Well, the republifuck governor could have done something about Flint, right? Being all about state's rights and all. But yea, it's all Barry's fault. But for only 37 more days.
Not all Barry's fault...it was a team effort. But clearly Barry was out of position. You're right though...in 37 days the EPA can refocus itself on the right priorities...such as ensuring clean drinking water for it's citizens.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our impact on climate change may not be negative? I'm not a scientist, but if the arctic is melting, temperatures are rising, ozone is being depleted and it correlates to the post industrial revolution period, how is our impact not bad?
I am not saying that it is not bad. I am saying that science hasn't answered that question yet. There are many variables (some that we may not even know of) that contribute to climate change (including carbon emissions) but science has not been able to separate these variables from each other in order to measure the degree of impact of each variable. Now you mention arctic melting and temperature increases as a measured outcomes and what science tells us is that correlation is not causation. What that means is we can't with certainty lay those outcomes at the feet of carbon emissions alone. In a vacuum we could as science understands what a continued increase in carbon will do but the fact is that the earth is not a vacuum. In some ways the earth is like the human body which we know has its own biofeedback mechanisms which allow it to regulate temperature i.e. when we overheat we sweat etc. We know trees and ocean algea are able to absorb carbon and there is some thought that the earth can regulate both temperature and carbon emissions as it is a naturally occuring element after all. Also we know for a fact that carbon emissions have continued to increase and yet computer models predicted much higher temperatures based on this increase which to date we have not seen. This means that the correlation between emissions and temperature is not as direct as science predicted and there must be other variables at play. All this doesn't mean that our actions aren't "bad" but it is quite possible that our actions on the carbon front might actually turn out to be negligible and I know it sounds crazy but there is a school of thought which says that carbon emissions might in fact be beneficial as it theoretically could result in increase foliage and crop yields. Now I don't necessarily believe that myself but my point is that science really hasn't figured this all out yet. The earth is a very complicated planet and climate science is an extremely complicated field...layer on top of that extra-terrestrial variables such as solar radiation etc. and we truly have no idea what makes our climate change.
So, because we don't know with certainty, via science, let's do nothing to mitigate or try to avoid the known outcome? Drill, drill, drill and scoop, scoop, scoop baby, baby, baby!!!
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our impact on climate change may not be negative? I'm not a scientist, but if the arctic is melting, temperatures are rising, ozone is being depleted and it correlates to the post industrial revolution period, how is our impact not bad?
I am not saying that it is not bad. I am saying that science hasn't answered that question yet. There are many variables (some that we may not even know of) that contribute to climate change (including carbon emissions) but science has not been able to separate these variables from each other in order to measure the degree of impact of each variable. Now you mention arctic melting and temperature increases as a measured outcomes and what science tells us is that correlation is not causation. What that means is we can't with certainty lay those outcomes at the feet of carbon emissions alone. In a vacuum we could as science understands what a continued increase in carbon will do but the fact is that the earth is not a vacuum. In some ways the earth is like the human body which we know has its own biofeedback mechanisms which allow it to regulate temperature i.e. when we overheat we sweat etc. We know trees and ocean algea are able to absorb carbon and there is some thought that the earth can regulate both temperature and carbon emissions as it is a naturally occuring element after all. Also we know for a fact that carbon emissions have continued to increase and yet computer models predicted much higher temperatures based on this increase which to date we have not seen. This means that the correlation between emissions and temperature is not as direct as science predicted and there must be other variables at play. All this doesn't mean that our actions aren't "bad" but it is quite possible that our actions on the carbon front might actually turn out to be negligible and I know it sounds crazy but there is a school of thought which says that carbon emissions might in fact be beneficial as it theoretically could result in increase foliage and crop yields. Now I don't necessarily believe that myself but my point is that science really hasn't figured this all out yet. The earth is a very complicated planet and climate science is an extremely complicated field...layer on top of that extra-terrestrial variables such as solar radiation etc. and we truly have no idea what makes our climate change.
So, because we don't know with certainty, via science, let's do nothing to mitigate or try to avoid the known outcome? Drill, drill, drill and scoop, scoop, scoop baby, baby, baby!!!
Who said do nothing? The question is the "something" we do should be based on science as well and shouldn't cripple the economy or increase energy prices on those who can afford it the least. To date the solutions are simply "feel good" solutions with limited impact on the climate equation. Dollars would best be focused on tangible environmental solutions such as clean air and drinking water while energy innovators develop alternative techniques such as fracking which actually results in a decrease in carbon emissions.
Now if you want me to post that in triplicate I would be happy too. You seem to be involved in some type of game that only you understand. But please...don't let me keep you from playing.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our impact on climate change may not be negative? I'm not a scientist, but if the arctic is melting, temperatures are rising, ozone is being depleted and it correlates to the post industrial revolution period, how is our impact not bad?
I am not saying that it is not bad. I am saying that science hasn't answered that question yet. There are many variables (some that we may not even know of) that contribute to climate change (including carbon emissions) but science has not been able to separate these variables from each other in order to measure the degree of impact of each variable. Now you mention arctic melting and temperature increases as a measured outcomes and what science tells us is that correlation is not causation. What that means is we can't with certainty lay those outcomes at the feet of carbon emissions alone. In a vacuum we could as science understands what a continued increase in carbon will do but the fact is that the earth is not a vacuum. In some ways the earth is like the human body which we know has its own biofeedback mechanisms which allow it to regulate temperature i.e. when we overheat we sweat etc. We know trees and ocean algea are able to absorb carbon and there is some thought that the earth can regulate both temperature and carbon emissions as it is a naturally occuring element after all. Also we know for a fact that carbon emissions have continued to increase and yet computer models predicted much higher temperatures based on this increase which to date we have not seen. This means that the correlation between emissions and temperature is not as direct as science predicted and there must be other variables at play. All this doesn't mean that our actions aren't "bad" but it is quite possible that our actions on the carbon front might actually turn out to be negligible and I know it sounds crazy but there is a school of thought which says that carbon emissions might in fact be beneficial as it theoretically could result in increase foliage and crop yields. Now I don't necessarily believe that myself but my point is that science really hasn't figured this all out yet. The earth is a very complicated planet and climate science is an extremely complicated field...layer on top of that extra-terrestrial variables such as solar radiation etc. and we truly have no idea what makes our climate change.
So, because we don't know with certainty, via science, let's do nothing to mitigate or try to avoid the known outcome? Drill, drill, drill and scoop, scoop, scoop baby, baby, baby!!!
Who said do nothing? The question is the "something" we do should be based on science as well and shouldn't cripple the economy or increase energy prices on those who can afford it the least. To date the solutions are simply "feel good" solutions with limited impact on the climate equation. Dollars would best be focused on tangible environmental solutions such as clean air and drinking water while energy innovators develop alternative techniques such as fracking which actually results in a decrease in carbon emissions.
Now if you want me to post that in triplicate I would be happy too. You seem to be involved in some type of game that only you understand. But please...don't let me keep you from playing.
Wow! Quite an evolution for a neocon. Go back and read your first post in response and see how far you've come. But despite all of that, you still seem to be in denial, denial, denial. No point in dealing with the long term while you have near term unrelated environmental issues to contend with. Nice pivot and deflection by the way. I'll give you that.
Ah, excuse me? "Cripple" the economy? Got a source for how fracking actually results in a decrease in carbon emissions? And I'm sure your "science" proves there are no other ill effects of fracking, right? Fucking, fucking, fucking mother, Mary and Joseph!!! Clean air? Guess you hate coal?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who once considered challenging Rep. Paul Ryan for the House speakership, told CNN Wednesday morning that he and the other conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are handing President-elect Donald Trump a 21-page report outlining 200 regulations he can eliminate.
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who once considered challenging Rep. Paul Ryan for the House speakership, told CNN Wednesday morning that he and the other conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are handing President-elect Donald Trump a 21-page report outlining 200 regulations he can eliminate.
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Sure do hope it allows me to release the hydro fluorocarbons and ozone into the landfill and dump my motor oil behind my garage. I hate paying to get rid of shit. Especially air conditioners. Those fuckers are heavy, heavy, heavy!!!
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who once considered challenging Rep. Paul Ryan for the House speakership, told CNN Wednesday morning that he and the other conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are handing President-elect Donald Trump a 21-page report outlining 200 regulations he can eliminate.
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Sure do hope it allows me to release the hydro fluorocarbons and ozone into the landfill and dump my motor oil behind my garage. I hate paying to get rid of shit. Especially air conditioners. Those fuckers are heavy, heavy, heavy!!!
Nah, you're small time Halifax. They don't give a shit about making your polluting easier. The kind of regulations being cut are going to be reserved for big business and the rich. They can pollute more bigly!
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who once considered challenging Rep. Paul Ryan for the House speakership, told CNN Wednesday morning that he and the other conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are handing President-elect Donald Trump a 21-page report outlining 200 regulations he can eliminate.
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Sure do hope it allows me to release the hydro fluorocarbons and ozone into the landfill and dump my motor oil behind my garage. I hate paying to get rid of shit. Especially air conditioners. Those fuckers are heavy, heavy, heavy!!!
Nah, you're small time Halifax. They don't give a shit about making your polluting easier. The kind of regulations being cut are going to be reserved for big business and the rich. They can pollute more bigly!
Can I at least empty my motor home out into the storm drain or over the Chicago river like DMB's tour bus? Please, please, please?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who once considered challenging Rep. Paul Ryan for the House speakership, told CNN Wednesday morning that he and the other conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are handing President-elect Donald Trump a 21-page report outlining 200 regulations he can eliminate.
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Sure do hope it allows me to release the hydro fluorocarbons and ozone into the landfill and dump my motor oil behind my garage. I hate paying to get rid of shit. Especially air conditioners. Those fuckers are heavy, heavy, heavy!!!
Well, the republifuck governor could have done something about Flint, right? Being all about state's rights and all. But yea, it's all Barry's fault. But for only 37 more days.
Not all Barry's fault...it was a team effort. But clearly Barry was out of position. You're right though...in 37 days the EPA can refocus itself on the right priorities...such as ensuring clean drinking water for it's citizens.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
date the solutions are simply "feel good" solutions with limited impact on the climate equation. Dollars would best be focused on tangible environmental solutions such as clean air and drinking water while energy innovators develop alternative techniques such as fracking which actually results in a decrease in carbon emissions.
Now if you want me to post that in triplicate I would be happy too. You seem to be involved in some type of game that only you understand. But please...don't let me keep you from playing.
Ah, excuse me? "Cripple" the economy? Got a source for how fracking actually results in a decrease in carbon emissions? And I'm sure your "science" proves there are no other ill effects of fracking, right? Fucking, fucking, fucking mother, Mary and Joseph!!! Clean air? Guess you hate coal?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This book of superfluous regulations, Meadows acknowledged, will include opportunities for the president to get rid of regulations without congressional approval.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com