract what's left out of the earth's crust that economic growth will become impossible, but that's such a politically distasteful message that nobody could get elected with it.

On one hand you have the energy giants who killed the electric car and created suburbia to sell more toxic waste as transportation fuel.





On the other there's the con artists who are always looking for an angle and preying on people's good nature, include the "public servants" who hypocritically fly around earning millions of dollars in speaking engagements.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/31/31climatewire-europes-carbon-emissions-trading-growing-pai-74999.html?pagewanted=all


So here we have humanity narcissistically flapping our gums at each other as we round the corner to 400ppm and a mass extinction already in progress. The solution both sides are pushing is to Power Past the Impossible, but that only works if you have the fossil fuels necessary to create "alternative energy" which require rare earth minerals, vast transportation networks, economic stability, and lots of cheap petroleum for raw materials. These things are all much harder to find when major cities start to disappear under the waves.

Instead of building up Kakaako we should be relocating essential services to Mililani, but our species doesn't have the best track record when it comes to being reasonable.

They should also set the regulations they feel are proper for each industry. Of course with congressional oversight.

There is the rub, it does not look like the trough feeders in Congress give a damn one way or the other,

We are left holding the shit filled bag a bunch of un-elected DC type bureaucrats decide is politically correct.

You really think Congress signed off on those regulations the EPA used to rape farmers wanting to create a watering pond or something on their own property?