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

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 02, 2014 11:57 am

We have the same issues with old septic systems here in older developed areas around waterways. The Fed and State are the same here. Regulate the pizz out of new systems and ignore the old failing ones that are the problem. Stupid is as government does.
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 ScaupHunter » Fri May 02, 2014 11:59 am

Not wanting to swim in poo is environmentall conscious even if it is in your own self interest. By the way, how do you deal with swimming in fish poo? :lol3: I understand the fishing is good there.
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 May 02, 2014 3:30 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.

Please post verifiable accounts of the fraudulent practices of the EPA, scaup.

I'm not scaup, but I think the origin of this thread is absolutely fraud and easily verifiable.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules
Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have - and cannot produce - all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.

No data, then no rules, and no rules BEFORE all the data is public with sufficient time for the public to review the data. Anything else is fraud.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 02, 2014 10:00 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.

Glimmerjim wrote: Please post verifiable accounts of the fraudulent practices of the EPA, scaup.


SpinnerMan wrote: I'm not scaup, but I think the origin of this thread is absolutely fraud and easily verifiable.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules



C'mon Spinner, what a smear sheet your reference is.
First, just to assess the credibility of the source, CNS News is "Conservative News Service". Any possibility of bias?
Secondly, a past editor of CNS for 7 years was Scott Negerson. He took a leave of absence to take a "communications" position with the Republican National Committee. Any possibility of bias?
Third, the administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, stated that “EPA provided to the Committee all the data that was in the possession of the agency or within the agency's authority to obtain under the Shelby Amendment,” which requires that results of federally-funded studies be made available to the public, an agency spokeswoman responded. “As such, the agency has now in good faith obtained and provided to the Committee all the requested research data subject to the Shelby Amendment and covered by the subpoena.”
Fourth, can you imagine the voluminous data that must be accessed inorder to provide "ALL" data used in multi-decades long study? Further, the writer of the article stated that part of the miossing data is currently at "New York Univ"! Why don't they go there if they are truly interested in obtaining a scientific position?
Lastly.....why do conservatives ALWAYS put health risks in an inferior position to who can make a buck by ignoring established values? It never ceases to amaze me. However, while this is simply smear tactic and innuendo at this point, YET to be reviewed by Congress, conservatives are ALL on board. Yet when scientists are ALL on board re Climate Change, it is self-serving consiratorial manipulation of data?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 02, 2014 10:15 pm

cartervj wrote:they're all about touchy feely and not about facts

Depends who we get to "touch and feel" carter! Touch and feel Jennifer Aniston or deal with the facts of why that is pure fantasy? I'll go for touchy feely! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 02, 2014 10:23 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:they're all about touchy feely and not about facts

Depends who we get to "touch and feel" carter! Touch and feel Jennifer Aniston or deal with the facts of why that is pure fantasy? I'll go for touchy feely! :lol3:

You might as well be all touchy and feely with that fantasy in mind Jim!! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58777
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 02, 2014 11:07 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:they're all about touchy feely and not about facts

Depends who we get to "touch and feel" carter! Touch and feel Jennifer Aniston or deal with the facts of why that is pure fantasy? I'll go for touchy feely! :lol3:

You might as well be all touchy and feely with that fantasy in mind Jim!! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Exactly Inda! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Sat May 03, 2014 6:48 pm

I like your taste in womens Jim :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Indaswamp » Sat May 03, 2014 8:49 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:they're all about touchy feely and not about facts

Depends who we get to "touch and feel" carter! Touch and feel Jennifer Aniston or deal with the facts of why that is pure fantasy? I'll go for touchy feely! :lol3:

You might as well be all touchy and feely with that fantasy in mind Jim!! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Exactly Inda! :thumbsup:

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58777
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun May 04, 2014 6:31 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.

Glimmerjim wrote: Please post verifiable accounts of the fraudulent practices of the EPA, scaup.


SpinnerMan wrote: I'm not scaup, but I think the origin of this thread is absolutely fraud and easily verifiable.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules



C'mon Spinner, what a smear sheet your reference is.
First, just to assess the credibility of the source, CNS News is "Conservative News Service". Any possibility of bias?

You asked for VERIFIABLE. Now instead of trying to verify it, what do you do? :huh:

Then ironically, you go on to verify the key part of the fraud.
Glimmerjim wrote:Third, the administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, stated that “EPA provided to the Committee all the data that was in the possession of the agency or within the agency's authority to obtain under the Shelby Amendment,” which requires that results of federally-funded studies be made available to the public, an agency spokeswoman responded. “As such, the agency has now in good faith obtained and provided to the Committee all the requested research data subject to the Shelby Amendment and covered by the subpoena.”

If the EPA does not possess the data it needs to justify regulations and is unable to produce them for public scrutiny. That is fraud in my opinion. The regulations are not being made open to public scrutiny, but behind closed doors. That should be intolerable if you believe in representative government.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun May 04, 2014 8:49 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Fourth, can you imagine the voluminous data that must be accessed inorder to provide "ALL" data used in multi-decades long study?
Can I imagine? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Yes, of course. I don't even have to imagine.

You make it standard operation procedure to archive all data involved. Do you think people would be fine if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that they couldn't make all data available for their recent regulatory decisions? Would the courts tolerate those rules or would they view them unfavorably?

Glimmerjim wrote:Further, the writer of the article stated that part of the miossing data is currently at "New York Univ"! Why don't they go there if they are truly interested in obtaining a scientific position?
Whose responsibility is it to archive and protect this data and make it available for public scrutiny?

Would you accept the NRC saying, we don't have it, but go talk to New York University? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Glimmerjim wrote:Lastly.....why do conservatives ALWAYS put health risks in an inferior position to who can make a buck by ignoring established values?
This is wrong. Do people with more money, better jobs, etc. live longer and better? Of course they do?

REGULATIONS KILL PEOPLE TOO!!!!!!!!

I don't know what the current best estimate is, but around 10 years ago the number was about one premature death for every $6 million in cost, so if the best estimate off the regulatory cost per life saved was greater than that, more people die from enacting the regulations, if it is less than it saves lives. This is precisely why the data needs such close scrutiny. You need a good estimate of the harm to know whether the best estimate tells you if the regulations will kill more lives than they save.

Do you understand that regulations kill too? This is a core difference between liberals and conservatives. If you believe that no regulations can be too costly or at least don't take that to heart and instead treat it more as a theoretical concept of little practical value, then you cannot comprehend the conservative argument. Dead is dead. Dead because of pollution or dead because you couldn't afford a safer car, better food, better health care, a safer neighborhood, ... is no different. Dead is dead. An improving economy is the greatest life saver known to mankind. It makes all modern safety that we take for granted possible including the proposed higher regulatory standards. The wealthier we are the more expensive regulations we can afford. When we are stagnating economically, we cannot afford more costly regulations. It will kill more people than it saves. The failure of Obama to get out of the way of the economy and let it recover has been a huge killer. This is reality. No conservative wants to die from pollution and we care about people just as much as you do, but you have to strike the right balance and the only way to do that is in an open process. Rich people can afford regulations that harm poor people. That is reality. It is hard not to be myopic about the world around you when it is so vast and so complex. The optimum standards for the poorest most rural is vastly different than the wealthiest urban areas. This is the inherent failure of one size fits all. This is sometimes unavoidable. This is why the data must be open for review by the representatives so they can negotiate and come to agreement.


Glimmerjim wrote:It never ceases to amaze me. However, while this is simply smear tactic and innuendo at this point, YET to be reviewed by Congress, conservatives are ALL on board. Yet when scientists are ALL on board re Climate Change, it is self-serving consiratorial manipulation of data?
Scientists DO NOT VIOLATE SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! If they do, they are frauds. There are a lot of frauds and many don't even realize it because they are so biased by their personal belief and agenda. I took classes with people looking to go into the EPA to do just this. They are strongly biased and sadly not very bright in my experience.

One of those standards is everything is open, valuable data is preserved as if sacred, and if you are in the public policy arena it should be open to all. Every grad student in every school in the country, if they request the data, it should be easily and quickly available to them. We have a serious culture problem and that is why smear tactics work. The scientists that you refer are acting like politicians and picking and choosing what data they provide and who they provide it to as opposed to making it open and available to everyone.

This is very personal to me because it is undermining my profession because sometimes things are simply so complicated that there may only be a few dozen people in the world capable of understanding a particular specific item. This is also why when you say thousands of scientists agree, they cannot possibly be agreeing on all the details because there are not thousands of scientists competent in those details and all they are saying is that is what I BELIEVE to be true and not what the KNOW to be true which are two very different things. It is a matter of faith, trust, etc. which is why ethics is so vital in science because you have to take so much on faith.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 06, 2014 10:51 am

cartervj wrote:I like your taste in womens Jim :lol3:

I never got to taste her, carter, although I've tried. My tv screen is a mess! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Wed May 07, 2014 6:59 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:I like your taste in womens Jim :lol3:

I never got to taste her, carter, although I've tried. My tv screen is a mess! :lol3:



I'm not gonna prod you any more since I have a visual now. :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Thu May 08, 2014 6:57 pm

Scientists are now saying that natural climate forces account for a “substantial” amount of the region’s warming in the past three decades.

A new study found that natural forces could account for as much as half of Arctic warming.

“Rapid Arctic warming and sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean are widely attributed to anthropogenic climate change,” write climate scientists from the U.S., Australia and South Korea in a study that suggests that a “substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”

“Whenever you start to look at local climate trends, you have to look at the internal variability as well as the human-induced variability,” co-author Mike Wallace with the University of Washington told CTV News. “The natural variability is huge.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/08/study ... z31Awkh6MB
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 08, 2014 7:17 pm

cartervj wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:I like your taste in womens Jim :lol3:

I never got to taste her, carter, although I've tried. My tv screen is a mess! :lol3:



I'm not gonna prod you any more since I have a visual now. :lol3:

It's not pretty, Carter! And hard to explain to the wife. I always blame it on the dog! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 08, 2014 7:46 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Dead because of pollution or dead because you couldn't afford a safer car, better food, better health care, a safer neighborhood, ... is no different.


No Spin, you lose me on this one. Of course they are different. Having your children die due to a carcinogenic compound being released as effluents from a manufacturing facility is far different than not being able to purchase the latest in high-tech vehicular technology. The costs of high-tech always come down from their point of new technology to accepted standards. So they become accessible to the least affluent through attrition. Which in time obviously allows the higher previous standards be within the economic reach of the less affluent.
SpinnerMan wrote: An improving economy is the greatest life saver known to mankind.


To a certain degree I agree with you Spinner. Now, however, we are broaching the subject of income disparity. When the benefits of an improving economy are disproportionately awarded to the smallest number of people, this does not necessarily hold true. Do you not see the trend since the 2008 "depression"? The gains have been made in the highest income sections of our population, not in the mainstream population....they continue to plod along with wages and benefits decreasing every day.
So I agree, that an improving economy s beneficial to our society, but not when that society is an Oligarchy with the haves taking all the benefits of the improving society, AT THE EXPENSE of the average working man.

SpinnerMan wrote: The failure of Obama to get out of the way of the economy and let it recover has been a huge killer.


And someone "getting in the way" of those who would rape and pillage the country, the resources, and its people for personal benefit is an asset, in my opinion.


SpinnerMan wrote: No conservative wants to die from pollution and we care about people just as much as you do,


Sorry Spinner, I just don't see this in practice. In talking point, sure. Conservatives want to appeal to the general populace, as that gives them power. But looking at legislation introduced bt conservatives as opposed to liberals continually reinforces my belief that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy, with virtually NO concern for anyone else.
What would the liberals stand to gain by promulgating a platform of higher standards of safety regulation? Would OSHA have ever come into fruition without liberals? The EPA? While there may be instances of over-regulation and the resultant stifling of business concerns, why would that be a "win" to those of a liberal bent? They realize that economic growth is a positive for the nation, they just feel that it can't go unchecked, as there are always those who will create unhealthy conditions for others while boltering their ownbank accounts and power in society.
The predator in an ecosystem must be kept in check, too. When they dominate the system to such a degree that other species can't survive, the whole system crashes.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri May 09, 2014 8:21 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Dead because of pollution or dead because you couldn't afford a safer car, better food, better health care, a safer neighborhood, ... is no different.


No Spin, you lose me on this one. Of course they are different. Having your children die due to a carcinogenic compound being released as effluents from a manufacturing facility is far different than not being able to purchase the latest in high-tech vehicular technology.

Seriously Jim. If you lost a child to cancer and you lost a child in a car crash that they would have survived if you could afford a safer car, you won't think both are horrific and the differences between how they died not truly secondary. You would never say, ONLY if my son had died in a car crash and not cancer, I would be happy.

Granted less suffering is better, but when comparing dead and not dead, there is no difference. How many more people killed in the "best" way would you want to see in order to reduce the number of people that die in the "worst" way? Would you say I'd prefer to see 1,000 people killed this way versus 900 killed a different way? With rare exception, dead is dead.

I care equally about all ways people die. Maybe you really do not.

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: No conservative wants to die from pollution and we care about people just as much as you do,


Sorry Spinner, I just don't see this in practice. In talking point, sure.

Then you are blind or willfully ignorant. And this right here is why we cannot work with liberals. If you don't think I care about people, that is completely wrong and very offensive. What do you think churches do? All those charities and other social functions, why do the religious conservatives do them?

This is an opinion piece, but you can find all kinds of studies that show conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.


However, giving away OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY is normally how liberals define their charitability.
I agree 100% with this statement.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.


Conservatives call that theft and not charity. Taking OPM and handing it out. What does that prove? You care, but not enough to put your own money where your mouth is. Come on.

And that is your exact criticism. They oppose taking from other people and giving it to their personal charities.

Glimmerjim wrote:But looking at legislation introduced bt conservatives as opposed to liberals continually reinforces my belief that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy, with virtually NO concern for anyone else.


BTW, opposing legislation doomed to failure is called common sense and it is the compassionate thing to do, is it not?

Look at places like Detroit and Chicago where Democrats have been in control for generations. Do those politicians truly care or do they care about getting rich and powerful like the Obama's did?

Glimmerjim wrote:What would the liberals stand to gain by promulgating a platform of higher standards of safety regulation?
Human nature makes a lot of people want to feel superior. The Holier Than Though Syndrome is a strong destructive force in society. Whether it is religion or safety and environmental legislation, the goal is to feel morally superior. It is a common human flaw and it leads to tremendous personal satisfactions regardless of whether or not it does more harm than good.

You are a liberal primarily because you make decisions based on how it makes you feel. Instant gratification and then move on to the next thing that catches your fancy.

I am a conservative because I care about the results. Instant gratification is not an option. The gratification comes when positive results are achieved and not at the celebration when the legislation is signed. At that point, you do not know jackshit about whether or not you have in fact done good or bad.

Look at Obamacare, absolutely no effort was put in to understanding whether it is doing more harm than good and where it is doing harm and where it is doing good so that we can move to the best system possible. This is why places like Detroit get into a death spiral. Feel good legislation and political actions. Negative impacts on the ground. More feel good legislation and the death spiral continues. Since at every flawed step, the instant gratification of feeling morally superior about doing the "right" thing, which was the thing that made them feel superior and never working to get the feed back necessary to figure out if they were in fact doing the right or wrong thing. It felt good, so they did it.

Glimmerjim wrote:Would OSHA have ever come into fruition without liberals? The EPA? While there may be instances of over-regulation and the resultant stifling of business concerns, why would that be a "win" to those of a liberal bent?
Do you even know what a classic liberal is? It actually more accurately describes movement conservatives which most closely describes people such as myself and a large fraction of conservatives than most self-described liberals and doesn't apply hardly at all to people like Obama and most of the Democrat leadership.

So the answer to your question is ABSOLUTELY. And they would be far more efficient and focused and society would be better off for it. I've devoted my life to making people safer and the environment cleaner :fingerhead: This is not an aberration either. It's why conservatives do what they do. We are not hard-core libertarians. Get out of California. It has warped your mind.

Glimmerjim wrote:While there may be instances of over-regulation and the resultant stifling of business concerns, why would that be a "win" to those of a liberal bent? They realize that economic growth is a positive for the nation, they just feel that it can't go unchecked, as there are always those who will create unhealthy conditions for others while boltering their ownbank accounts and power in society.
Your feelings are what drives you. Results on the ground are what drive me.

REGULATIONS KILL TOO!!!

Over regulation kills just like under regulation. Liberals simply do not truly accept that when they fail, people die. Conservatives understand it that is why we take these things so seriously. That is why we are so offended by legislators voting for legislation they did not even read. Liberals did not care that Obamacare was not read, not debated, not taken serious at all. Clearly they did not care about the 100's of millions of people's lives who were going to be impacted. They clearly thought there was no possiblity that they could do wrong. And they could not. Once they had the party at the signing, they got what they were really looking for. A sense of moral superiority and that instant gratification is what they really sought, and not the incredibly hard grind of finding the right balance between those harmed and those helped. They simply dismiss those harmed as lesser people and therefore any harm to them can be neglected.

Glimmerjim wrote:The predator in an ecosystem must be kept in check, too. When they dominate the system to such a degree that other species can't survive, the whole system crashes.

I know which is why we must drive the liberals out of the system. They are the disease that destroys the ecosystem. Look at all the ecosystems that have been destroyed by liberal principles of more government control not just places like Detroit, but look at all the other places around the world where big central governments prevent prosperity from blooming or destroy it after it starts.

Conservatives are for law and order are they not? We want to shoot the predators. What we cannot control is the disease that infect the mind and cause society to consume itself. That's what redistribution of wealth, welfare, "compassionate" treatment of criminals, and most of the tenants of modern liberalism. Sure each provides the instant gratification the liberals seek at that moment, but the ripples in the future are destructive and not healthy for society.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 13, 2014 12:14 pm

This is a pay article, but I'll quote the relevant parts.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579491643733173318
The IG is looking into internal EPA documents that we've also obtained that show agency officials were maneuvering to kill Pebble more than five years ago, and that EPA's main concern was building a façade of science and procedure to justify it.


Only after all of this did EPA concoct its sham watershed study that provided the scientific cover for its veto. That study invented a hypothetical Pebble mine, then assumed outdated mining practices to predict environmental harm. The study included contributions from obvious opponents of the mine, including Mr. North. The EPA's own peer-review experts ridiculed the study; one pronounced its key sections "pure hogwash."


EPA has been trying to keep this record hidden. Pebble Partnership received some of these documents through a freedom of information request, but CEO Tom Collier confirms to us that the EPA didn't turn over others that we are reporting here. EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins has clearly decided that there is enough to warrant an investigation, and that's a start. This is merely the latest in the EPA's growing record of dishonesty aimed at denying U.S. companies their rights under the law.


The EPA is NOT the opposition. They are supposed to be the impartial judge and jury who are sworn to be unbiased arbiters. If they wanted to get into issue advocacy, they should NOT be in the EPA. If you had an issue before the court, would it be acceptable if the judge or any juror were advocates for the opposing party? Not a chance in hell. The same standard should be expected of all regulators. The left understands this when there are advocates for the other side involved, but silent when it is for there side :fingerpt: This ideal is not achievable which is why it is critical that there is effective oversight by the people's representatives in Congress. It was also a huge loss when the States no longer had their representatives in Congress.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 12:55 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Dead because of pollution or dead because you couldn't afford a safer car, better food, better health care, a safer neighborhood, ... is no different.


No Spin, you lose me on this one. Of course they are different. Having your children die due to a carcinogenic compound being released as effluents from a manufacturing facility is far different than not being able to purchase the latest in high-tech vehicular technology.

Seriously Jim. If you lost a child to cancer and you lost a child in a car crash that they would have survived if you could afford a safer car, you won't think both are horrific and the differences between how they died not truly secondary. You would never say, ONLY if my son had died in a car crash and not cancer, I would be happy.

Granted less suffering is better, but when comparing dead and not dead, there is no difference. How many more people killed in the "best" way would you want to see in order to reduce the number of people that die in the "worst" way? Would you say I'd prefer to see 1,000 people killed this way versus 900 killed a different way? With rare exception, dead is dead.

I care equally about all ways people die. Maybe you really do not.

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: No conservative wants to die from pollution and we care about people just as much as you do,


Sorry Spinner, I just don't see this in practice. In talking point, sure.

Then you are blind or willfully ignorant. And this right here is why we cannot work with liberals. If you don't think I care about people, that is completely wrong and very offensive. What do you think churches do? All those charities and other social functions, why do the religious conservatives do them?

This is an opinion piece, but you can find all kinds of studies that show conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.


However, giving away OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY is normally how liberals define their charitability.
I agree 100% with this statement.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.


Conservatives call that theft and not charity. Taking OPM and handing it out. What does that prove? You care, but not enough to put your own money where your mouth is. Come on.

And that is your exact criticism. They oppose taking from other people and giving it to their personal charities.

Glimmerjim wrote:But looking at legislation introduced bt conservatives as opposed to liberals continually reinforces my belief that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy, with virtually NO concern for anyone else.


BTW, opposing legislation doomed to failure is called common sense and it is the compassionate thing to do, is it not?

Look at places like Detroit and Chicago where Democrats have been in control for generations. Do those politicians truly care or do they care about getting rich and powerful like the Obama's did?

Glimmerjim wrote:What would the liberals stand to gain by promulgating a platform of higher standards of safety regulation?
Human nature makes a lot of people want to feel superior. The Holier Than Though Syndrome is a strong destructive force in society. Whether it is religion or safety and environmental legislation, the goal is to feel morally superior. It is a common human flaw and it leads to tremendous personal satisfactions regardless of whether or not it does more harm than good.

You are a liberal primarily because you make decisions based on how it makes you feel. Instant gratification and then move on to the next thing that catches your fancy.

I am a conservative because I care about the results. Instant gratification is not an option. The gratification comes when positive results are achieved and not at the celebration when the legislation is signed. At that point, you do not know jackshit about whether or not you have in fact done good or bad.

Look at Obamacare, absolutely no effort was put in to understanding whether it is doing more harm than good and where it is doing harm and where it is doing good so that we can move to the best system possible. This is why places like Detroit get into a death spiral. Feel good legislation and political actions. Negative impacts on the ground. More feel good legislation and the death spiral continues. Since at every flawed step, the instant gratification of feeling morally superior about doing the "right" thing, which was the thing that made them feel superior and never working to get the feed back necessary to figure out if they were in fact doing the right or wrong thing. It felt good, so they did it.

Glimmerjim wrote:Would OSHA have ever come into fruition without liberals? The EPA? While there may be instances of over-regulation and the resultant stifling of business concerns, why would that be a "win" to those of a liberal bent?
Do you even know what a classic liberal is? It actually more accurately describes movement conservatives which most closely describes people such as myself and a large fraction of conservatives than most self-described liberals and doesn't apply hardly at all to people like Obama and most of the Democrat leadership.

So the answer to your question is ABSOLUTELY. And they would be far more efficient and focused and society would be better off for it. I've devoted my life to making people safer and the environment cleaner :fingerhead: This is not an aberration either. It's why conservatives do what they do. We are not hard-core libertarians. Get out of California. It has warped your mind.

Glimmerjim wrote:While there may be instances of over-regulation and the resultant stifling of business concerns, why would that be a "win" to those of a liberal bent? They realize that economic growth is a positive for the nation, they just feel that it can't go unchecked, as there are always those who will create unhealthy conditions for others while boltering their ownbank accounts and power in society.
Your feelings are what drives you. Results on the ground are what drive me.

REGULATIONS KILL TOO!!!

Over regulation kills just like under regulation. Liberals simply do not truly accept that when they fail, people die. Conservatives understand it that is why we take these things so seriously. That is why we are so offended by legislators voting for legislation they did not even read. Liberals did not care that Obamacare was not read, not debated, not taken serious at all. Clearly they did not care about the 100's of millions of people's lives who were going to be impacted. They clearly thought there was no possiblity that they could do wrong. And they could not. Once they had the party at the signing, they got what they were really looking for. A sense of moral superiority and that instant gratification is what they really sought, and not the incredibly hard grind of finding the right balance between those harmed and those helped. They simply dismiss those harmed as lesser people and therefore any harm to them can be neglected.

Glimmerjim wrote:The predator in an ecosystem must be kept in check, too. When they dominate the system to such a degree that other species can't survive, the whole system crashes.

I know which is why we must drive the liberals out of the system. They are the disease that destroys the ecosystem. Look at all the ecosystems that have been destroyed by liberal principles of more government control not just places like Detroit, but look at all the other places around the world where big central governments prevent prosperity from blooming or destroy it after it starts.

Conservatives are for law and order are they not? We want to shoot the predators. What we cannot control is the disease that infect the mind and cause society to consume itself. That's what redistribution of wealth, welfare, "compassionate" treatment of criminals, and most of the tenants of modern liberalism. Sure each provides the instant gratification the liberals seek at that moment, but the ripples in the future are destructive and not healthy for society.

Spinner. No offense intended, but really, can you try to limit your polemics to one thing at a time? I don't work, and yet I do not have the time, nor desire, to go point by point through these voluminous point/counterpoint ripostes that hide misstatements and wrong conclusions by their sheer loquaciousness.
I respect your opinions, and applaud, as you say, you're desire to serve mankind best by making energy more available to more. However, when I look at the length and quantity of your posts, I have to wonder how much of your time is actually spent "working" as opposed to doing pretty much whatever you personally feel like doing. :huh:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 13, 2014 1:20 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:No offense intended, but really, can you try to limit your polemics to one thing at a time?
Stop throwing so much flawed logic and misguided thinking into your short posts and my responses will be shorter :tongue:

In this case, my responses to each of your points was not that long. It's just that you had so much that was wrong.

I organized it so you can pick and choose whatever you wish to respond to. You can easily skim it.

Besides, I figured you needed something to do while your hanging on the ledge waiting for a ride home. :tongue:

Glimmerjim wrote:However, when I look at the length and quantity of your posts, I have to wonder how much of your time is actually spent "working" as opposed to doing pretty much whatever you personally feel like doing.

I get my work done. Should I have more work to do? Probably. However, I can do my work at night watching TV, weekends, waiting in the car while my wife is shopping, ... Rarely when I'm on vacation do I not do work. It's just the nature of my job.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 2:23 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: No offense intended, but really, can you try to limit your polemics to one thing at a time?


SpinnerMan wrote: Stop throwing so much flawed logic and misguided thinking into your short posts and my responses will be shorter :tongue:

In this case, my responses to each of your points was not that long. It's just that you had so much that was wrong.

I organized it so you can pick and choose whatever you wish to respond to. You can easily skim it.

Besides, I figured you needed something to do while your hanging on the ledge waiting for a ride home. :tongue:



Glimmerjim wrote:However, when I look at the length and quantity of your posts, I have to wonder how much of your time is actually spent "working" as opposed to doing pretty much whatever you personally feel like doing.


SpinnerMan wrote: I get my work done. Should I have more work to do? Probably. However, I can do my work at night watching TV, weekends, waiting in the car while my wife is shopping, ... Rarely when I'm on vacation do I not do work. It's just the nature of my job.


Fair enough, Spinner. We all have different conditions expected of us "on the job", and it sounds like you are successful in yours, so who am I to judge? I was just jabbin'! :beer:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 13, 2014 2:37 pm

I'm just in front of a computer wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much.

I've even taken my work into the duck blind :eek: Very, very rare to do that. I try to separate my pure recreation from my work and DHC and everything else.

Right now I'm debugging input to a computer code and reviewing a large list of items in a table. I rotate through debugging, run in background, check results and correct. Then review a few of the items and write my comments on those. Then take a short break and take a leak, give you grief, read some news, etc. Go back and reread my comments to improve the wording, which I find it much easier to proof read myself after I've turned my mind to something else for a few minutes. Check the code status, and continue reviewing the document I'm reviewing.
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 2:46 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:I'm just in front of a computer wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much.

I've even taken my work into the duck blind :eek: Very, very rare to do that. I try to separate my pure recreation from my work and DHC and everything else.

Right now I'm debugging input to a computer code and reviewing a large list of items in a table. I rotate through debugging, run in background, check results and correct. Then review a few of the items and write my comments on those. Then take a short break and take a leak, give you grief, read some news, etc. Go back and reread my comments to improve the wording, which I find it much easier to proof read myself after I've turned my mind to something else for a few minutes. Check the code status, and continue reviewing the document I'm reviewing.

Take plenty of those little breaks, Spinner. Seriously. It can't be good mentally or physically to sit in front of a screen for too long. I know my eyes go south when I watch a screen too long, and my body.....well, never mind, my body is shot anyway! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 13, 2014 3:47 pm

Codes finally running :banana:

Comments are almost complete. One more once over and I should be done :banana:

Then I'm going home :yes:

Of course, I'll probably still do some work this evening and maybe even give you more crap Image
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: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 3:48 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Codes finally running :banana:

Comments are almost complete. One more once over and I should be done :banana:

Then I'm going home :yes:

Of course, I'll probably still do some work this evening and maybe even give you more crap Image

Bring it on, big guy! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slack Tide and 1 guest