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 beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:11 am

huntmmup wrote: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.

So you can't pinpoint which gasses are of primary concern, and to justify the claim of things being "warmer" you assume all else is equal, which you can't prove. You simply can't prove whether or not the earth can compensate for man's creation of CO2 (I specify CO2 because that's where the leaders of the climate change movement are making their money).

While I'll agree doing what we can to reduce our impact on the environment makes practical sense in some cases, you must agree you can't prove man is the primary or a statistically significant driver of global warming or cooling. As such its a fools argument to try to change human behavior because of the potential effects of warming/cooling.

Doing so in the states is destroying our ability to compete globally. The greenies took too big of a leap on this one. Aiming lower and going after provable threats makes more sense. Take emissions and smog for example. Hard to argue our higher standards aren't of value when you compare Beijing to New York air quality.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN


Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:25 am

No, I said we all things are not equal, that's why I can't say whether it's CO2 or something completely different that caused the warming.

Still, the only two facts we know are greenhouse gases cause temperature to go up, and we're releasing greenhouse gases. It's not a fools errand to try to change behavior, its a damn good insurance policy to be prepared and avoid screwing our kids.

If the scientists are right, and that's a big if, then we could be causing big problems. According to them, they have already proved man did it, proved it with statistical significance as you say is impossible. Whether you're right or the guys that study it all damn day are right, lets just take easy practical measures to reduce greenhouses over time, nothing crazy like taxing CO2 though.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:58 am

huntmmup wrote:Still, the only two facts we know are greenhouse gases cause temperature to go up, and we're releasing greenhouse gases. It's not a fools errand to try to change behavior, its a damn good insurance policy to be prepared and avoid screwing our kids.

Green house gases could cause temps to go up IF all else is equal. I haven't seen proof the earth can't compensate nor has anyone proven it would be bad.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:59 am

You worry about global warming which has an actual net postive effect for humanity instead of worry about the 17 trillion in debt that has mounted up? :huh: Seriously? You had better worry about what follows global warming and that is always an Ice Age. That is going to do a lot more harm than rising sea levels ever could.

You want to argue if it could even be slightly possible we should remove chemicals from entering the environment. I agree and spend my work days doing just that. In support of your logic, I say if Obamacare can possibly harm one person it has to go! Stop polluting our society just like we are stopping chemical pollution.
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: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:02 pm

huntmmup wrote:If the scientists are right, and that's a big if, then we could be causing big problems. According to them, they have already proved man did it, proved it with statistical significance as you say is impossible.

According to them, yes, and nearly every one of the model predictions from a decade or so ago grossly over predicted today's average temps. I don't have to have been smart enough to predict today's average temps in order to prove they have been wrong.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:06 pm

By the way, how's things dhunt?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:09 pm

Like I said, all of them might be completely wrong, it might be that 1000 ppm of CO2 does absolutely nothing.

You might be right, they might be right, neither of you might be right. You don't know for sure you're right, and they don't either. So the only things we know for sure are greenhouse gases cause temperatures to go up, and we're releasing greenhouse gases, then we should definitely start preparing and take practical steps to reduce emissions. Practical steps not crazy steps.

If they're right, we'll be ok, because we took practical steps to reduce emissions. If you're right, we'll be ok, because we didn't go crazy and tax the heck out of everyone for an imaginary problem.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:12 pm

Dhunt,

We have already taken practical steps and have regulated our various businesses entities into non-competitive status with a lot of the world. Liberals, socialists, fascists, etc... always argue, well it is just reasonable we have to do it.

I don't think the word reasonable means what you think it means. :lol3:
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: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:56 pm

huntmmup wrote:Like I said, all of them might be completely wrong, it might be that 1000 ppm of CO2 does absolutely nothing.

You might be right, they might be right, neither of you might be right. You don't know for sure you're right, and they don't either. So the only things we know for sure are greenhouse gases cause temperatures to go up, and we're releasing greenhouse gases, then we should definitely start preparing and take practical steps to reduce emissions. Practical steps not crazy steps.

If they're right, we'll be ok, because we took practical steps to reduce emissions. If you're right, we'll be ok, because we didn't go crazy and tax the heck out of everyone for an imaginary problem.

I have not seen anyone prove humans creating more greenhouse gases will make the earth's temp rise. They can't because the system is too complex given the relatively small potential impact of GGs, and the temps simply have not gone up with increasing human activity in the past couple decades.

You are making a false assertion.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:18 pm

No what I'm saying is, if in a fake world everything was the same, the only ting that changed was CO2 increased, temperature would go up. We all proved that in our high school greenhouse effect science experiments. Now it might take way more CO2 than we will ever make to make the temperatures go up, and maybe all the other natural process of the complex system will negate the relatively small amount of CO2 we create, but I don't think we should just hope that happens. Always be prepared as scouting taught us.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:41 pm

huntmmup wrote:No what I'm saying is, if in a fake world everything was the same, the only ting that changed was CO2 increased, temperature would go up. We all proved that in our high school greenhouse effect science experiments. Now it might take way more CO2 than we will ever make to make the temperatures go up, and maybe all the other natural process of the complex system will negate the relatively small amount of CO2 we create, but I don't think we should just hope that happens. Always be prepared as scouting taught us.

And now you see why many libs and cons argue endlessly. They talk past each other with generalized statements that contain underlying assumptions that grossly impact the accuracy of the statement itself.

Your response is precisely why using climate change as a rationale to place restrictions on business and other entities is bs. You can say certain emissions hurts air quality and prove it. You can say draining certain chemicals into a river hurts water quality and prove it. Those more basic arguments should drive change as needed, and not pie in the sky armageddon scenarios.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:42 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:
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.



:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
“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: 7358
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:54 pm

That's what I dont get, why is being prepared bs? Even if there's only a 1% chance that the scientists are right, we should prepare for that, because in this case until we can prove might be after stuff is already really screwed up. Whatever it is, ice is melting, glaciers are melting, stuff is changing.

Scientists are telling us it's happening, even nonscience people like me can prove the basic mechanism in our greenhouses, and we can look at Venus and see it. For me that's enough to say yeah maybe it's a bunch of liberal bs and they're wrong but just in case, lets start preparing and reducing the emissions.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:03 pm

huntmmup wrote:That's what I dont get, why is being prepared bs? Even if there's only a 1% chance that the scientists are right, we should prepare for that, because in this case until we can prove might be after stuff is already really screwed up. Whatever it is, ice is melting, glaciers are melting, stuff is changing.

Scientists are telling us it's happening, even nonscience people like me can prove the basic mechanism in our greenhouses, and we can look at Venus and see it. For me that's enough to say yeah maybe it's a bunch of liberal bs and they're wrong but just in case, lets start preparing and reducing the emissions.

Because the general public has a piss poor understanding of opportunity cost and risk. If I were to use that what if rationale I'd make sure I could work from home to avoid driving a car.

And not all science people agree. More and more are disagreeing every day because the models are being proven wrong, and as I've shown your basic principles are bs as the sole basis for proving anything.

Just when I thought we were making progress.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:31 pm

Well I say hedge our bets a little and start trying to lower emissions, if the majority of scientists are right (your right, not all of them think its happening) then we might be screwing up the environment for our kids and I dont want to tell them I did nothing.

I already took my boy to glacier national park because if they keep melting at the rate they have been they're all be gone soon. We dont have to regulate the crap out of it because that never works well but we can do stuff like give very small tax credits to businesses that have low per-employee emissions, things like that hedge our bets. But waiting around being unprepared seems like a bad idea to me.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:36 pm

Seems like your thinking is though "I know for sure I'm right, global warming isnt manmade and/or isnt happening". Well guess what, you do not know for sure. Nobody does, that is why all the debate is happening. In a debate where the downside is something as bad as scientists are talking about, hedging bets both ways seems like the thing to do.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm

Yes, more tax credits, that's the answer. Let's further add to an over complicated tax system.

What emissions do you think we should reduce, and by how much?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:00 pm

I will answer that one. We need to reduce or eliminate Methane emissions and releases. It has been known in the scientific world for a very long time that Methane has a much higher impact on temperature than CO2 does.

Shall we start getting ready and take the single best step by killing every cow on the planet? They fart a lot. Think I am joking about it being an issue? Look up the numbers. How about all the fat humans doing the same in their billions?

Now lets look at the simple fact that no matter how hard the US pushes forward the developing world is going to produce far more CO2 in the next decade than the US will produce in the next 100 years. We are closing rapidly on the point of diminishing returns of environmental benefit ( potential )vs capital outlay and other econonomic losses as a nation. We are burning time and effort on something that will not produce any real benefit to the US. Quit wasting time and money on making things harder and accept we have done enough already. Get to enforcing what we have and making it stick. That is a far better goal than continually trying to demand more to the point of ridiculous and not properly enforcing any of the requirements.
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: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:05 pm

Man I have no clue, Im not a lobbyist or scientist. I think anything releasing anything that we know for a fact causes damage (like lead, mercury, etc) should come with huge fines. Stuff like greenhouse gasses where nobody knows for sure, just small small tax credits or something else, yeah I don't like the complicated tax system either so maybe something else. Small incentives can change behaviors, I mean encourage companies to reduce emissions, which would be a nice hedge.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:25 pm

huntmmup wrote:Man I have no clue, Im not a lobbyist or scientist. I think anything releasing anything that we know for a fact causes damage (like lead, mercury, etc) should come with huge fines. Stuff like greenhouse gasses where nobody knows for sure, just small small tax credits or something else, yeah I don't like the complicated tax system either so maybe something else. Small incentives can change behaviors, I mean encourage companies to reduce emissions, which would be a nice hedge.

Here's the rub, even with lead and mercury, they only conditionally cause damage, but I am suspecting you knew that. As I am suspecting coming back to DHC is just another round in your game of trying to rile people up.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:40 pm

There's a litmit to how many responses I can post? Hopefully you aren't saying that we should let companies dump mercury and lead. Just today a study in China said that around 20% of their soil, in the entire country, is contaminated. I hope if a company dumps stuff like mercury or lead here, on purpose, we fine them big time and throw the ring leaders in jail. The salmon I pull from the columbia and the ducks already have enough crap in them.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby beretta24 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:54 pm

huntmmup wrote:There's a litmit to how many responses I can post? Hopefully you aren't saying that we should let companies dump mercury and lead. Just today a study in China said that around 20% of their soil, in the entire country, is contaminated. I hope if a company dumps stuff like mercury or lead here, on purpose, we fine them big time and throw the ring leaders in jail. The salmon I pull from the columbia and the ducks already have enough crap in them.

Again, you speak in silly liberal simplified (but backassward) logic. Lead can be bad turns into its always bad and any who dumps it should be fined regardless if the amount in the location dumped is harmful. I suppose you're for increased gun control too even if a firearm can only be harmful if used in a harmful fashion.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:19 pm

huntmmup wrote: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.
:fingerpt:

You are forgetting one important thing. Is it good or is it bad? Warmer is not by definition worse. I've never lived through one and I'm pretty sure I don't need to to say ice ages suck. And where is there more abundance and diversity of life than where it is warm? It sure as hell is not where it is cold.

huntmmup wrote: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.

Do you dress like a race car driver when you drive your car? Why not? There is a very good chance that doing so could save your life and your families life.

It is a question of cost versus risk. Automobiles are the perfect example. Large vehicles save lives, but they cost more. Why doesn't everyone drive around in a tank? Clearly it would reduce a real risk, yet you rationally choose to accept that risk and not do things you know that you could do to reduce that risk which is far from your standard of a tiny tiny chance.

We should do a risk benefit analysis to the best of our ability. I don't know your financial situation, so I'm not going to judge you for hauling your kids around in a death trap. That higher risk to your children is not inherently the wrong choice.

All those chemicals are released because there is value to do so. There is also cost of doing that, but you cannot just focus on the potential cost. You must make as best assessment of BOTH the cost and the benefit. Then you need to understand the cost of trying to reduce the release of those chemicals. This is very difficult which is why the EPA should never rely on unpublished data that has not been open to scrutiny by every interested party. Much of the cost and benefits is based on subjective value judgments which we resolve through our elected representatives and not our unelected bureaucrats subject to the constraints imposed by the Constitution and the laws legally derived from the authority granted to Congress or to the States.

BTW, I am a scientist, so you must believe me right?

This appeal to the authority of unnamed scientists is actually quite laughable. We're just people and subject to all the biases and flaws of people. Why if scientists aren't likely see what they want to see, why do they need to do double blind studies? If scientists were so unbiased, double blind studies would have never become the gold standard when possible.
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: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:42 pm

huntmmup wrote:Man I have no clue...

You could have stopped posting right here.
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: 58118
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:30 am

So the Earth has been much, much warmer and much, much colder, so what is the ideal temp :huh: and why should we try in vain to control it? :huh:

I also wish we would stop using the word science when it comes to all this enviro-activism. Now that a study, funded by the taxpayers, is showing cellulose ethanol is worse that good old fossil fuel, the enviro-activist masquerading as scientist are calling bologna on the study. If it went the other way, they would be all in.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIOFUELS_GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-21-04-02-59

Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.


More than 100% better, so it will create negative amounts of CO2? :huh: :lol3: Do you think DuPont might just be getting a giant subsidy from the taxpayers through the enviro-activists in this administration.

Much like Obama's claim that premiums would drop 300%. :huh: What does that even mean? :huh:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests