dreamdancer 0 #1 April 18, 2009 another step forward for science in the us QuoteThe Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush. The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement. The agency went further than some environmentalists had expected by making specific mention of auto emissions. The reference was seen as a signal that the EPA intended to allow California and more than a dozen other states to tighten restrictions on car exhaust. The EPA's decision, known as an "endangerment finding", gives the agency the legal authority to demand cuts in emissions following a 60-day public review period. That means the agency can begin regulating power plants and chemical and cement factories without waiting for Congress to undergo the laborious and uncertain process of turning a climate change bill that was unveiled last month into law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warningstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 April 18, 2009 Posts on the way from our favorite deniers in 3........ 2........ 1........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #3 April 18, 2009 they'll have more sense than to come in here and spout their usual 'it's all a un conspiracy' drivel stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 April 18, 2009 Quote they'll have more sense than to come in here and spout their usual 'it's all a un conspiracy' drivel No way..... the repubican dead enders only have that..... its a meager existence for them these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #5 April 18, 2009 as the scientists have proved global warming beyond a doubt and it is going to affect all of our childrens futures very badly - i wonder why this isn't a topic we can discuss sensibly around the bonfire?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 April 18, 2009 I'll step in to interfere the circle jerk. Is it "global climate change" or "global warming?". There is a difference... And as for "sensible discussion" I believe that use of the term "deniers" effectively eliminates reasonable discussion. Of course, I believe this is the purpose. Whenever abverbs are put in to the statement, it is not about "objective.". It is about persuasion. "The data suggest that the earth is warming" is radically different from "as the scientists have proved [sic] global warming without a doubt." It seems to me that discussion is over in your mind, except for the circle jerking. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #7 April 18, 2009 Quote I'll step in to interfere the circle jerk. it's a little baby troll - how cute stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 April 18, 2009 So this is an issue where there is another side with an opinion that you would accept as reasonable? If not, I believe that discussion cannot occur. I suppose that makes me a troll. Which is fine considering my physical resemblance to one. I thus have three questions for you: What is your name? What is your quest? What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #9 April 18, 2009 Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #10 April 18, 2009 >Is it "global climate change" or "global warming?". There is a difference... Agreed. "Global warming" is a more general statement than "climate change." GW is more often used in the popular press; climate change is more often used by researchers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #11 April 18, 2009 Quote another step forward for science in the us Quote The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush. The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement. The agency went further than some environmentalists had expected by making specific mention of auto emissions. The reference was seen as a signal that the EPA intended to allow California and more than a dozen other states to tighten restrictions on car exhaust. The EPA's decision, known as an "endangerment finding", gives the agency the legal authority to demand cuts in emissions following a 60-day public review period. That means the agency can begin regulating power plants and chemical and cement factories without waiting for Congress to undergo the laborious and uncertain process of turning a climate change bill that was unveiled last month into law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning Science huh?Now that is funny..... political? Maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #12 April 18, 2009 Full story here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 April 18, 2009 From the story but cherry picking is all the rage when climate change of the man made type bull shit is report for the most part. QuoteAustralian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #14 April 18, 2009 Quote Quote another step forward for science in the us Quote The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush. The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement. The agency went further than some environmentalists had expected by making specific mention of auto emissions. The reference was seen as a signal that the EPA intended to allow California and more than a dozen other states to tighten restrictions on car exhaust. The EPA's decision, known as an "endangerment finding", gives the agency the legal authority to demand cuts in emissions following a 60-day public review period. That means the agency can begin regulating power plants and chemical and cement factories without waiting for Congress to undergo the laborious and uncertain process of turning a climate change bill that was unveiled last month into law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning Science huh?Now that is funny..... political? Maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html a paranoid right-winger breaks cover stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 April 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote another step forward for science in the us Quote The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush. The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement. The agency went further than some environmentalists had expected by making specific mention of auto emissions. The reference was seen as a signal that the EPA intended to allow California and more than a dozen other states to tighten restrictions on car exhaust. The EPA's decision, known as an "endangerment finding", gives the agency the legal authority to demand cuts in emissions following a 60-day public review period. That means the agency can begin regulating power plants and chemical and cement factories without waiting for Congress to undergo the laborious and uncertain process of turning a climate change bill that was unveiled last month into law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning Science huh?Now that is funny..... political? Maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html a paranoid right-winger breaks cover If you are trying to say the EPA is a non political purly science based group I have some Arizona ocean from property I can sell youOh, I slipped that other link/post in on ya didnt I!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #16 April 18, 2009 FYI http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/lisa-jackson-epa-chief-ja_n_151221.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #17 April 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote another step forward for science in the us Quote The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush. The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement. The agency went further than some environmentalists had expected by making specific mention of auto emissions. The reference was seen as a signal that the EPA intended to allow California and more than a dozen other states to tighten restrictions on car exhaust. The EPA's decision, known as an "endangerment finding", gives the agency the legal authority to demand cuts in emissions following a 60-day public review period. That means the agency can begin regulating power plants and chemical and cement factories without waiting for Congress to undergo the laborious and uncertain process of turning a climate change bill that was unveiled last month into law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning Science huh?Now that is funny..... political? Maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html a paranoid right-winger breaks cover If you are trying to say the EPA is a non political purly science based group I have some Arizona ocean from property I can sell you no, i'm telling you you are a paranoid right-winger (don't believe the scientists - it's all a un conspiracy)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #18 April 18, 2009 >The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases >was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases >was the unambiguous result of human emissions. A fair statement. >Science huh? Yep. That's gotta sting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 April 18, 2009 Please explain the conclusion of "paranoid." And thanks, bill. I don't think "climate change" is as likely to stir passions as "global warming." Which is, I guess, why scientists use the more neutral term. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #20 April 18, 2009 Quote >The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases >was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases >was the unambiguous result of human emissions. A fair statement. >Science huh? Yep. That's gotta sting. Now that is good science. Some one says it and its true if it follows beliefs. I like who said it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #21 April 18, 2009 >Now that is good science. That statement was not science; it is a statement _about_ science. Statement on science: People who smoke have an X% greater chance of developing lung cancer than someone who does not under conditions X, Y, and Z. Statement about that bit of science: Smoking greatly increases the chances of lung cancer, and people who want to remain healthy and cancer-free should avoid smoking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 April 18, 2009 QuotePosts on the way from our favorite deniers in 3........ 2........ 1........ Okay. You've got your term - "deniers.". I think the other side needs a term. Thus, let the "deniers" call the other side "propogandists." There are two types. If a person is steadfast in denial that the person is a propgandist, that person is a "denier propogandist," kinda like a "fiscally conservative Republican" who denies he's a socialist while socializing everythung he can. The second type of "propogandist" will be the "smug self-important admitter propogandist.". This person is easy to spot because he or she admits it. Since to many a "label" is more important than discussion, it shall be considered either propogandist or denier. Some (billvon or jcd, to name a couple) will fall to "propogandist leaning" or "denier leaning." This because I say so. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #23 April 18, 2009 >Thus, let the "deniers" call the other side "propogandists." "Alarmist" is the usual pejorative. But propagandist works well. (Works for both extremes actually, which could be problematic.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 April 18, 2009 I've always hated "alarmist" more than I've hated "denier." I think I agree with you - I have changed my mind. "Alarmist" shall be "propogandist" and "denier" shall be "conprogandist." Thus, the EPA as presently constituted shall be a "propogandist regime.". Under Bush it shall have been a "conprogandist regime." Under James Watt is shall have been a "what the fuck?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #25 April 18, 2009 I like Boortz's term..."Cultist"“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
