Shut 'em Down!

GREEN HOUSE GASES/GLOBAL WARMING IS A CON

ROUND　始め！！


Don't you mean the levels of carbon dioxide that are by product of modern industries?

It was known about during the Clinton Admin and people pushed for carbon dioxide emission levels needed to be regulated by the EPA then.

Took nearly 10 years for it to decide to regulate it. It's also gotten hotter during those 10yrs and gets hotter every year. If you say its by product of breathing and the idea is stupid.

That is true but 100 yrs ago there wasn't 7Billion people breathing which is a by product of the petroleum industrial revolution of the early 20th century. Coupled with emissions from industrialized cattle raising, deforestation among many other pollutant sources it all adds up.

Much like how stacking attributes in ones prefered RPGS eventually add up to something substantial.

He had an agenda in linking his personal connection to the issue mentioned so he couldnt actually cite a real reference for the anecdote.!

So what you're saying is he refused to pay a tax. There are several ways to petition the EPA to review your status as a waste generator under RCRA as well as the new carbon credit laws. By your own standards of guilt, he brought it on himself.

I still can't wrap my head around the outrage in being taxed on carbon emissions... MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence have shown with certainty that Carbon has environmental effects in the same way that in the 80's the hot button was CFC's, the 90's it was HFC's, early 2000's it was NOx, now it's CO/CO2/Methane. The community of scientists aren't a partisan organization out to trample your freedoms, they do research and make conclusions based on data. Then test it over and over, then have other scientist test it. CO2 is a serious issue, and people think if they don't like what the facts show that it's some kind of political agenda. The EPA has enacted and enforced regulations within it's power on the emissions of various carbons to discourage their overuse. That's not the EPA being the best thing since sliced bread, that's it doing it's job.

Not going to get into the global warming religion again, but you wanted to know why people criticize the EPA more under Obama; and it is because of their obsession with regulating the bejesus out of Carbon. It has devastating effects on the coal industry, limits a cleaner GREENER alternative in natural gas, and ironically keeps us heavily dependent on foreign sources of oil because other green energy alternatives are not reasonable or cost effective yet. But the horrible evil profit seeking corporations are looking into a way to make it cost effective so maybe we can like them then, for a day.

And the big issue is they do all of this to get around Congress that has no interest in making energy for Americans more expensive by taking measures like Cap and Trade. When the Executive branch decides they can regulate carbon, they can then regulate almost anything. Regulations have the power of law which renders the Legislative branch of government moot and completely changes our form of government.

Yes, when you ignore the actual motivation for greenhouse gas regulation it tends to not make sense.

Zerobama didn't suddenly decide that the EPA should regulate it either. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Whether you believe it or not, it IS happening, and it would be the greatest travesty in the world if the people with the power to affect the future of humanity stood idly by because you refuse to BELIEVE provable scientific facts, not opinions or religious beliefs, FACTS.

I don't care about the motivation if it is grounded in an irrational belief that ignores science and reality. I care about the actual consequences not the stated goal. The goal is some imaginary feel good crap that has zero positive impact on the envirinment but has an extremely negative impact on the middle class and low income Americans.

If you truly subscribe to the irrational beliefs that the Earth is warming and that our CO2 emmissions are the cause and that this is the single largest threat to humanity!!!, then you should be wanting to go nuclear on China. America's CO2 emmissions are at a 25 year low yet you zealots still say the earth is warming every year. What point is there for the US to continue to unilaterally reduce further when China continue to produce massive amounts more than the US.

1. Since the entire body of scientists internationally that aren't employed by oil and gas lobbies agree that the earth is getting warmer and that it's a result of our emissions, you need to cite some source for your claims.

2. Just because someone else puts their gum under the table, doesn't mean we should too.

3. This is the problem with the religious right. When the end of the world means you get to spend the rest of eternity in Jesus's pedophilic embrace, COME THE RAPTURE!

Listen how crazy you sound. Scientists that don't agree are all owned by the oil companies.

Don't even use the word science. Your beliefs are not rooted there.

You're a little late for supper on this one Amand, the only debate currently happening is between a group of about 10 either retired or discredited broad study scientists, most of whom haven't put any of their findings up for peer review or appealed to the IPCC as opposing human contribution or just opposing (which is the fingers in ears basis). The other 986 peer reviewed studies on Global Climate Change all say its real and most say we're the cause.

Did it not strike you as odd that there were 2 "scientific" bodies that said cigarettes were harmless and had some kind of pseudo-science to back it up? Maybe the fact that they seemed to have unlimited funding or a group of very prominent DC lobbyists arguing their case? Where are all those scientists who opposed the harmful effects of cigarettes now? They lost, just like the lobbyists fighting carbon taxes lost.


You still haven't cited a single source on your opposition to climate change... Do you work for Exxon Mobil?

You are right in that you shouldn't approach everyone of them with that level of cynicism.

However, it is also naive to not expect or anticipate a person with a title of authority on a subject being a corporate yes man. The money after all is very very good.

It's like any sales pitch in that you want to approach the desires of the intended target audience.

We were once as polluted as China is today. We had the luxury of having environmental conservationist visionaries like Theodore Roosevelt with the foresight to know what would happen if industrialized pollution and waste wasn't regulated over a long period of time. If you also got a beef with the FDA you can thank Upton Sinclair for opening his eyes to that issue as well ala The Jungle.

There is a game that is being played when you have a government regulation board that taxes and fines industrial corporations, and the said corporations are presenting scientific experts to present counter arguments to nullify the regulations imposed by the federal government's scientific experts.

Some people believe that it's just a natural trend of the earth and that humans and our industrial activity can't have an impact on such a large object.

Some people believe that it's just a natural trend from the overabundance of humans and our industrial activity that are now active on the earth potentially having an affect on it.

If Oil is the blood of the earth and it's a naturally occurring lubricant that takes 10s of millions of years to manifest, and the human population now has the ability to extract this resource from the ground completely within a span of 200yrs. Don't you think it might not be that crazy to be a little cautious in not racing to the bottom once peak production has occurred?

What do you think happens when tectonic plates are no longer greased? Have you ever seen what happens to a combustible engine that has gone dry?

Someone please tell me that I missed the /sarcasm font here.

they don't have a tinfoil hat font and I didn't want to use sarcasm.

It was meant to spur thinking and discussion moreso than being factual or even a belief statement.

Afterthought edit: Maybe I should have proposed the following since it would be on topic of the forum "science and religion"

I'll try to do that right after I try to convince a religious zealot that there is no God. There is no convincing people that believe in something irrational and unobservable. Any source provided you would just mock anyway. You have already mocked every single contrary position in you post, summed every single one up in your first sentence having never read or named one. You will obviously ignore and belittle anything to the contrary of your religious belief. There is no point in arguing with zealots.

Science isn't that everything is true until proven to be false. Science is the exact opposite. Science is the ability to predict the future; for example they should be able to tell us how much the temperature of the earth would drop when our carbon emissions dropped to a certain level. They can't because this is not science.

No science is the practice of the scientific method, it has nothing to do with predicting the future other than it's ability to produce predicable models. That doesn't mean Miss Cleo makes a prediction, it's a reasonable assumption based on previous outcomes. That also means that those predictions are within a closed loop. You can't claim something if it can't be proven, and global climate change continues to be proven over and over in every single metric we have a way of testing.


As usual, you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of things you have a very strong and wrong opinion on. You still have yet to provide a single source for your claim.

Science is different than what you have proposed. Ask any scientist and they will tell you;

"Scientific Laws are believed until proven false. Then the new scientific law is believed until proven false and so on and so on. No scientist hangs onto a law once it is proven false."

To add to this thereis an economic theory called the kuznet curve which basically states that as a country increases its GDP per capitia the citizens stop being concerned with just basic necessities and they start caring about pollution (or another way to state it is they start addressing the commons problem). This theory is not perfect and it is often used to justify the absolute free market....except then citizens have to add regulation in order to restrict companies from polluting.



Observing a lot of developing countries you can see how GDP per capitia increases, people start advocating for reform, and pollution starts to decrease. Economists have also used this theory for the increase in workers rights, not just evnvironmental protection.

China has some very serious problems and they started addressing them 4-5 years ago. Last week they closed 2,000 schools in one city because the pollution was too hazardous and suggested people not go to work.

There is no way to apply scientific method to this theory of global warming through controlled experiments especially now that the radical left has politicized it so much. I'm not talking about predictions out of thin air. You are intentionally misunderstanding what I said. For instance, I will make this really simple for you to understand what I was saying, if someone put water outside in the winter you can predict that the water will turn to ice when the temperature reaches 0 Celsius. It is a proven scientific fact which makes that outcome always predictable. You twisted what I said into some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE Miss Cleo analogy.

You are talking about a proven scientific law. We have been discussing an unproven theory, irrational belief, that the earth is warming and it is due to C02 emissions. Theories aren't true until proven false. You objectively gather data and consider it all not just the parts you like while disregarding data you do not.

Pollution is pollution and no one wants it. No one wants dirty, unhealthy air and water. It is disgusting and this is where we want the environment protected. But do not give me crap that C02 is causing a global catastrophe. It is absurd.

Where is the proof that it has nothing to due with CO2?

Where is the proof of IT in the first place? Then where is the proof that is has to do with C02? You can't just look at two things and say this caused the other out of the blue. It is irrational and certainly not science.

Modeling complex systems is hard. Especially when you don't know all of the parameters involved.
You'll make your models, and run your simulations, and compare the expected results against reality, determine what the differences are, postulate why, run more models, and repeat the cycle ad nauseam.

The earth is a really, really damn complex system. If your emissions drop to a certain level, you will get degassing of oceans/water and basification (de-acidification?) as water which was previously acting as carbon sink starts to emit, until a new equilibrium is reached. And that is only a very basic description of one mechanism involved.

The greatest fear is that we will hit some unknown threshold, after which we start encountering secondary effects which end up driving the process. Part of that is due to looking to the two closest planets to Earth, and seeing two examples of runaway behavior. Currently, we don't fully understand what occurred that drove those environments towards their current extremes; simply based on the change in distance from the sun, we would not expect to see extreme differences in temperatures on Venus vs. Earth vs. Mars.

Yet the difference obviously exists, and we don't understand why.

What?

Scientists are not psychics.

Scientists use model(s) to try and understand how/when/if/does something occur given specific instances using raw data. Specifically they test a theory/hypothesis, using assumptions, accounting for some variables, and they usually run the model(s) many, many times. Sometimes running the model(s) again after changing the variables and assumptions. Statistics plays a large part in this. This doesn't even get into cleaning data, accepting or dismissing outliers, and so many more things when testing a theory.

Reading the methodology section of an article is so freaking important to figure out what exactly a scientist is basing their conclusions on. This goes for all scientific displines from business/economics to physics.

When you say you dont want to hear crap that CO2 has anything to do with a global catastrophe there is no point in presenting evidence since by your own admission you're not going to read it listen to it or entertain it.

Then to turn around and say where is the proof it is CO2, when asked where is the proof to support your opinion that it is not CO2; it becomes evident you just want people to agree with your opinion instead of presenting any factual evidence to convince people your opinion is correct.

Let's take the two separate items:
- Is the earth warming?
There is a fairly universal consensus that the earth is warming.

- Is the earth warming due to man-made emissions?
Most (if not all) known "natural" warming/cooling behavior have longer duty cycles, and slower gradients, than what is currently observed.
Today carbon dioxide is at an "unprecedented" level not seen for at least the last 800,000 years.
Correcting for other known sources of CO2, man-made emissions still drive the change.
The ability for CO2 to assist in trapping heat is a known and calculatable factor.
Other factors have held relatively constant in the time frame of concern.

Occam's razor gives you that the most likely answer is that in lack of any other evidence to the contrary, the climate change is currently driven by man-made behavior/emissions.


You are more than welcome to postulate other theories as to why the climate is changing, and they can be investigated. But just saying "It isn't X, because you can't be 100% certain that it is X, despite the body of evidence pointing to that conclusion" isn't helpful.

The most wrongest wrong I've ever seen wronged.

Not even going to bother further with this exercise in futility, but I will say the egregious part of having this argument with people like you is the way you pretend to know how climate science works or how you claim to know more than the entirety of the field does. It's unequivocally clear that you're in over your head in these conversations and are just parroting talking points with zero understanding of the actual science, and this is only reinforced by your absolute refusal to provide any counter evidence to the table (hint: it does exist!). You look silly not because you dare to challenge the status quo or however you may see it but because you epitomize the willful ignorance you're projecting onto us.

Right off the bat you begin with a false premise about the earth warming then look for causes of your false conclusion. There is not anywhere close to universal consensus.

Said I didn't want to get into arguing global warming again because there is no point in arguing with religious zealots. You challenge me to bring up data that you would readily ignore and mock. You only support global warming with mockery of those that don't subscribe to the belief. You are worse than you make me out to be. There has been zero quality to any post by anyone here supporting the belief in global warming so hold yourself to the same standard.

There is no point. Nothing I can source to you would change your mind just as you cannot list proof that it exists from a reliable source to convince me. I dismantled completely your peer- reviewed bullcrap the last time this garbage came up. I've been arguing with irrational global warning maniacs for over 20 years, oh look the climate is still the same.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Page 12.