'O'ministration conceals environmental report

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You have a point, somewhere?

Nope. I said it was the common term used to describe Martian weather, and you said "Bull." You were wrong; it IS the common term used to describe the warming you are always bringing up. In other words, denier sites are doing precisely what you do, and I demonstrated it by showing that there are thousands of sites that use just that phrase.

Yeah, whatever Bill. I showed that there are thousands of sites that use the phrase "It's the CO2, stupid", but I'm honest enough NOT to think that is the end-all of their research, unlike you.

You're as one-sided as you claim the 'deniers' are. Maybe more so, because the deniers are at least looking at the research from the other side and looking for flaws in it.

I'll remind you it was those 'deniers' that you accuse of having the sole mantra of "It's the sun, stupid!" that found the errors in Mann's proxies and calculations, and who found the inconsistencies in the GISS data. The warming supporters were the ones saying "It's the CO2, stupid!" "Nothing to see here, move along"

So...WHO'S the more open-minded ones again, Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor

Why? Explain, if you will, good professor.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor

Why? Explain, if you will, good professor.

Because you didn't agree with "the consensus", of course. You're just another one of those "It's the sun, stupid!" deniers.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,466]

Was there a point in all that, other than an attempt to insult me?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Was there a point in all that, other than an attempt to insult me?

Hmm, you consider that an insult? Maybe you should go back and look and many of your posts.

By the way, do you support Waxman Markey?

Oh, and in the end, he said much that same as you did.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor

Why? Explain, if you will, good professor.

WHAT? You want him to get specific?

shame on you....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,466]

>By the way, do you support Waxman Markey?

I don't like it much; it smacks of the new source review nonsense, and I hope they make it a bit tighter before voting on it. But it's better than nothing.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor

Why? Explain, if you will, good professor.

Rant: n. harangue: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion.

Fits pretty well.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>By the way, do you support Waxman Markey?

I don't like it much; it smacks of the new source review nonsense, and I hope they make it a bit tighter before voting on it. But it's better than nothing.

So, you think that since I want the cheapest electricity I can get (via coal) and the cheapest gas I can get (via local drilling) and forcing others to make their house meet national energy standards before they can sell them (and many other provisions I will not go into) is harmful to others if not pushed/changed via law. (IE your agenda)

Oh, and it is most definatly WORSE than nothing...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor

Why? Explain, if you will, good professor.

Rant: n. harangue: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion.

Fits pretty well.

Not going to put any specifics out there? (well maybe not under this ID huh)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,466]

>So, you think that since I want the cheapest electricity I can get
>(via coal) and the cheapest gas I can get (via local drilling) and forcing
>others to make their house meet national energy standards before they
>can sell them (and many other provisions I will not go into) is harmful to
>others if not pushed/changed via law.

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence. What are you trying to say there?

I have no problem with you wanting cheap electricity or wanting cheap gas. Lots of people want that.

However, to get that cheap electricity you can't kill other people in the process. Donora is not an OK result of your desire. So there are rules on how much pollution coal power plants can produce, to protect the people who breathe the air around the plant and who have to live with the plant's emissions.

You have every right to swing your fist. That right ends when you hit someone with it.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So, you think that since I want the cheapest electricity I can get
>(via coal) and the cheapest gas I can get (via local drilling) and forcing
>others to make their house meet national energy standards before they
>can sell them (and many other provisions I will not go into) is harmful to
>others if not pushed/changed via law.

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence. What are you trying to say there?

I have no problem with you wanting cheap electricity or wanting cheap gas. Lots of people want that.

However, to get that cheap electricity you can't kill other people in the process. Donora is not an OK result of your desire. So there are rules on how much pollution coal power plants can produce, to protect the people who breathe the air around the plant and who have to live with the plant's emissions.

You have every right to swing your fist. That right ends when you hit someone with it.

We have the cleanest country on the planet and it has gotten cleaner through the years. Some of the laws pushing this are good, some are agenda driven only. Agenda driven only is where we are today.

Now, what did I mean?

Your postition on C02 as a polutant is what I mean.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,466]

>We have the cleanest country on the planet and it has gotten cleaner
>through the years. Some of the laws pushing this are good . . .

You just contradicted yourself. Clean air laws make your coal-generated electricity more expensive, and above you talked about the cheapest electricity you can get via coal.

So which is it? Is the cheapest possible power the goal, or is it OK to pay more for power if you get cleaner air as well?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>We have the cleanest country on the planet and it has gotten cleaner
>through the years. Some of the laws pushing this are good . . .

You just contradicted yourself. Clean air laws make your coal-generated electricity more expensive, and above you talked about the cheapest electricity you can get via coal.

So which is it? Is the cheapest possible power the goal, or is it OK to pay more for power if you get cleaner air as well?

As yes, now you move to the absolutes side of a topic to avoid your positions.

Never said there are not limits. And laws, as you know, are there to cover the few that would ignore all but themselves. And these are the few by the way.

Even in this economic time the company I would for is adding cleaning equipment (none government generated technology by the way) that is above and beyond what is required. The company I work for was a big part in the development of technologies to remove NOX polutants from natural gas fired plants.

But Waxman Markey, like the proposed "health reform" bills being disgused go way beyond that. This laws look to set a system in place so govenment and mandate and control behaivors. If either of these are passed we all loose freedoms.

How, governement can mandate what cars we drive by taxing gas to where most would have no choice. They will tell us what appliances we can have by forcing nations standards to be complied to befor you can sell your house.

By telling you you are too old to get a life saving procedure. Not worth the cost.

In all of these cases goverment will have people deciding who gets what, when and why. All based on the costs of programs. And in all cases the costs of all they touch will increase dramaticly.

Dont sound like the US I know......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

>So, you think that since I want the cheapest electricity I can get
>(via coal) and the cheapest gas I can get (via local drilling) and forcing
>others to make their house meet national energy standards before they
>can sell them (and many other provisions I will not go into) is harmful to
>others if not pushed/changed via law.

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence. What are you trying to say there?

I have no problem with you wanting cheap electricity or wanting cheap gas. Lots of people want that.

However, to get that cheap electricity you can't kill other people in the process. Donora is not an OK result of your desire. So there are rules on how much pollution coal power plants can produce, to protect the people who breathe the air around the plant and who have to live with the plant's emissions.

You have every right to swing your fist. That right ends when you hit someone with it.

We have the cleanest country on the planet and it has gotten cleaner through the years. Some of the laws pushing this are good, some are agenda driven only. Agenda driven only is where we are today.

Now, what did I mean?

Your postition on C02 as a polutant is what I mean.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, and this is all being pushed using fear tactics on a very very flawed conclusion. And that being mans release of CO2 is going to change the planet. Aint happening.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,466]

>Never said there are not limits.

OK, good, we're getting somewhere. Other people, because of their "agendas," put limits on the pollution coal plants can produce. And even though it makes your electricity more expensive, you accept that.

>Even in this economic time the company I would for is adding cleaning equipment . . . .

Very good!

>(none government generated technology by the way)

?? Of course not. The government doesn't generate technology. That's why the standard they use for 'reasonableness' is called BACT (best available commercial technology) not BAGT.

> If either of these are passed we all loose freedoms.

What freedoms will you lose under Waxman Markey?

>By telling you you are too old to get a life saving procedure. Not worth the cost.

OK. Best solution there - "I'll pay for my own lifesaving procedure, thank you very much."

>In all of these cases goverment will have people deciding who gets what, when
>and why. All based on the costs of programs. And in all cases the costs of
>all they touch will increase dramaticly.

>Dont sound like the US I know......

Nor does it sound like the USA I know.

But it does sound like something else. Back when crash-safety standards were first proposed, the automakers had fits. They claimed that cars would become too expensive for anyone but the very rich to own. Emissions controls? You need a catalytic converter made of PLATINUM! and COMPUTERS! The government will take away your car and decide who gets a million dollar "clean car."

And CAFE? The government will force everyone into tiny unsafe econoboxes, to be killed as soon as someone so much as taps them on the freeway.

Some actual quotes:

Lee Iacocca, 1972: "If the EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down."

Ooooh, sounds scary. Did that happen?

Alan Loofborrow of Chrysler, 1975: CAFE will "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years."

Yikes! There will be nothing but unsafe sub-subcompacts on the road by 1980! Did that happen?

A few years later, a Ford executive said that CAFE would result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..."

Sub-Pinto sized vehicles? Wow! Did that happen?

And now, once again, the scare tactics are starting. The Waxman bill will "mandate what cars we drive!" It will "tell us what appliances we can have!" We will "all lose freedoms!"

Sounds scary! Unfortunately, no one believes the car companies, coal companies, white-goods manufacturers or energy companies any more. They've cried wolf too many times in the past, predicted doom and gloom, and then produced SUV's anyway.

This isn't their fault; their goal is to make a profit, and bills like the Waxman bill will reduce their profits. They, like any sensible company, will invest money to save money. And thus we have thousands of industry-funded 'climate skeptics' who claim 'the science isn't settled' so they can postpone laws that will cost them profits. We have industry-funded political groups who oppose any pollution regulation to stave off expensive redesigns. We have groups, made up of the same people who the cigarette companies used to 'prove' that the science on lung cancer wasn't settled, telling us how horrible our lives will be under the totalitarian Waxman-Obama Empire.

The biggest problem with their efforts is that we've heard it all before, and people aren't buying it any more. CAFE, despite all the naysayers, worked - and we still have the biggest cars in the world. The Clean Air Act worked - and we still have all the power we want. The EPA worked - and we still have cars that are safer, faster, cleaner and more powerful than ever before. If that's the sort of horrible future we can look forward to, I'm all for it.

[rushmc 18]

The problem here Bill, is where the limit is being set....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 388]

Man-made climate change now has evolved into a religion. No amout of facts can change the mind of a global warmer. They twist the data to conform to their views. For example:
They will point to the dramatic footage of glaciers falling into the ocean to prove global warming, when in fact it is proof of a growing glacier, not a melting one. When a glacier melts it just gets smaller. When it grows it pushes out into the ocean and breaks off or calves.
All three of the models used in the UN report predicted that temps would be higher than they are, none of the predicted rise in temps has occurred. The models are flawed. But don't trust your lying eyes.
I talked to a climate scientist here at Penn State who is researching GW and pressed him on the science vs hype of GW; he admited that it was in his best intrest to hype, adding, "If you are going to give me a grant I would make a compelling argument for the existance of the tooth fairy."

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Man-made climate change now has evolved into a religion. . . . . "If you are going to give me a grant I would make a compelling argument for the existance of the tooth fairy."

Well said.

Climate Change Fear is a multi billiondollar enterprise with a bonus, fear is what keeps the nation believing lies.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

Man-made climate change now has evolved into a religion. . . . . "If you are going to give me a grant I would make a compelling argument for the existance of the tooth fairy."

Well said.

Climate Change Fear is a multi billiondollar enterprise with a bonus, fear is what keeps the nation believing lies.

Climate change denial is a multi TRILLION dollar enterprise. Did you have a point?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Man-made climate change now has evolved into a religion. . . . . "If you are going to give me a grant I would make a compelling argument for the existance of the tooth fairy."

Well said.

Climate Change Fear is a multi billiondollar enterprise with a bonus, fear is what keeps the nation believing lies.

Climate change denial is a multi TRILLION dollar enterprise. Did you have a point?

Actually, yes. Sorry you missed it. Try again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,466]

>They will point to the dramatic footage of glaciers falling into the ocean to prove
>global warming, when in fact it is proof of a growing glacier, not a melting one.

?? That just proves glaciers calve, and has nothing to do with proof of climate change. The fact that most of the earth's glaciers are currently retreating _is_ however relevant.

>All three of the models used in the UN report predicted that temps would be
>higher than they are, none of the predicted rise in temps has occurred.

There are actually six scenarios in the 2007 report, all of them assuming different actions by us (increased CO2 output, leveling off of CO2 output, decrease in CO2 output.) Since less than two years have gone by since that report it's sort of meaningless to say "none of the temperature rises have occurred" for the 2007 report.

However, let's go back to 1990, to the first IPCC report. They predicted a .02C to .05C temperature rise per year. The actual rise since that time? .02C per year.

>But don't trust your lying eyes.

Actually, the reason that fewer and fewer people are listening to the deniers is that they can SEE the changes with their own eyes. Alaskans can see their beaches eroding away because ice no longer covers them most of the year. Russians can see the tundra melting. Denier claims of "ignore your eyes, trust my conspiracy theory!" are a bit hard to swallow for people who are actually experiencing it.

[brenthutch 388]

You make my point in every way.
Global warmers use that dramatic footage of glaciers growing to prove that they are shrinking.
You point to folks who are losing beach front as proof, yet if I were to point to the cooler than normal temps in the Northeast, you would call me a knuckle-dragging denier and educate me on difference between weather and climate, having just conflated the two yourself.
You discount recent and more accurate data and expand or contract your time window to fit your beliefs.
FYI, I am an environmentalist who started out believing in AGW, but became alarmed at the ferver with which it was defended. Shakespear comes to mind... "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

No black helicopters here; just open-minded thinking.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

No black helicopters here; just open-minded fuzzy thinking.

Fixed it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

adhomin attack....nice, further proves my point