America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by tailgater. 70 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Melting polar ice surrounds ship....
DadZilla3 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
We could just send Barney Frank up there. That guy is flaming enough to melt the entire polar ice cap.
tailgater Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I can repect your conviction and even your conclusion. But if I read you correctly you believe that there in not a concensus among scientists, there fore pollution is not effecting the climate. Oil company funded propaganda aside, this is not a tenable - or responsible - position. Given what is at stake for our children, not a responsible position at all.

.


If anti-global warming is oil company funded propaganda, wouldn't that make pro-global warming government funded propaganda?

And oh yeah:
It's for the children.




Brewha Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
tailgater wrote:
If anti-global warming is oil company funded propaganda, wouldn't that make pro-global warming government funded propaganda?

And oh yeah:
It's for the children.





No.

But thanks for playing!
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
who's paying for the pro-global warming studies then..?? Huh
Brewha Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
who's paying for the pro-global warming studies then..?? Huh

A host of nations. Ever looked into the Kyoto Accords? 140 nations sighted on to embrace regulations to fight climate change caused by industrial pollution. You should check it on Snopes, because Fox won't tell you bat guano about it.

But if this rates as propaganda, than is suppose the Geneva Convention was propaganda too.
DrafterX Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
I'm pretty sure we are still funding the studies... we give Billions to the UN so they can spread the study wealth.... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
I'm pretty sure we are still funding the studies... we give Billions to the UN so they can spread the study wealth.... Mellow

Right. We also fund studying food poisoning causes. And we regulate accordingly.

Maybe I'm missing your point. Do you feel there is a conspiracy in the US to needlessly regulate pollution? Who would gain from this?
DrafterX Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
just doubting oil companies are responsible for all the negative reports.... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
just doubting oil companies are responsible for all the negative reports.... Mellow

Maybe I should not be pointing fingers. However, there are a great many industries that lobbie against pollution regulations because it cuts into profits, or would lower their gross volume of sales. There is a lot of money in these industries and we should expect them to spend inorder to influence opinion in their favor. I mean their business people, what is more important then growth and the bottom line. It's not clean air, I can tell you that . . .
DrafterX Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
nothing against some pollution control but why tax and set impossible regulations that will force industries out of business..?? meanwhile Obama's green cronies are getting funding for their green projects just to go bankrupt... not mention what wind farms are doing to the bald eagles..... no body ever thinks about the bald eagles... Sad
Brewha Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
nothing against some pollution control but why tax and set impossible regulations that will force industries out of business..?? meanwhile Obama's green cronies are getting funding for their green projects just to go bankrupt... not mention what wind farms are doing to the bald eagles..... no body ever thinks about the bald eagles... Sad

Or there children.

Poor little eaglings . . .
DrafterX Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
Brewha wrote:
Or there children.

Poor little eaglings . . .



food for wolves... Sad
Brewha Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
food for wolves... Sad

And their children.

The circle of life . . . .
Windmills . . . .

I can hear Boehner crying -
DrafterX Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
Laugh
DrafterX Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
Al Gore hates bald eagles.... Mad
DrafterX Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of muzzling scientists on climate regulations
Published December 20, 2013

Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of its independent science advisory board.

The EPA released a proposal in September that would set emissions caps for new coal-fired power plants and would likely require the industry to use carbon-capture technology, which involves burying the carbon underground.

Critics of the proposed rule say the technology, which is still under development, is too expensive, not commercially available and poses safety risks.

The lawmakers claim the agency is ignoring dissenting voices on its science advisory board, which recommended a review of the science underpinning the newest power plant rule.

A senior official at EPA recently deflected the scientists' criticisms by claiming that the rule, which has yet to be finalized, doesn't need to address carbon dioxide storage, the lawmakers said.

“We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible."

The agency maintains the carbon-capture technology has been "adequately demonstrated" based on a government-funded projects under construction in Mississippi and three planned projects in Texas, California and Canada.

The lawmakers said the proposed mandates in the rule would "create regulatory burdens" and "litigation risks" for the coal industry and would result in the loss of American jobs.

“The EPA’s proposed power plant regulations will put Americans out of work and will make electricity more expensive and less reliable," the lawmakers wrote. "It is misleading and dangerous for EPA to quietly dismiss inconvenient facts and ignore the consequences of its costly regulations. Americans deserve honesty.”

In October, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., released draft legislation to block the EPA's proposal to limit emissions from new power plants and require the agency to set new rules that incorporate "commercially feasible" technologies.

The Manchin-Whitfield proposal has yet to be officially introduced.


Film at 11.... Mellow
Buckwheat Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
DrafterX wrote:
Al Gore hates bald eagles.... Mad


"Hillary, if you run on the Anti-Man Bear Pig platform you'll definitely win the Democratic nomination. Excelsior!"

Al Gore Gonz
tailgater Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:


Maybe I'm missing your point. Do you feel there is a conspiracy in the US to needlessly regulate pollution? Who would gain from this?



Pollution?
If pollution is so bad, then why hide behind the title of global warming?
Just tell me that we should clean our air. Get rid of pollution. Give a hoot, and all.

Don't ram-rod the wind turbines and solar panels produced by political supporters down our throats.

Who gains? Is that a serious question?
Brewha Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
tailgater wrote:
Pollution?
If pollution is so bad, then why hide behind the title of global warming?

Uh, because of the metric system?
JK

They call it global warming (now climate change) to focusing the attention on the permanent long term damage to the environment. "Pollution" summons up images of a kid tossing a paper cup out the window - read "no big deal".

Really I don't think if could be much clearer - I am surprised that you would not have it clearly in your mind that this is pollution we are talking about.
tailgater Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
All I'm saying is that for every truth we hear a series of lies.
You say "now" it's called climate change? Hell, it was climate change back in the 70's when the world was afraid of "global cooling". A "new ice age" was threatened.

But more on point, you ask "who benefits" from the government lies?
Look no further than Cap and Trade: Rich nations funneling billions into poor countries.
Now ask yourself: Who would want to redistribute the wealth in this manner??

Man made pollutants are bad for the environment. You can say it's permanent, but it's probably not. A single volcanic eruption can disperse worse havoc than decades of oil burning. Yet the world survives.
But I'm not suggesting that we simply burn more oil because we can.
If we invented a means to burn fossil fuels with zero emissions it would still be imperative to move towards renewable energy.
It will happen, and should be encouraged.

But fear mongering and saying "it's for the children" is not the way to achieve a working solution.


Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12