EPA up for the ax???

[skookerasbil]

The EPA is gay...........shit cant get defunded soon enough.

Funny thing is..........if you had 10 EPA agencies, the fcukking left k00ks would still be whining. Its so fcukked up........

 

[Mr Natural]

God gave us rivers so people could dump their shit in them.

 

[skookerasbil]

So the answer is no, you cannot or will not provide any evidence.
Thanks. Just so everyone else knows.

Evidence that you're an intellectually vapid rightwing racist? Your posts provide all the evidence necessary.

So you cannot or will not provide evidence for any view you have.

That pretty much makes you irrelevant. Like there was any question to begin with.

Hey Rabbi........love the avatar bro.......cant wait for Mr Perry to sign up for the run!!! If he does, 2012 is in the bag for us........

 

[skookerasbil]

God gave us rivers so people could dump their shit in them.

laugh my balls off

 

[BOBO]

I agree somewhat

 

[kiwiman127]

Which references the Sierra Club website approvingly.
Are you done yet?

So I post evidence and you come back with absolutely disproves the fact that sulfur dioxide harms our wildlife, water and forest.

Let me add more proof:

ACID RAIN-Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00047.pdf

Acid Rain in Wisconsin
Acid rain in Wisconsin - WDNR

Protecting the Environment from Acid RainEnvironment Canada - Science and Technology - Research Into Action to Benefit Canadians

China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain
China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain by Christina Larson: Yale Environment 360

Acid Rain
Acid Rain

So Rabbi, instead of deflecting, why not come back with a solid and non-partisan professional expert rebuttal?

You realize that just because a document contains the phrase "acid rain" that it is not proof. Right?
The GAO report (over 10 years old btw) simply measures sulphur emissions and others and then measures acid content in water bodies. Correlation does not equal causation.
Yet in the study cited previously by someone else there was no correlation between 'acid rain" levels and the health of water bodies.

Naturally you came back with nothing to disprove me. Am I surprised? Nope.
If Rabbi's ideology told him the world was flat, he'd argue his ass off that Earth was indeed flat!

 

[The Rabbi]

So I post evidence and you come back with absolutely disproves the fact that sulfur dioxide harms our wildlife, water and forest.

Let me add more proof:

ACID RAIN-Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00047.pdf

Acid Rain in Wisconsin
Acid rain in Wisconsin - WDNR

Protecting the Environment from Acid RainEnvironment Canada - Science and Technology - Research Into Action to Benefit Canadians

China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain
China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain by Christina Larson: Yale Environment 360

Acid Rain
Acid Rain

So Rabbi, instead of deflecting, why not come back with a solid and non-partisan professional expert rebuttal?

You realize that just because a document contains the phrase "acid rain" that it is not proof. Right?
The GAO report (over 10 years old btw) simply measures sulphur emissions and others and then measures acid content in water bodies. Correlation does not equal causation.
Yet in the study cited previously by someone else there was no correlation between 'acid rain" levels and the health of water bodies.

Naturally you came back with nothing to disprove me. Am I surprised? Nope.
If Rabbi's ideology told him the world was flat, he'd argue his ass off that Earth was indeed flat!

Because there is nothing to disprove. You threw out a bunch of links with "acid rain" somewhere in the title. that proves nothing other than that there are articles with "acid rain" somewhere in the title. I don't dispute that.

 

[8537]

So I post evidence and you come back with absolutely disproves the fact that sulfur dioxide harms our wildlife, water and forest.

Let me add more proof:

ACID RAIN-Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00047.pdf

Acid Rain in Wisconsin
Acid rain in Wisconsin - WDNR

Protecting the Environment from Acid RainEnvironment Canada - Science and Technology - Research Into Action to Benefit Canadians

China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain
China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain by Christina Larson: Yale Environment 360

Acid Rain
Acid Rain

So Rabbi, instead of deflecting, why not come back with a solid and non-partisan professional expert rebuttal?

You realize that just because a document contains the phrase "acid rain" that it is not proof. Right?
The GAO report (over 10 years old btw) simply measures sulphur emissions and others and then measures acid content in water bodies. Correlation does not equal causation.
Yet in the study cited previously by someone else there was no correlation between 'acid rain" levels and the health of water bodies.

Naturally you came back with nothing to disprove me. Am I surprised? Nope.
If Rabbi's ideology told him the world was flat, he'd argue his ass off that Earth was indeed flat!

You could save yourself some time by lowering your expectations of that racis...err...rabbi. He's good strictly for entertainment value.

 

[bripat9643]

Holy shit!

That's unreal. You're seriously attempting to claim that sulfur dioxide emissions were not responsible for the destruction of fish and flora in the Northern Forests?

This tops even the bullshit spewed by Racis...er...Rabbi.

I think that's what the story says. Where's the proof that coal fired plants were responsible for acid lakes?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm happy to provide evidence of any claim that is even the least bit debatable or controversial.

The story of the Northern Forests and how the Bush administration's cap and trade program saved them is not debatable. It's established fact.

Any time a lib says claim 'A' is an "established fact," that means its liberal bullshit with no visible means of support. If they had the proof, they would post it. When they don't have any proof, they merely harrumph that their current idiocy is an "established fact."

 

[bripat9643]

So the EPA study that examined this very thing is something you plan to ignore. Right?
The Sierra Club. There's an unbiased source for you.

Notice that his source doesn't include one shred of proof. it simply parrots environmentalist dogma.

 

[bripat9643]

The piece is from the University of Colorado. If you went to the link, you'd have a clue. Do you enjoy being intellectually lazy?

The link points to more unsupported dogma. Where is the proof showing coal fired power plants cause dead lakes in Minnesota?

 

[bripat9643]

The piece is from the University of Colorado. If you went to the link, you'd have a clue. Do you enjoy being intellectually lazy?

You're being too kind. I'd say "intellectually dishonest".

The turds who haven't produced a shred of proof that coal fired power plants cause dead lakes in Minnesota re the ones who are being dishonest.

What have you produced other than a lot of chest thumping and question begging?

 

[bripat9643]

You're being too kind. I'd say "intellectually vapid, ignorant, rightwing racist who believes that "blacks can't lead"*"

*That's a direct quote

Still no proof.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[bripat9643]

So I post evidence and you come back with absolutely hothing that disproves the fact that sulfur dioxide harms our wildlife, water and forest.

So Rabbi, instead of deflecting, why not come back with a solid and non-partisan professional expert rebuttal?

There wasn't a shred of evidence in what you posted, just a lot of unsubstantiated claims and question begging.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm happy to provide evidence of any claim that is even the least bit debatable or controversial.

The story of the Northern Forests and how the Bush administration's cap and trade program saved them is not debatable. It's established fact.

Any time a lib says claim 'A' is an "established fact," that means its liberal bullshit with no visible means of support. If they had the proof, they would post it. When they don't have any proof, they merely harrumph that their current idiocy is an "established fact."

THey think if they throw up an article or opinion piece that contains the magic words then that constitutes proof. They have no ability to read something and evaluate its reliability as evidence.

 

[8537]

Holy shit!

That's unreal. You're seriously attempting to claim that sulfur dioxide emissions were not responsible for the destruction of fish and flora in the Northern Forests?

This tops even the bullshit spewed by Racis...er...Rabbi.

I think that's what the story says. Where's the proof that coal fired plants were responsible for acid lakes?

The evidence that SO2 emissions are responsible is so completely documented that it takes a *special* kind of person to deny it. Can you show me a single, solitary peer-reviewed study that attributes acid rain to something other than emissions?

What changed between, say, 1940 and 1980 that caused the collapse?

 

[The Rabbi]

Holy shit!

That's unreal. You're seriously attempting to claim that sulfur dioxide emissions were not responsible for the destruction of fish and flora in the Northern Forests?

This tops even the bullshit spewed by Racis...er...Rabbi.

I think that's what the story says. Where's the proof that coal fired plants were responsible for acid lakes?

The evidence that SO2 emissions are responsible is so completely documented that it takes a *special* kind of person to deny it. Can you show me a single, solitary peer-reviewed study that attributes acid rain to something other than emissions?

What changed between, say, 1940 and 1980 that caused the collapse?

So no, you cannot or will not provide proof.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that's what the story says. Where's the proof that coal fired plants were responsible for acid lakes?

The evidence that SO2 emissions are responsible is so completely documented that it takes a *special* kind of person to deny it. Can you show me a single, solitary peer-reviewed study that attributes acid rain to something other than emissions?

What changed between, say, 1940 and 1980 that caused the collapse?

In other words, still not a shred of proof.

Whether S02 emissions cause acid rain is a separate issue from whether acid rain causes lakes to die. If you read the quote I posted, it notes that those lakes were already dead. The study was done by the government you worship, yet you disregard it.

When should we trust the government, and when should we disregard it?

 

[BOBO]

@Konradv... jeez a little into party polarization are we now! So in your little world everyone but you is so greedy & incompetent that they need oversight? Does that include sexual activities also & what the put into their PRIVATE bodies.... or does privacy & individualism not exist in you little world?