Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again (Read 156596 times)

eyeeatingfish

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2017, 01:25:39 AM »
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.

Are those 3,373 regulations good or bad, needed or not? What if most of them are good regulations? What if they just modify existing regulations? Stats alone don't tell a story.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2017, 01:32:00 AM »
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.

It is difficult to come up with a good solution. Congress could have sub committees and be advised by the EPA allowing congress to have an educated vote. That is the way we do it on our board for our HOA, however when you mix politics into it the method it loses efficiency and truth sometimes. But then again, if congress delegates the ability to make regulations, this can also be abused. Leaving things up to the states is one answer but it gets difficult since animals and environments cross state lines. There really is no easy answer.

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2017, 07:17:09 AM »
It is difficult to come up with a good solution. Congress could have sub committees and be advised by the EPA allowing congress to have an educated vote. That is the way we do it on our board for our HOA, however when you mix politics into it the method it loses efficiency and truth sometimes. But then again, if congress delegates the ability to make regulations, this can also be abused. Leaving things up to the states is one answer but it gets difficult since animals and environments cross state lines. There really is no easy answer.
Your correct, there is no easy answer and it is difficult to come up with a good solution. Any solution that is come up with will never be perfect. The idea is to make sure it falls within the law and constitution. The nice thing about our constitution is that it allows for flexibility. And if we appoint proactive heads of the EPA then any and all regulations can be molded and changed to work the way they should. If a company finds a way around a regulation (and you know they will) then we can plug the hole. We just shouldn't over react and start initiating thousands of pages of new uncharted territory regulations as a hysterical solution. Hopefully, while Trump is prez we will no longer see the EPA used as a political tool to wield the power of the current administration as it was used for in previous administrations.

I am a big fan of pushing this sort of thing back down to the states responsibility. However, then gross polluters will move to the states that have lenient regulations. So I think the EPA (as it was originally developed for) is a good solution to the problem that was implemented poorly. JMHO
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

rklapp

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2017, 08:43:13 AM »
Trump plans to replace the environment with something better and cheaper!
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

hvybarrels

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2017, 12:12:18 PM »
Walls are soooo 2016. Build that BioDome!
The F in Communism stands for Food

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2017, 10:18:07 AM »
How a Michigan County Road Got Stuck in Regulation Purgatory
Building a direct path to a new mine makes perfect environmental sense, but the EPA hasn’t budged.


Quote
President Trump renewed his call for a $1 trillion infrastructure package during his speech Tuesday to Congress. But if that money is to do any good,
Washington must first get out of the builders’ way. A good example of a shovel-ready project trapped in regulation purgatory is Michigan’s County
Road 595, which has been blocked for years by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The project has its roots in a “eureka” moment eight years ago. A large deposit of nickel and copper was discovered in the state’s Upper Peninsula
at what is now known as the Eagle Mine. This presented Marquette County with a new economic opportunity, but also a dilemma. The mine is only
22 miles from the nearest refinery as the crow flies, but the trip is nearly three times as long via existing roads. The usual route would send processions
of heavy, noisy trucks through commercial and residential areas in small towns, as well as along the edge of campus at Northern Michigan University.

The proposed solution was to construct a new county road, a direct path from the mine to the mill. That would allow the trucks to bypass busy city
streets and groggy college students.

State and local officials in both parties broadly support the project, since they see it as critical for the community’s safety and environmental health.
Both houses of the Michigan Legislature have even passed resolutions backing County Road 595, noting that the direct route would conserve
resources, while building it would create jobs.

The problem is the federal permits. In 2012, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality announced it intended to approve the new road, which
complied with all federal and state laws. That’s when the Obama administration stomped in.

The project required a wetland-fill permit, which the EPA vetoed in December 2012 with a vague warning about dangers to the environment. Agency
officials have never provided the kind of details that would allow their putative concerns to be objectively assessed, but they have stuck to their
objections tenaciously. The county has suggested many compromises: In October 2012, it offered to preserve 26 acres of wetlands for every acre
that the project affected. The EPA refused.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-michigan-county-road-got-stuck-in-regulation-purgatory-1488585470
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

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2017, 05:49:29 PM »
How a Michigan County Road Got Stuck in Regulation Purgatory
Building a direct path to a new mine makes perfect environmental sense, but the EPA hasn’t budged.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-michigan-county-road-got-stuck-in-regulation-purgatory-1488585470
Heavy handed, one head in charge agency, big regulations, big government bureaucracy working hard to waste everyone's time and taxes.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Flapp_Jackson

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

whynow?

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #90 on: March 08, 2017, 01:50:46 PM »
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson snubs UN request for climate change meeting

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/us-secretary-state-rex-tillerson-un-snub-climate-change-meeting-united-nations-a7607811.html
Would like to see the UN kicked off American soil, period.

punaperson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #91 on: March 15, 2017, 07:40:09 AM »
One "former" climate scientist concisely explains how "the fix is in" (and true science is out).

Pruitt’s Position On CO2 Improves Scientific Integrity

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/pruitts-position-on-co2-improves-scientific-integrity/

Excerpt:

As a senior-level Research Microbiologist in EPA’s Office of Research & Development, I conducted my own climate change research while overseeing a global warming project headed by President Clinton’s Associate Director for the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.

In 1999, I published a paper in Nature indicating certain EPA policies could actually exacerbate some of the adverse health effects of climate change.

ORD Assistant Administrator Norine Noonan ordered that my laboratory director be removed; and I agreed to be temporarily transferred to the University of Georgia’s Department of Marine Sciences.

When my appointment at UGA ended, EPA waived government regulations requiring that I work an equal number of years at ORD, and terminated my employment. Thus ended my 32 years as an EPA scientist.

Like me, other scientists at EPA and elsewhere were concerned about how federal agencies under the leadership of Vice President Al Gore were laying a foundation to argue man-made CO2 drives global warming. It’s important to understand that the science underlying this consensus is largely grounded in suppressing any research suggesting that man-made CO2 is not the primary contributor.

Individual scientists who discard unwanted results and only publish data supporting their conclusions are guilty of research misconduct. If caught, their work is retracted and their careers are ended. This same standard, however, is never applied to federal agencies that selectively fund scientists who support their policies, and silence their own researchers who don’t toe the line.



« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 07:47:20 AM by punaperson »

punaperson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2017, 09:14:19 AM »

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2017, 10:53:59 AM »

My Mother used to say "For money you get honey". You pay these scientists enough and give them big grants so they work for another 10 years they will tell you anything you want. For another 5er they will put it down on paper and sign their name to it!!!

It's bad enough our politicians are on the take, but when they have corrupted the scientific community in order to push their agenda, that's when you know the whole world has become ignorant.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2017, 02:11:23 PM »
From an e-mail from Judicial Watch. Sorry, no link was provided so I gave them credit for this article:

Climategate Obstruction Challenged in Court

Here in DC today it is terribly cold for early April.  The problem for the “climate change” crowd is that a plethora of cold days such as this have added to one long pause in global warming.  In other words, there hasn’t been any “global warming” for years.
 
This inconvenient truth is at the heart of new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce to get all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Obama-pushed global warming alarmist agenda under the so-called Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
 
We filed the lawsuit after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to our February 6 FOIA request seeking:
 
All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.

The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
 
Holdren is a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
 
According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
 
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
 
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …
 
But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
 
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.
 
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
 
***
 
In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
 
This lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism.
 
Separately, we are suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).
 
We previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, we obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
 
Forget about “fake news,” with the leftists that have been running our government for years – we have to worry about the potential of taxpayer-funded “fake science.” 
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2017, 04:40:20 PM »
From an e-mail from Judicial Watch. Sorry, no link was provided so I gave them credit for this article:

Climategate Obstruction Challenged in Court

Here in DC today it is terribly cold for early April.  The problem for the “climate change” crowd is that a plethora of cold days such as this have added to one long pause in global warming.  In other words, there hasn’t been any “global warming” for years.
 
This inconvenient truth is at the heart of new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce to get all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Obama-pushed global warming alarmist agenda under the so-called Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
 
We filed the lawsuit after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to our February 6 FOIA request seeking:
 
All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.

The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
 
Holdren is a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
 
According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
 
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
 
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …
 
But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
 
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.
 
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
 
***
 
In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
 
This lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism.
 
Separately, we are suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).
 
We previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, we obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
 
Forget about “fake news,” with the leftists that have been running our government for years – we have to worry about the potential of taxpayer-funded “fake science.”

but, but, but, but, al gore said it was the "truth"

punaperson

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2017, 12:14:24 PM »
Here's an article (with 79 links to sources... no, I didn't read them all) casting doubt on any influence of anthropogenic global warming/"climate change" creating more "extreme" weather events. Yes, the website does have a strong "skeptical" bias, but a person can decide for themselves whether the links they provide to peer-reviewed articles and scientists and organizations (including NOAA) are reliable to what degree.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/27/analysis-its-not-just-droughts-but-nearly-all-extreme-weather-is-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/

Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lows

On Eve of DC climate march, drought drops to record lows in U.S. as nearly all extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows (See: Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March' in DC on April 29th’)

"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."

macsak

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2017, 12:49:14 PM »
Here's an article (with 79 links to sources... no, I didn't read them all) casting doubt on any influence of anthropogenic global warming/"climate change" creating more "extreme" weather events. Yes, the website does have a strong "skeptical" bias, but a person can decide for themselves whether the links they provide to peer-reviewed articles and scientists and organizations (including NOAA) are reliable to what degree.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/27/analysis-its-not-just-droughts-but-nearly-all-extreme-weather-is-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/

Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lows

On Eve of DC climate march, drought drops to record lows in U.S. as nearly all extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows (See: Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March' in DC on April 29th’)

"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."
But
But
But
But
Al gore says it's true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robtmc

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2017, 06:11:49 PM »
"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."
There you go again, dissing a liberal religion with facts............................

Inspector

Re: Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again
« Reply #99 on: April 28, 2017, 12:00:22 PM »
Well I think this says it all about the lies and politicization of science in order to push the climate change agenda.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15839/mark-levin-heres-proof-obama-administration-lied-james-barrett?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=042817-news&utm_campaign=position6

"Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”

NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.”

SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!