Bull****

[Deuce]

It's a subjective opinion. Not erroneous.

But I'm pretty certain that some people are too ignorant to recognize the difference.

:roll:

Pretty much everybody means, at least, a majority. It wasn't a majority. This isn't subjective. The majority of scientific research indicated warming was coming.

 

[Muhammed]

Pretty much everybody means, at least, a majority. It wasn't a majority.

Got any proof of that?

Or no?

 

[grip]

Perhaps you should get better informed

CO2 is Green - C02 Carbon Emissions Water Gas

And here is an even simpler and more graphic illustration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

Your arguments are so unreasonably blinded with irrationality, that you haven't understood a single thing I've said.

I'm not a tree hugging environmentalist. I know that CO2 helps plants grow. And there's not enough, direct evidence, to prove that climate change of any significance is being caused by humans.

All I keep saying is that there's definitely some environmental impact by humans. And whether it's from carbon base fuel burning, fresh water depletion, pesticides/fertilizers, toxic dumping, wild life over hunting, deforestation, ocean pollution etc, wouldn't it be smart to err on the side of caution? Not turn back the clock on modern civilization to pre-industrial levels, simply spend a little more effort and money on being protective towards natural resources? We will need fresh water and animal feed out West, seafood from clean oceans, fresh air and viable ecosystems to supply our future needs, don't you think?

To say that NO restrictions or efforts should be done and that humans have NO impact, on the environment, is unrealistic.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your arguments are so unreasonably blinded with irrationality, that you haven't understood a single thing I've said.

I'm not a tree hugging environmentalist. I know that CO2 helps plants grow. And there's not enough, direct evidence, to prove that climate change of any significance is being caused by humans.

All I keep saying is that there's definitely some environmental impact by humans. And whether it's from carbon base fuel burning, fresh water depletion, pesticides/fertilizers, toxic dumping, wild life over hunting, deforestation, ocean pollution etc, wouldn't it be smart to err on the side of caution? Not turn back the clock on modern civilization to pre-industrial levels, simply spend a little more effort and money on being protective towards natural resources? We will need fresh water and animal feed out West, seafood from clean oceans, fresh air and viable ecosystems to supply our future needs, don't you think?

To say that NO restrictions or efforts should be done and that humans have NO impact, on the environment, is unrealistic.

Now this I can get my teeth into and whole heartedly agree. You won't find a more passionate environmentalist anywhere than I am when it comes to wanton, careless, deliberate, and totally unnecessary behavior that pollutes our air, water, soil and that destroys the aesthetic beauty of our wonderful planet and the plants and creatures on it. But there is simply too much money and prestige flowing to the advocates of AGW, along with reported evidence of manipulation of data, for me not to see consensus as self serving and questionable. So I remain a skeptic re AGW as being a problem to humankind and remain unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, freedoms, and opportunities as sacrifices on the altar of what may likely be flawed, bogus, or manipulated science.

 

[grip]

Now this I can get my teeth into and whole heartedly agree. You won't find a more passionate environmentalist anywhere than I am when it comes to wanton, careless, deliberate, and totally unnecessary behavior that pollutes our air, water, soil and that destroys the aesthetic beauty of our wonderful planet and the plants and creatures on it. But there is simply too much money and prestige flowing to the advocates of AGW, along with reported evidence of manipulation of data, for me not to see consensus as self serving and questionable. So I remain a skeptic re AGW as being a problem to humankind and remain unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, freedoms, and opportunities as sacrifices on the altar of what may likely be flawed, bogus, or manipulated science.

This is the kind of idealistic extremism from either side that is both unnecessary and counter productive. I support something in the middle, with cooperation towards instituting environmental protections that are neither politically exaggerated or inflammatory.

If we hadn't created the EPA, and let the pollution of the 60-70's continue, we'd be living in a different world today.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is the kind of idealistic extremism from either side that is both unnecessary and counter productive. I support something in the middle, with cooperation towards instituting environmental protections that are neither politically exaggerated or inflammatory.

If we hadn't created the EPA, and let the pollution of the 60-70's continue, we'd be living in a different world today.

And who authorized the EPA? None other than the infamous Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. Also he was the President who oversaw the Clean Water Act and several other environmentally friendly pieces of legislation.

I agree that the federal government does have a vested interest in environmental consciousness in what it does and it is necessary, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, for the federal government to provide oversight and protection of air, water, and soil that the states must share.

At the same time, just as it is foolish to think there should be no regulation of any kind regarding the environment, it is equally as foolish to think that everything the EPA does is noble and/or necessary.

As you say, strike a balance and keep our wits about us less the environmental zealots unnecessarily take away our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities at the altar of what some have made into an authoritative religion.

 

[Deuce]

Got any proof of that?

Or no?

ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

 

[grip]

And who authorized the EPA? None other than the infamous Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. Also he was the President who oversaw the Clean Water Act and several other environmentally friendly pieces of legislation.

I agree that the federal government does have a vested interest in environmental consciousness in what it does and it is necessary, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, for the federal government to provide oversight and protection of air, water, and soil that the states must share.

At the same time, just as it is foolish to think there should be no regulation of any kind regarding the environment, it is equally as foolish to think that everything the EPA does is noble and/or necessary.

As you say, strike a balance and keep our wits about us less the environmental zealots unnecessarily take away our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities at the altar of what some have made into an authoritative religion.

I agree with this, I don't want enviro fanatics creating a socialistic policy against individual freedoms. But the EPA, though not perfect, basically regulates corporate activities, because they're the ones that will pollute on an industrial scale for profit. It's simply what they'll do, without any conscience, and they need an outside authority protecting the general public.

 

[ocean515]

I agree with this, I don't want enviro fanatics creating a socialistic policy against individual freedoms. But the EPA, though not perfect, basically regulates corporate activities, because they're the ones that will pollute on an industrial scale for profit. It's simply what they'll do, without any conscience, and they need an outside authority protecting the general public.

The EPA has moved far past it's original mandate. Suggesting it's not perfect is an extreme understatement. The EPA is one of a number of Super Agencies regulating not just corporate activities, but social and political activities.

Staffed by environmental extremists, it answers to no one but congress, and by regulatory fiat, can confiscate private property and dictate where people can work and play. What has become more evident is general public needs protecting from the EPA.

 

[Henrin]

George is my friend, uh huh.... and CO2 is good for you. :lamo

I'd say it's helping the forest, if we weren't cutting them all down.

A warmer environment is better for food production, and unless you missed it the human race isn't all that well equipped for colder temperatures.

 

[grip]

A warmer environment is better for food production, and unless you missed it the human race isn't all that well equipped for colder temperatures.

What part, all the fires or drought?

Tell us that when beef, dairy and other animal and fruit products skyrocket from lack of water.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree with this, I don't want enviro fanatics creating a socialistic policy against individual freedoms. But the EPA, though not perfect, basically regulates corporate activities, because they're the ones that will pollute on an industrial scale for profit. It's simply what they'll do, without any conscience, and they need an outside authority protecting the general public.

I am willing to commend the EPA for what it does that is necessary. I believe I did do that. I am not willing however to accept unnecessary and unsupportable legislation or regulation that does more harm than good just because it has 'environmental' in its title. One example: a rule that people cannot clear away the brush and undergrowth around their homes because it might be a habitat for some species of an endangered rat or other critter. So the people are required to put their homes at excessive danger from wildfires.

Or the discovery of some endangered something on private property and forbidding the land owner from using his/her property as it was intended.

Or mandating ethanol to be added to motor fuels even when it is determined that has little effect on environmental quality and dramatically drives up the cost of food in favor of crops that will be converted to motor fuels.

These kinds of things go way above and beyond what powers the Founders intended the federal government to have.

 

[grip]

I am willing to commend the EPA for what it does that is necessary. I believe I did do that. I am not willing however to accept unnecessary and unsupportable legislation or regulation that does more harm than good just because it has 'environmental' in its title. One example: a rule that people cannot clear away the brush and undergrowth around their homes because it might be a habitat for some species of an endangered rat or other critter. So the people are required to put their homes at excessive danger from wildfires.

Or the discovery of some endangered something on private property and forbidding the land owner from using his/her property as it was intended.

Or mandating ethanol to be added to motor fuels even when it is determined that has little effect on environmental quality and dramatically drives up the cost of food in favor of crops that will be converted to motor fuels.

These kinds of things go way above and beyond what powers the Founders intended the federal government to have.

Show me the perfect system or Agency?

The IRS is one of the biggest nincompoops in the business. The Defense Department is bananas for increasing their size. Homeland Security is basically an unnecessary umbrella for other agencies. And the NSA has turned into a bunch of criminal spooks and evil nerds. There's a lot of changes we could incorporate that are a lot higher in priority.

I agree that ethanol is a bunch of nonsense on its own. They're trying to use the many methods of alternative energy, rather than one big one, which doesn't exist yet.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Show me the perfect system or Agency?

The IRS is one of the biggest nincompoops in the business. The Defense Department is bananas for increasing their size. Homeland Security is basically an unnecessary umbrella for other agencies. And the NSA has turned into a bunch of criminal spooks and evil nerds. There's a lot of changes we could incorporate that are a lot higher in priority.

I agree that ethanol is a bunch of nonsense on its own. They're trying to use the many methods of alternative energy, rather than one big one, which doesn't exist yet.

Imperfect fallible people are unlikely to ever develop the perfect, fail safe, system. But we could get a hell of lot closer to the ideal than what a bunch of self serving professional politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are giving us.

It is our fault if we don't call them out and demand better from those who are supposed to be public servants however. To allow an EPA to run amuck because it does do some necessary things well is to be very short sighted and foolish.

The Founders gave us a nation and Constitution intended for us to govern ourselves. It is up to us to defend and protect that concept.

 

[code1211]

Same causes.

Same cited causes.

The difference is that if you are emitting pollutants that polite the air, the air gets polluted.

If you are emitting CO2, there is not demonstrated effect on climate.

See the difference? One is proven and the other is not.

 

[code1211]

You are not funny.....

I thought we were citing things that correlate to other things with no demonstrable causation.

 

[flogger]

Your arguments are so unreasonably blinded with irrationality, that you haven't understood a single thing I've said.

I'm not a tree hugging environmentalist. I know that CO2 helps plants grow. And there's not enough, direct evidence, to prove that climate change of any significance is being caused by humans.

And I'm very thankful those links were not lost on you then :thumbs:

All I keep saying is that there's definitely some environmental impact by humans.

And I totally agree... CO2 isn't it though

And whether it's from carbon base fuel burning, fresh water depletion, pesticides/fertilizers, toxic dumping, wild life over hunting, deforestation, ocean pollution etc, wouldn't it be smart to err on the side of caution?

And again I totally agree... but what has any of that to do with CO2 ?

Not turn back the clock on modern civilization to pre-industrial levels, simply spend a little more effort and money on being protective towards natural resources?

Agreed absolutely !

We will need fresh water and animal feed out West, seafood from clean oceans, fresh air and viable ecosystems to supply our future needs, don't you think?To say that NO restrictions or efforts should be done and that humans have NO impact, on the environment, is unrealistic.

I'm in complete agreement with you grip despite my previous reservations about you we are actually not that far removed . Its only the significance of the CO2 component that we are at odds about

 

[Muhammed]

the human race isn't all that well equipped for colder temperatures.

BS, We are hairier than bigfoot!

 

[Juanita]

I thought we were citing things that correlate to other things with no demonstrable causation.

For every cause there is an effect. This is a natural law of the universe...If you pollute the waterways, there will be dire consequences. If you pollute the atmosphere, IMO, there will be consequences as well...

 

[flogger]

For every cause there is an effect. This is a natural law of the universe...If you pollute the waterways, there will be dire consequences. If you pollute the atmosphere, IMO, there will be consequences as well...

The issue here is the branding of CO2 as pollution when it is in fact the opposite.

 

[grip]

And I'm very thankful those links were not lost on you then :thumbs:



And I totally agree... CO2 isn't it though



And again I totally agree... but what has any of that to do with CO2 ?



Agreed absolutely !



I'm in complete agreement with you grip despite my previous reservations about you we are actually not that far removed . Its only the significance of the CO2 component that we are at odds about

I don't think because of the massive amounts or carbon reservoir in the oceans and the small temp increases (1-2F) that we'll know definitively anytime soon, whether it's carbon caused or not. But one of the early indicators is the acidification and surface temperature increases of the oceans, destroying coral reefs. That's a definitive factor that has few other possible causes besides pollution, runoff and over fishing.

We're having a major overall, global impact on the earth's ecosystem, which could be catastrophic for our continued survival if we don't become better stewards. Though not in our lifetimes, as much as successive generations. It may be inevitable and unavoidable but we can at least try? And if we wait till we know for sure, whether it was CO2 as one of the catalysts, then it's too late to do anything. I'm not talking about radical, damaging changes to society, just some money and effort put into alternatives to fossil, carbon based fuels.

The only way for the earth to maintain our species at this level with fresh water, food and energy is for us to come up with more efficient, sustainable methods, without destructively consuming the world's natural resources. The energy, transportation and food corporations, which currently make profits on these older methods, will fight against change because it affects their bottom line. They'll lobby Congress, make payoffs, donate campaign contributions and tie up regulations and laws, while advertising it's all a scam. The government and corporations want all the money, power and control and will fight for the status quo. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and say, "nothings wrong or needs changing", or we can collectively push for speedier innovation.

It's really not a political issue, and shouldn't be left in the hands of pontificating blowbags that call themselves our leaders.

 

[AlbqOwl]

For every cause there is an effect. This is a natural law of the universe...If you pollute the waterways, there will be dire consequences. If you pollute the atmosphere, IMO, there will be consequences as well...

Yes. It is the whole concept of 'sin' as the Bible describes it. "Sin" is not just disobeying rules. "Sin" is visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generations; i.e. for a very long time. Each time we sin--or in secular terms pollute, unnecessarily destroy, or otherwise damage ourselves, others, and the planet we inhabit, we spoil a little bit of a perfect creation. And even if we notice no ill effects ourselves, our progeny will have a little less perfect health, a little less perfect environment, a little less unsullied aesthetics, etc. even as they also benefit from the better choices we make, the good stuff we discover, invent, create, etc.

And I believe that is true even for the most sincere and intelligent Atheist. As you say, cause and effect for every choice we make.

In the case of this thread, those choices should be based on honest cause and effect, however, and not those invented by other humans and pushed as 'fact' when the actual motives are to increase one's own financial fortunes, prestige, and influence.

 

[Deuce]

The issue here is the branding of CO2 as pollution when it is in fact the opposite.

Operating on the premise that AGW proponents are correct, it is accurate to label CO2 as a pollutant.

The EPA operates on this premise, so they label CO2 a pollutant.

You disagree with AGW, yes, but the people who do this for a living do not. If you want that "branding" to change, you'll need to convince those people.

 

[Jack Hays]

Operating on the premise that AGW proponents are correct, it is accurate to label CO2 as a pollutant.

The EPA operates on this premise, so they label CO2 a pollutant.

You disagree with AGW, yes, but the people who do this for a living do not. If you want that "branding" to change, you'll need to convince those people.

Or win the 2016 election.eace

 

[Muhammed]

This is the case with most food crops.

CO2 is the green gas.

I think most "greenies" are simply anti-human assholes. They hate themselves and then project that hatred onto the rest of humanity. And then there is just the stupid ****s who believe anything someone says to them 3 times. The rest are mostly just greedy con artists.