Our poor children. Trump's EPA pick.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

With certitude, certitude, certitude too, to, two.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

The members of the media, media, media have spoken!

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'll accept this consensus over that of your one, lone "esteemed" professor who blogs.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

Care to back up the "bad science" claim you're making? And what useless policies are there that are useless, useless, useless. What a drone, drone, drone.

dignin

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

My wife is a scientist, and lot's of my friends are scientists. In fact, she just got her PhD last week.

I've picked up enough from being around them to know you're talking out of you arse.

The science is clear, and there is no point in arguing with someone who pretends they have more expertise and knowledge than the people who dedicate theirs lives studying climate.

BS44325

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

My wife is a scientist, and lot's of my friends are scientists. In fact, she just got her PhD last week.

I've picked up enough from being around them to know you're talking out of you arse.

The science is clear, and there is no point in arguing with someone who pretends they have more expertise and knowledge than the people who dedicate theirs lives studying climate.

The science is clear that climate change is occuring and that man contributes to that change. That is all it knows. I can't imagine your wife or your friends can prove anything else.

BS44325

Obama's EPA stifled industry and funded boondoggles like Solyndra to theoretically combat climate change while losing focus of it's main mission resulting in massive scandals like the Gold King Mine disaster and the Flint water crisis.

http://www.daily-times.com/story/news/local/navajo-nation/2016/12/05/tribe-files-federal-tort-claim-mine-spill/95020404/

http://m.gazette.com/supreme-court-asks-us-governments-view-on-colorado-mine-spill-suit/article/1591121

http://time.com/4190643/flint-water-crisis-susan-hedman-epa/

Heckuva job Barry

Time to make the EPA great again

tbergs

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?

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

Drill Baby Drill

Damn straight!

Right into the international market it will go! Woot?

Banking on a quick Keystone approval to help out the homeland!

Considering Exxon/Mobil's profits in Canada were down substantially, I'm not surprised, surprised, surprised.

It's time to end the biggest fake news story in the history of mankind.

How so?

Climate change denier.

Nope. My position has been made clear countless times. The media is filled with people that has no understanding of science and reports things that science does not yet know. This leaves most of you unfortunate souls completely uneducated on the topic. It's not your fault really but you have a religious adherence to a theory that just isn't as fully fleshed out. Science knows that climate changes and it knows that man contributes to that change but that's all it knows. It knows nothing of degree or of the other variables that interact and/or come into play. It also knows very little about biofeedback mechanisms that are able to adjust and/or regulate climate. Much is based on computer models that continue to fail in their predictions and unworkable ineffective policy is being crafted based on these predictions. It is one giant mass of useless policy based on bad science. It is time for the environmental industrial complex to be set right.

My wife is a scientist, and lot's of my friends are scientists. In fact, she just got her PhD last week.

I've picked up enough from being around them to know you're talking out of you arse.

The science is clear, and there is no point in arguing with someone who pretends they have more expertise and knowledge than the people who dedicate theirs lives studying climate.

The science is clear that climate change is occuring and that man contributes to that change. That is all it knows. I can't imagine your wife or your friends can prove anything else.

But it, science, doesn't know how to mitigate the causes of said climate change? This is the weakest defense I think I've ever seen you posit. But your being a Rick Perry champion will do that to you. Allah fucking help us.

Halifax2TheMax

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.

BS44325

tbergs said:

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.

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

tbergs said:

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!!!

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

tbergs said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

tbergs said:

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?

my2hands

Screw the environment, the planet, and science... let's make some fucking money money money!!!

Jason P

JC29856

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.

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

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!!!

dignin

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

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!

Halifax2TheMax

dignin said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

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?