The EPA's Science Problem

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:53 pm

In a stunning admission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy revealed to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the agency neither possesses, nor can produce, all of the scientific data used to justify the rules and regulations they have imposed on Americans via the Clean Air Act. In short, science has been trumped by the radical environmentalist agenda.

The admission follows the issuance of a subpoena by the full Committee last August. It was engendered by two years of EPA stonewalling, apparently aimed at preventing the raw data cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for those rules and regulations from being independently verified. Two studies, the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society's (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, had verified that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less were responsible for killing thousands of Americans every year. They became the baseline by which the EPA regulated particulate emissions from power plants, factories and cars. Airborne particles of that size are equivalent to approximately 1/30th the diameter of a human hair.

Apparently Smith and other Republicans had an inkling of what was going on at the EPA last November. At that time, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced the Secret Science Reform Act aimed at barring the agency from proposing new regulations based on science that was neither transparent nor reproducible. “Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups,” Schweikert said in a statement. “For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”

The bill was co-sponored by Smith, as well as fellow House Science Committee members Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) and Randy Neugebauer (R-TX). Smith echoed the concern expressed by Schweikert. “It appears the EPA bends the law and stretches the science to justify its own objectives,” he said. “The EPA must either make the data public, or commit to no longer using secret science to support its regulations.”

At that time, McCarthy was singing a different tune. She defended the EPA's “high-quality science,” and referenced a report by the Office of Inspector General praising the EPA for its research. In testimony before the Committee, she insisted that science is the “backbone of the EPA's decision-making.”

By February, the list of co-sponsors for Schweikert's bill had reached about a dozen, prompting the inevitable pushback from Democrats and their media allies. The “climate denier” label, used by the left to cut off debate regarding whether or not climate change is man-made or a natural occurrence, was dutifully applied to environment subcommittee chairman Schweikert by the Huffington Post and Salon. When running for office in 2008, Schweikert offended the doyens of political correctness. “Understanding what part of climate change is part of a natural cycle and what part has human components is the first step,” he at the time. “Our elected officials must be careful to react to facts and not folklore.”

Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) was similarly offended. “The bill attacks the mainstays of scientific investigation,” he wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. “It would strip away the EPA's authority to make any rules due to the stringency of the data disclosure requirements. The peer review process is the foundation of science inquiry in our society, and is a trusted evaluation of scientific evidence around the world. This legislation attempts to dictate how the scientific method is employed. The Secret Science Reform Act is an attempt by climate change deniers to stop the EPA from doing its job.”

On March 7, such objections were revealed for the fraudulent nonsense they truly are. In a letter sent to Smith, McCarthy acknowledged that the Committee's subpoena sought data from aforementioned studies, along with analyses and re-analyses of that data. After conducting a “diligent search” of the data in their own possession, the agency noted that it also conducted a search for additional data from outside sources, using the Shelby Amendment as the vehicle to obtain that information. They further acknowledged that they have not withheld any data relevant to the subpoena.

Then came the admission. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.” Yet in the very next sentence, the agency remained utterly defiant. “For reasons explained in our previous letters on this topic, these acknowledgments do not call into question the EPA's reliance on these studies for regulatory actions.”

Really? Why not? The scientific method is all about reproducing reliable data that can be independently verified. The EPA and their leftist allies are essentially saying “trust us,” even as they denigrate climate change skeptics for their failure to embrace “settled science.” Such overt hypocrisy would be laughable were it not for the reality that the EPA is moving forward with even more regulations that could place 90 percent of the American public in “non-attainment" areas. They are defined as areas "considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.”

Moreover, there are studies that refute the data on which the EPA relies. “Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Short-Term Mortality," looked at virtually the entire state of California from 2007-2010. Its author, Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy, who posted its results on his junkscience.com website, revealed the fraud the EPA has been perpetrating for decades. "EPA says that when PM2.5 levels go up, people die every day,” he told CNSNews.com. “But if PM2.5 is killing people, my data would show it, especially in Los Angeles, which has some of the worst air quality in the U.S. Not only was there no relationship there, I found a negative correlation in the LA area….If a significant causal relationship between PM2.5 and mortality existed, that relationship should have been visible in this study. But it was not.”

Milloy's results were not anomalous. Another study, “Assessing Geographic Heterogeneity and Variable Importance in an Air Pollution Data Set," authored by S. Stanley Young and Jessie Q. Xia of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, was equally revealing. It contends that the "association between PM2.5 with mortality, when compared to the associations between other variables and mortality, shows that the importance of PM2.5 is relatively small." Young and Xia conclude that the "data set does not support the claim that decreasing PM2.5 will increase longevity. If the cost of decreasing PM2.5 is high enough there could well be a net loss in longevity.” (italics mine)

In an equally damning revelation, they refute the level of importance placed on fine particulate matter per se, explaining that insufficient income, cigarette smoking and a lack of education are more influential on longevity. Thus they contend that “policymakers might better focus on improving the economy, reducing cigarette smoking, and encouraging people to pursue education.”
by Arnold Ahlert in Frontpage Magazine
These studies underscore the need for the Secret Science Reform Act, aka, HR4012. It intends to prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific information that is not publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent scientific analysis.” It would amend the Section 6 (b) of the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 in the following manner:

“The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”

That such eminently reasonable demands are necessary at all reveals the contemptible levels to which the EPA and the Obama administration will stoop to advance the radical environmentalist agenda. “As it stands now, only EPA-funded researchers do the work and review the work, and nobody gets to see the data,” explained Milloy. “These are very expensive regulations, and the alleged benefits are entirely based on this PM/death relationship.” It is a relationship revealed to be an utter fraud. It's time for a thorough cleaning of the EPA itself. It has been polluted by a poisonous ideology for far too long.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera


Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:07 pm

Hey genius! Noone needs to possess or produce the evidence per se; that's what libraries, universities, and other scientific or educational institutions are for and do.

Your 1400-word cut-and-paste job is a waste of space.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Feeling a little angst today Dude? Tired of seeing your side making an ass out of all the voters?

The global warming hoax proves you can't trust the people you reference. Every citizen has the right to see the evidence and should understand it fully. If they did idiots like Obama would not be president and asshat liberals would not be allowed to run anything in this nation. The article is another step in the right direction for America. Everything in government should be transparent. Every law should be clear, simple to understand, and enforceable.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6765
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:14 pm

dudejcb wrote:Hey genius! Noone needs to possess or produce the evidence per se; that's what libraries, universities, and other scientific or educational institutions are for and do.

Your 1400-word cut-and-paste job is a waste of space.

Do you not think making the info available or citing sources is reasonable Dude?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby boney fingers » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:18 pm

dudejcb wrote:Hey genius! Noone needs to possess or produce the evidence per se; that's what libraries, universities, and other scientific or educational institutions are for and do.

Your 1400-word cut-and-paste job is a waste of space.


Hey genius! NOONE cares about your opinion. Thanks for the facts nitram.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:59 am

“I'll make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business. No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.” President Obama in 2008 campaign speech.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:56 am

beretta24 wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Hey genius! Noone needs to possess or produce the evidence per se; that's what libraries, universities, and other scientific or educational institutions are for and do.

Your 1400-word cut-and-paste job is a waste of space.

Do you not think making the info available or citing sources is reasonable Dude?

Yes, I think citing sources is the appropriate and professional way to do it. If you have it (information only you have) internally, then you should make it available for scrutiny by the scientific community at large to gain consensus and validation
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:08 am

dudejcb wrote:Hey genius! Noone needs to possess or produce the evidence per se; that's what libraries, universities, and other scientific or educational institutions are for and do.

Your 1400-word cut-and-paste job is a waste of space.


As a scientific research funded by the federal government, I find it totally offensive that virtually every piece of scientific data is not made available to the public. And when it comes to research used to create regulations (THE LAW THAT WE MUST ALL LIVE BY OR FACE PENALTIES), it should be mandatory that it is open long before any regulation can be changed. I'd say a minimum of two years if not more to provide time for interested parties to digest it. If it requires action quicker than that, they can ALWAYS go to Congress and have them impose the proposed regulations by law.

I already know your response. You don't believe in representative democracy because you cannot control who the people elect, so screw the law makers, and let the bureaucrat and judges make the laws.

I believe it is my moral and ethical obligation to make available to the public all the scientific data that I produce. I do this routinely. This should be standard operating procedure. I'm actually right now working to get government data for a student at the University of Chicago who e-mailed me. If you want it, I'll send it to you too when I get it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:21 am

Spinner hit on the core reason I am so rough on liberals in general. They want to hide everything, force things they want through without review by all parties, and think we should all just accept it.

No new law should go into effect without full review and a serious delay before implimentation. Most laws should have a sunset clause in them, If they are good laws they will be renewed. If they are bad laws they can die a well deserved early death. Nothing about how our government makes it's laws at the federal level is representative government today. The politicians can party line things to death because there is no peer review, no public review, and no time to really discuss things. We need to take the power out of the politicians hands and put it back into the peoples perview with their leaders only voting yes when their constituents approve of that vote.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6765
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:03 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Spinner hit on the core reason I am so rough on liberals in general. They want to hide everything, force things they want through without review by all parties, and think we should all just accept it.

No new law should go into effect without full review and a serious delay before implimentation. Most laws should have a sunset clause in them, If they are good laws they will be renewed. If they are bad laws they can die a well deserved early death. Nothing about how our government makes it's laws at the federal level is representative government today. The politicians can party line things to death because there is no peer review, no public review, and no time to really discuss things. We need to take the power out of the politicians hands and put it back into the peoples perview with their leaders only voting yes when their constituents approve of that vote.

Leaders are elected to lead and not necessarily to follow the lame thinking of their electorate. That's why they're called leaders, not followers. BTW: how do you know what the majority of the electorate wants?

What you're describing as "liberals" sounds more like fascists or totalitarians. Be truthful, you (and Sinner) know liberals are not like that, but it serves your argument to paint them that way. What's that called again?... red herring, discounting, demonization. You're method is taken directly Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's playbook: Those who differ with us, or we choose to scapegoat, are inherently inferior and bad and do bad things to the rest of us, therefore we should band together, demonize and eventually eliminate their voices.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:22 pm

dudejcb wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Spinner hit on the core reason I am so rough on liberals in general. They want to hide everything, force things they want through without review by all parties, and think we should all just accept it.

No new law should go into effect without full review and a serious delay before implimentation. Most laws should have a sunset clause in them, If they are good laws they will be renewed. If they are bad laws they can die a well deserved early death. Nothing about how our government makes it's laws at the federal level is representative government today. The politicians can party line things to death because there is no peer review, no public review, and no time to really discuss things. We need to take the power out of the politicians hands and put it back into the peoples perview with their leaders only voting yes when their constituents approve of that vote.

Leaders are elected to lead and not necessarily to follow the lame thinking of their electorate. That's why they're called leaders, not followers. BTW: how do you know what the majority of the electorate wants? No one knows because the lame stream media and the politicians lie about it. It is time for that process to end!


What you're describing as "liberals" sounds more like fascists or totalitarians. Really? Obamacare! Nuf said. Totalianarism and one side politics shoved it through. They didn't even read the damn thing! Is there a better description for what a majority of Americans don't want and what is totalitarinism at it's worst? Be truthful, you (and Sinner) know liberals are not like that, ( We know true liberals are not all like that. The idiots you elected are progressive liberals and most certainly are like that.) but it serves your argument to paint them that way. What's that called again?... red herring, discounting, demonization. You're method is taken directly Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's playbook: Those who differ with us, or we choose to scapegoat, are inherently inferior and bad and do bad things to the rest of us, therefore we should band together, demonize and eventually eliminate their voices.
:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Said the liberal who is fully supportive of the IRS stomping on Tea Party groups, slams on Rush ( yes he is an idiot ) and other things that have been posted. Your party is busy doing exactly what you are claiming others want to do. Red Herring life working well for you is it? Stop practicing the things you are preaching against.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6765
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:10 pm

Scaup just stop. You're making a fool of yourself and giving civil engineers a bad name.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:55 pm

dudejcb wrote:What you're describing as "liberals" sounds more like fascists or totalitarians. Be truthful, you (and Sinner) know liberals are not like that, but it serves your argument to paint them that way. What's that called again?... red herring, discounting, demonization. You're method is taken directly Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's playbook: Those who differ with us, or we choose to scapegoat, are inherently inferior and bad and do bad things to the rest of us, therefore we should band together, demonize and eventually eliminate their voices.


"The Pot Can't Call the Kettle Black,
'Cause the Trains' all Running on the Same Ol' Track.
You Can't See Nothing But Your life Flying By,
You've Got Trouble On Your Hands, Trouble On Your Mind." - Jerry Jeff Walker
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:46 pm

Nitram I'm surprised you know who Jerry Jeff is. I actually met him once when he was playing at the Santa Barabara County Bowl.

Find me some REK lyrics.

Do you know this?
Well the first days are the hardest days, don't you worry any more
'Cause when life looks like easy street, there is danger at your door
Think this through with me, let me know your mind
Oh, oh, what I want to know, is are you kind?

Goddamn, well I declare, have you seen the like?
Their wall are built of cannonballs, their motto is "Don't tread on me"
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:53 pm

"Uncle John's Band". I'm not a 'Dead Head' per se but I like some of it.

Speaking of Jerry Jeff, I was fortunate enough to eat beans and corn-bread on his bus back in the day. He bought a horse from my best friend and he invited us to see him at Antone's in Austin. The rest is kinda hazy but the grub was grand.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:17 pm

nitram wrote:"Uncle John's Band". I'm not a 'Dead Head' per se but I like some of it.

Speaking of Jerry Jeff, I was fortunate enough to eat beans and corn-bread on his bus back in the day. He bought a horse from my best friend and he invited us to see him at Antone's in Austin. The rest is kinda hazy but the grub was grand.

You and I may become friends yet.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm

You say you're clearing out, the devil's in your eyes
No time to walk, no time to talk, no time for long goodbyes.
The ticket's in your hand, you've made that final call,
The hard words flying by like punches in a barroom brawl

We've made a mess of things,
It makes no difference now let's chalk it all up to the blues.
Little girl, think it over one time
Little girl, think it over one time
Little girl, think it over one time
Before you break in your walking shoes.

Probably my favorite REK song although I like it better as sung by Reckless Kelly (Idaho boys).

Maybe so. After a day or two in the blind I know I could change your mind about a few things....... :beer:
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:42 am

dudejcb wrote:Scaup just stop. You're making a fool of yourself and giving civil engineers a bad name.



This has nothing to do with logic, engineering, or anything real world. Kinda hard to give engineers a bad name when I am arguing with a person who doesn't use logic, bases his posts and ideals in feelings, etc...... Your party is doing exactly what you claim everyone else is trying to do.

I don't want to silence liberals. They are welcome to their opinions and view. They are not welcome to force me to comply with them. The difference here is that I don't care if you have opposing views or opinions. What I do care about is liars, idiots in charge, and trying to rape my pocket book and life to pay for the stupidity spewing from the idiots in charge. If liberals love socialized medicine, then sign on the dotted line and let the liberal pay for it. Otherwise put it to a national public vote and let the people decide.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6765
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:21 am

dudejcb wrote:Leaders are elected to lead and not necessarily to follow the lame thinking of their electorate. That's why they're called leaders, not followers. BTW: how do you know what the majority of the electorate wants?
Who at the EPA was elected to anything? The elected leaders are not the ones making the law in this case. These unelected bureaucrats whether at the IRS, EPA, etc. reject the notion that they are subordinate to the elected leaders. That is why they feel they can stonewall Congress. It is total BS. While my DOE management reports to the President, the Secretary of Energy is subject to Congressional oversight. They are not part of the White House which is not subordinate to Congress. They are required to submit to their oversight. Something that should be embraced if you believe in representative government. Otherwise, how can our representatives possibly be expected to make decisions.

dudejcb wrote:What you're describing as "liberals" sounds more like fascists or totalitarians. Be truthful, you (and Sinner) know liberals are not like that, but it serves your argument to paint them that way.
I am being truthful. This is how things have devolved. Never forget that at one point fascism was popular and not a derogatory term. All the great promises of social Utopia via power central government is and always will be screwed up by the people that get control of that power. Many liberal politicians today are far more like that than you want to admit. They have to be. How else can they do things that would fail if they told the truth. What is the possibility that Obamacare would have become the law if Obama said, "yes, millions of Americans will lose the health care that they have, but ..." Exactly ZERO. Once you believe hiding the truth from the people is acceptable, you are in dangerous territory. Does it apply solely to politicians on the left? No of course not.

dudejcb wrote:What's that called again?... red herring, discounting, demonization. You're method is taken directly Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's playbook: Those who differ with us, or we choose to scapegoat, are inherently inferior and bad and do bad things to the rest of us, therefore we should band together, demonize and eventually eliminate their voices.

Hitler did not try to sell his lust for power by advocating a small decentralized government and a free market economy. Nope, it was socialism and centralized control of the economy so everyone, well the "right" people would be treated fairly.

Stalin did not try to sell his lust for power by advocating a small decentralized government and a free market economy. Nope, it was socialism and centralized control of the economy so everyone, well the "right" people would be treated fairly.

Mao did not try to sell his lust for power by advocating a small decentralized government and a free market economy. Nope, it was socialism and centralized control of the economy so everyone, well the "right" people would be treated fairly.

Obama did not try to sell his lust for power by advocating a small decentralized government and a free market economy. Nope, it was socialism and centralized control of the economy so everyone, well the "right" people would be treated fairly.

I'm perfectly happy making comparisons to the socialists and communists. It is the left that should fear these comparisons, which is why they use them so aggressively. I don't want people to ever forget. You want to pretend like they were not selling the same snake oil that is being repackaged by Obama.

People are people and some cannot be trusted with power and sooner or later those people will get that power. It is the people tha lust for power that seek that power most aggressively and relentlessly. We should not make it possible for them to get any more power than absolutely necessary. This is why they look like fascists. We have concentrated too much power and the power hungry have grabbed hold of a large fraction of it. The power hungry reject oversight and demand secrecy.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:52 am

There are still duck hunters who don't believe global warming? Anybody go to Cali to hunt this year (me either, considering worst drought ever recorded). Anybody look at north/south pole satellite ice pictures of the last 50 years? And don't try to tell me "but the last 15 years it got colder", if that's your reasoning, you don't understand long term and short term trends.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:04 am

huntmmup wrote:There are still duck hunters who don't believe global warming? Anybody go to Cali to hunt this year (me either, considering worst drought ever recorded). Anybody look at north/south pole satellite ice pictures of the last 50 years? And don't try to tell me "but the last 15 years it got colder", if that's your reasoning, you don't understand long term and short term trends.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say a 15 year trend doesn't prove anything, and then point to the Cali drought. :fingerhead:

Do you believe man is causing global warming?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 am

True on the drought ;)

An increase in greenhouse gases 100% causes a rise in temperature (all else being equal), if you don't believe that build yourself a greenhouse and try it out. The question of if the warming over the last century is due to greenhouse gases only or not is entirely different and still up for debate (because all else is not equal...there are too many other factors), and where all the additional greenhouse gases have come from is up for debate too (there are lots of natural sources of greenhouse gases - millions of years ago the planet got really hot from natural greenhouse gases).

But since we know for a fact greenhouse gases cause temperature to go up, and we know for a fact we're releasing quite a bit of greenhouse gases, I think it's a good idea to start coming up with ideas that will help us release fewer and fewer greenhouse gases over time.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:23 am

What green houses gas or gasses do you believe are of primary concern?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:51 am

huntmmup wrote:True on the drought ;)

An increase in greenhouse gases 100% causes a rise in temperature (all else being equal), if you don't believe that build yourself a greenhouse and try it out. The question of if the warming over the last century is due to greenhouse gases only or not is entirely different and still up for debate (because all else is not equal...there are too many other factors), and where all the additional greenhouse gases have come from is up for debate too (there are lots of natural sources of greenhouse gases - millions of years ago the planet got really hot from natural greenhouse gases).

But since we know for a fact greenhouse gases cause temperature to go up, and we know for a fact we're releasing quite a bit of greenhouse gases, I think it's a good idea to start coming up with ideas that will help us release fewer and fewer greenhouse gases over time.

How much warmer and is that a net positive or net negative? Clearly it can be too hot, but just as clearly it can be too cold. So where does the infection point lie and which side of it do we currently sit? Unless you know where that inflection point is, you cannot know which side of it we are on, so it is not possible to know if it is a good idea or not to release fewer greenhouses or not or how far from that point we are.

Does water evaporate quicker or slower when it is warmer? Quicker of course.

However, what happens to that water? Does it just keep building and building in the atmosphere? Of course not. What goes up, must come down. Given the increased evaporation in the ocean, there will be more rain falling on the land. More rain is not the cause of more drought. And a warmer climate will clearly have more rainfall in aggregate. The question of drought is the short term pattern of that rainfall and a few months or even longer is incredibly short-term. However, it is possible that a warmer climate will shift weather patterns and hotter and drier will be the new norm in some places. However, hotter and wetter will likely be the aggregate average because more evaporation means more rainfall. It is also possible that less droughts are possible. We have had severe droughts since the beginning of time, so there is no way to differentiate between the cause of past droughts before it was possible that it was enchanced CO2 and anything that happens today. It would require centuries to see if the average probability and magnitude has increased or decreased or the pattern has shifted.

Now, that does not mean we should not worry about the possibility of a net negative impact. I'm a firm believer in prepare for the worse and hope for the best. Never truer then when talking about the power given to government in general, but especially unelected bureaucrats in the central government such as those at the EPA and IRS or any of them that have so much power over the lives of so many people. When it comes to CO2, there is a lot of evidence that warmer is better than colder when it comes to humans. Not everything is positive, but the net sum of the positives and the negatives is a net positive.

Overpaying for electricity causes a lot of harm and that cost has to be weighed against the risk, which is the probability times the consequences. I think the probability of a net negative is not zero, but it is not highly certain. I also do not believe that the consequences are likely to be possible to be very high. So the value of insuring against the risk is pretty low in my opinion. However, that does not mean we do not continue to study it in a 100% open way.

I do believe there is a lot of value to avoiding CO2 for reasons other than CO2 because there is a lot of correlation with other environmental and human harm that is unrelated to the actual CO2. Land use, air quality, ... There is only one technology that can allow the world to live a modern lifestyle and very low CO2 emissions and that is nuclear power. The others have their niche application, but they cannot provide the energy needs without other major sacrifices. However, there is still no excuse to overpay in a significant way for nuclear to get those benefits. That is one of the major things I work on. The challenge may be insurmountable in large part because of the fear of radiation. While people will move to places like Colorado and be exposed to vastly more radiation than they ever could be from nuclear power, ignorance is bliss and they will never demand their politicians to alleviate their fears. Wind and solar kill vastly more people than nuclear power, but they do not evoke fear. They do it one little accident at a time and that doesn't make headlines. While there is no excuse for what happened at Fukushima having happened, the likely death total from radiation exposure is ZERO. The current death total is ZERO, but it can't be absolutely ruled out that decades from now there will be a few cancers that would not have otherwise occurred. And that is the worst commercial nuclear accident outside of Russia and there is good reason to not count that accident.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:52 am

Any greenhouse gas we are releasing. The only question is how much we should be concerned.

Since the only two real things we know for sure are that greenhouse gases cause temperature increase and we're releasing greenhouse gases, all we need to do is try to stop releasing greenhouse gases. If we dont I dont think anything catastrophic is going to happen like a lot of scientists are saying, but I dont get why we shouldn't try. Even if there's just a tiny tiny chance scientists are right, we should try. Really we should try to stop releasing all chemicals into the environment any time its practial, and if it isn't practical we should try and make technologies that will make it practical.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests