Climate Change has run its course@

[BULLDOG]

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very low toxic level rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs.

By all means, we need to eliminate all science based EPA regulations. If more people die, that's just more proof of how tough we are----right?

 

[SavannahMann]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

Compared to what? The cheapest is probably natural gas which emits carbon dioxide. The aforementioned greenhouse gas that is causing global warming. Solar is cheap, but inefficient and problematic. I have two huge panels I use to charge a battery pack for hurricane Season. It takes a full day to keep a simple thermoelectric cooler running for 24 hours. If it is cloudy, I lose energy and the cooler stops before the sun is up again.

I could cover the entire roof and run the house during the day, but come night? Out of luck.

Far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to buy a generator for the days we are without power from storms.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very low toxic level rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs.

By all means, we need to eliminate all science based EPA regulations. If more people die, that's just more proof of how tough we are----right?

Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever.

 

[BULLDOG]

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very low toxic level rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs.

By all means, we need to eliminate all science based EPA regulations. If more people die, that's just more proof of how tough we are----right?

Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever.

You already said you are fine with removing regulations based in science. It's a right wing staple.

 

[Sunsettommy]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

 

[BULLDOG]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

 

[Sunsettommy]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

All you did was make an OPINION, without backing it up.

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

By the way I am NOT a Republican, thus shut your bigotry filled mouth up!

 

[BULLDOG]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

All you did was make an OPINION, without backing it up.

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

By the way I am NOT a Republican, thus shut your bigotry filled mouth up!

Since you were the one who said you oppose science based environmental laws, it looks like it is Your opinion we are talking about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

All you did was make an OPINION, without backing it up.

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

By the way I am NOT a Republican, thus shut your bigotry filled mouth up!

Since you were the one who said you oppose science based environmental laws, it looks like it is Your opinion we are talking about.

Why are you making this bald faced lie?

Again what I stated,

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Nowhere do I say I oppose science based environmental laws.

Stop lying fella.​

Meanwhile when will you even back up your..... OPINION?

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Already favorably mentioned the Clear Air Act of 1970, what do you have...………………………

Snicker.

 

[BULLDOG]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

All you did was make an OPINION, without backing it up.

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

By the way I am NOT a Republican, thus shut your bigotry filled mouth up!

Since you were the one who said you oppose science based environmental laws, it looks like it is Your opinion we are talking about.

Why are you making this bald faced lie?

Again what I stated,

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Nowhere do I say I oppose science based environmental laws.

Stop lying fella.​

Meanwhile when will you even back up your..... OPINION?

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Already favorably mentioned the Clear Air Act of 1970, what do you have...………………………

Snicker.

You think that all water and air contamination problems were solved by a law written 48 years ago. Not much I can say to something that dumb.

 

[Sunsettommy]

See how a troll like Bulldog takes my words out of context and even to make it appear that I am anti science.

Here are all the comments I made about the EPA:

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems. "

which Bulldog replies with:

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Here are the rest of my replies:

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Notice how he is twisting my words into claiming I am anti- science when I was actually talking about secretive (unseen) science claims, bad regulations and unnecessary regulations on toxicity levels.

Administrator Pruitt ended the secret science claims that allegedly supported regulations, he did away with that by forcing that ALL future science claims be fully made available to the public and to companies who are being regulated.

There is no way that the EPA has been correct 100% of the time with their claims and regulations.

Quit whining. You aren't the only idiot in this thread that said you don't like science based environmental laws. It's just a right wing trait. Science - bad. Need less science.

All you did was make an OPINION, without backing it up.

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

By the way I am NOT a Republican, thus shut your bigotry filled mouth up!

Since you were the one who said you oppose science based environmental laws, it looks like it is Your opinion we are talking about.

Why are you making this bald faced lie?

Again what I stated,

" Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very safe low toxic level even lower rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs."

and,

"Never said eliminate them all, just the truly bad ones which are obvious, some that had ZERO scientific justification whatsoever."

Nowhere do I say I oppose science based environmental laws.

Stop lying fella.​

Meanwhile when will you even back up your..... OPINION?

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Already favorably mentioned the Clear Air Act of 1970, what do you have...………………………

Snicker.

You think that all water and air contamination problems were solved by a law written 48 years ago. Not much I can say to something that dumb.

Again you write dishonestly since I never claimed the 1970 Clean Air act solved everything to this date. I said this:

"Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law", which means it is still in force today. If fact I praised it at post 34, because it was needed very much as I remember seeing New York shrouded in a thick smoggy cloud back in the 1960's when I was there, now it is far cleaner today because that Law worked.

"America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution."

They made some changes in 1977 and 1981, then in 1990 passed a big change as explained here from the EPA,

1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary

Excerpt:

"Introduction
In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.

By large votes, both the House of Representatives (401-21) and the Senate (89-11) passed Clean Air bills that contained the major components of the President's proposals. Both bills also added provisions requiring the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, roughly according to the schedule outlined in international negotiations (Revised Montreal Protocol). The Senate and House bills also added specific research and development provisions, as well as detailed programs to address accidental releases of toxic air pollutants."

Fancy that it was two different REPUBLICAN Presidents who SIGNED the two main Clear Air Acts.


Meanwhile you have not ONCE answered my question about backing your OPINION claim, when will you stop evading it?

"And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that."

Still waiting.... Waiting

Waiting
Waiting
Waiting...………………...

You are the idiot here for your dishonest replies, twisting my words and no answering a question about your never supported opinionated claim.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives,

The bullshit runs deep with this moron...

Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather Events? | Science | Smithsonian

"
Though they couldn’t prove that global warming had “caused” the scorcher, the scientists did assert that warming from human emissions had doubled the risk of extreme weather events. Published in Nature, their first-of-its-kind study launched the new field of “attribution science,” which uses observations and models to tease apart the factors that lead to extreme climatic events.

In the years since, better models and more data have helped climate scientists get much better at predicting extreme weather. But how confidently can scientists attribute these extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change? Will they ever be able to definitively say that our emissions caused a specific drought, tornado or heat wave?"


Until a Computational Fluid Dynamic model is employed with empirical verification, there is no science which can prove causation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

Why should we accept a nonissue as needing to be dealt with?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You linked us to an article that you have to be a member of the WSJ to read.

You ran out of freebies for the month.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

It's dead with out the USA...

 

[skookerasbil]

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives,

The bullshit runs deep with this moron...

Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather Events? | Science | Smithsonian

"
Though they couldn’t prove that global warming had “caused” the scorcher, the scientists did assert that warming from human emissions had doubled the risk of extreme weather events. Published in Nature, their first-of-its-kind study launched the new field of “attribution science,” which uses observations and models to tease apart the factors that lead to extreme climatic events.

In the years since, better models and more data have helped climate scientists get much better at predicting extreme weather. But how confidently can scientists attribute these extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change? Will they ever be able to definitively say that our emissions caused a specific drought, tornado or heat wave?"


Until a Computational Fluid Dynamic model is employed with empirical verification, there is no science which can prove causation.

As a behavioral psychologist, so much of what I've been doing for the past 33 years is outcome based and driven by measurable objectives. Assessment and evaluation must be quantifiable. All specific goal oriented....far different than much of the "science" observations you see in here from alarmists. They constantly navigate in a world of gray and are fine with it.

How many times have you seen this statement in this forum, "Climate change is a clear and present danger...." or "We are running out of time and need action...."

LMAO

It is incumbent and expected of me to remove or manipulate any environmental variables which may constrain specific objectives. They must be identified over time and redefined if necessary.

For the climate crusaders no such specificity is needed. 04 thought is placed on determining what are the actual objectives, specifically defineed and based on what measure. What possible variables are impacting the stated objective?

So lets see.... we are going to impact extreme weather by doing exactly what, assholes?? What is the measure of success? Or let me guess is that already decided? You genius jerk offs would be get exposed in a week in my field. Fakery is ghey. Science meets Disney.

 

[Billy_Bob]

eliminate all science based EPA regulations.

Most of them are based on lies and pseudoscience.. This is why total transparency is necessary.. so we don't get duped by a bunch of socialist power grabbers wanting to deprive us of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness..

The days of I'm taking your rights, food, and life because 'you said so' are over.

 

[Coyote]

Holy crap... evidently the author has been checking in on the skeptics threads in the Environment section of the USMB!!

"All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Like the author says, the message has clearly lost all of its vitality. As he says, it's on "life support".

For a few years in here now I have been posing the question, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"
Never get a single response from a climate crusader. .

@www.whosnotwinning.com

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."

 

[skookerasbil]

Holy crap... evidently the author has been checking in on the skeptics threads in the Environment section of the USMB!!

"All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Like the author says, the message has clearly lost all of its vitality. As he says, it's on "life support".

For a few years in here now I have been posing the question, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"
Never get a single response from a climate crusader. .

@www.whosnotwinning.com

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."

If policy makers are never going to care, "climate science" is nothing more than a hobby for dwellers of the neter-regions of the internet s0n!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Holy crap... evidently the author has been checking in on the skeptics threads in the Environment section of the USMB!!

"All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Like the author says, the message has clearly lost all of its vitality. As he says, it's on "life support".

For a few years in here now I have been posing the question, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"
Never get a single response from a climate crusader. .

@www.whosnotwinning.com

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."

If policy makers are never going to care, "climate science" is nothing more than a hobby for dwellers of the neter-regions of the internet s0n!!

In poll after poll Climate change are normally near or at the very BOTTOM of the poll list of concerns. The rational public knows it is not a big deal which is why the Media and warmists behave they way they do these days, lie and distort events that doesn't support their religion.