What are the Solutions?

[Old Rocks]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Always a press release never the study. Could you post the study.

Silly ass, you have yet to post a single thing backing up your assinine opinions. But here, get off your lazy butt, and look this up yourself, after all, it was in the article;

The study is published in the May 3-7 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[gnarlylove]

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Always a press release never the study. Could you post the study.

Silly ass, you have yet to post a single thing backing up your assinine opinions. But here, get off your lazy butt, and look this up yourself, after all, it was in the article;

The study is published in the May 3-7 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is a common strategy: as long as one refuses to read ANYTHING that opposes their viewpoint, they think opposition doesn't exist. I think the main reason they refuse to read is not because they are afraid they'll be proven wrong (they are quite convinced they are right) instead they are just so lazy that taking time out to read more than a paragraph is doing something they don't want to do. They'd rather be posting ignorant replies.

You can see how the viscous cycle of ignorance builds up rapidly by never reading or doing any homework. People need to realize that what goes on in the mind is not caused by reality. What goes on in the mind can be quite the opposite of reality--that's what makes the mind so unique.

 

[westwall]

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Always a press release never the study. Could you post the study.

Silly ass, you have yet to post a single thing backing up your assinine opinions. But here, get off your lazy butt, and look this up yourself, after all, it was in the article;

The study is published in the May 3-7 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes, the study had one phrase that certified beyond doubt that it was useless....

"In their model,",

Yet again, they try to pass off computer generated fiction as data....there was ZERO empirical data used! ZERO!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fully funding fusion and getting it up and running= solution.

 

[flacaltenn]

So far I'm hearing "Yes pollution is real."

I've also heard a great proposal: limits on pollution.

This sounds reasonable enough. So in theory anti-AGW folks AND AGW folks agree, "pollution can become hazardous and we must limit it to prevent hazards."

So no matter ideology, we all think breathable air is important. On matters of policy sounds like AGW and anti-AGW are not that different. I am pleased with the agreement. And none of this had to do with greenhouse gases!

That's correct Bunky.. So why did you bring that into the OP? It's not like Global Warming is a purity test to be an enviro-nut...
HOWEVER -- LIMITS on "pollution" need to meet both scientific and economic thresholds of proof. So eventually, the hug-fest is gonna break down again..

 

[elektra]

Richard Alley who advised Al Gore that our coastal cities would be destroyed by global warming last year?

Really? Link? Or be exposed as a crass liar.

I was not going to that harsh on you, but okay, if you do not link you expose yourself as a crass liar.

 

[gnarlylove]

So far I'm hearing "Yes pollution is real."

I've also heard a great proposal: limits on pollution.

This sounds reasonable enough. So in theory anti-AGW folks AND AGW folks agree, "pollution can become hazardous and we must limit it to prevent hazards."

So no matter ideology, we all think breathable air is important. On matters of policy sounds like AGW and anti-AGW are not that different. I am pleased with the agreement. And none of this had to do with greenhouse gases!

That's correct Bunky.. So why did you bring that into the OP? It's not like Global Warming is a purity test to be an enviro-nut...
HOWEVER -- LIMITS on "pollution" need to meet both scientific and economic thresholds of proof. So eventually, the hug-fest is gonna break down again..

I brought it up because I wanted to make sure we were not talking about GHG; in other words essentially what you've noted before: there's more to environmental degradation than coal fired plants.

However, if you notice, despite my mentioning this, it was still hissed at in following replies. And your hissing centers around the same issue: I've already mentioned let's take this for what its worth and do something for set appropriate limits. Appropriate limits are to be determined not by mythology or Jesus Christ but rather rigorous science, without poisoning the well with corporate dollars. My point is that decisions need to be made now if we are to demonstrate respect for human life (like the examples given) and maintain a certain air quality, water etc. No body denies the value of these things are far more essential than money. Money cannot buy fresh air when it's all polluted.

 

[flacaltenn]

All well and good-intentioned GnarlyOne.. Shall we discuss what the allowable levels of Arsenic in drinking water should be? Suggest you check what THEY ARE -- before you give your predictable answer..

 

[gnarlylove]

Why would you ask me? I am no expert. I appreciate such high regard! haha!

 

[flacaltenn]

Why would you ask me? I am no expert. I appreciate such high regard! haha!

You're welcome.. I was responding to THIS in your previous post..

Appropriate limits are to be determined not by mythology or Jesus Christ but rather rigorous science, without poisoning the well with corporate dollars. My point is that decisions need to be made now if we are to demonstrate respect for human life (like the examples given) and maintain a certain air quality, water etc. No body denies the value of these things are far more essential than money. Money cannot buy fresh air when it's all polluted.

OBVIOUSLY -- you seem convinced that the air and water IN THIS COUNTRY is sub par. Even IF we use "appropriate limits ..... (determined by) rigorous science".. I just KNOW that our little hug-fest is gonna end anytime we discuss SPECIFIC scientific evidence and economic impacts..

MONEY actually IS the issue.. Because WASTING money on improvements that aren't neccessary or a poor investment is what all these "clean air and water" battles are about...
NOT evil corporate money -- but money out of my pocket, your pocket, and your grandkids pockets..

That's why I mentioned arsenic levels in municipal water systems.. I've done that one before with the Deep "zero risk" Greenies and THEY didn't get any of that "rigorous science" and wouldn't HEAR of economic analysis.. I'm just guessing if you're so pessimistic about enviro damage -- that the result of that convo would be similar..

 

[gnarlylove]

I think the air quality needs to be maintained and in order to do that we need to set regulations. Perhaps we've succeeded to some degree but it's still being mostly marginalized. India and China, which is where serious hard regulation is the only measure worth taking, that is if you value breathing over 1% of GDP or even 10%.

The fact is "economic progress" as defined by money should not be the end goal. Our end goal should be the health and well being of humanity. It doesn't matter if money is taken out of anyone's pocket as long as they are alive and breathing quality air, eating quality food and water without the threat that these things are deteriorating at home and especially abroad, which is where the US gets a massive chunk of its resources (labor, land, minerals etc).

Money will flow towards concentration in anything like the current system of corporate dominance. It isn't about trying to fight for your share for your grandkids, it's about creating a life where everyone, and therefore necessarily your grandkids and so on will live a decent life free of crisis of water and air. Trying to get your own share of the domination ensures your grandkid will struggle and if they succeed they will be trampling other grandkids since our system implies poverty. Getting your own share is why too little is being done to address hunger crisis and water crisis that are quite real and a definite result of exploitation (fully participating in not only trying to survive, but trying to gain wealth forgetting all but self). blah blah

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the air quality needs to be maintained and in order to do that we need to set regulations. Perhaps we've succeeded to some degree but it's still being mostly marginalized. India and China, which is where serious hard regulation is the only measure worth taking, that is if you value breathing over 1% of GDP or even 10%.

The fact is "economic progress" as defined by money should not be the end goal. Our end goal should be the health and well being of humanity. It doesn't matter if money is taken out of anyone's pocket as long as they are alive and breathing quality air, eating quality food and water without the threat that these things are deteriorating at home and especially abroad, which is where the US gets a massive chunk of its resources (labor, land, minerals etc).

Money will flow towards concentration in anything like the current system of corporate dominance. It isn't about trying to fight for your share for your grandkids, it's about creating a life where everyone, and therefore necessarily your grandkids and so on will live a decent life free of crisis of water and air. Trying to get your own share of the domination ensures your grandkid will struggle and if they succeed they will be trampling other grandkids since our system implies poverty. Getting your own share is why too little is being done to address hunger crisis and water crisis that are quite real and a definite result of exploitation (fully participating in not only trying to survive, but trying to gain wealth forgetting all but self). blah blah

See now this is where we part ways drastically.. Somewhere in your past, you were fitted with the traditional leftist blinders that prevent vision of where money comes from and how governments and private entities alike have to INTELLIGENTLY allocate that quantity..

I brought up the example of arsenic levels because it elegantly illustrates the point. Municipal water supplies in desert areas typically have elevated levels of arsenic in them. MOST of these do not exceed current Max Daily Allowance criteria and in MINUTE qtys, arsenic is actually essential to life. If your buds get a splinter in their britches and DEMAND lower standards for ALL NATIONAL water supplies, it's these folks who get creamed.

Money would have to come from emergency response, govt health services, infrastructure or schools in order to comply with an EDICT that MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED by either scientific or economic arguments.. We HAVE to order priorities according to those rationales, because there are MANY quality of life issues associated with money and economics.

 

[gnarlylove]

When I read your replies, I can't get past the first sentence without choking. I know youre intelligent so don't pretend like you have insight into my background. Reverse engineering my beliefs from what fragmented understanding you have of my worldview is shoddy at best, as you always impose parts of your views of leftists on me, who is an anti-leftist. You don't even know my name yet you find it essential to half-jokingly berate me on the one hand while demanding sensible debate, science, rationality on the other--LOL. If you could step outside of your perspective and see me, see everyone as humans instead of opponents, you wouldn't be able to dismiss real world struggles as opinions. There would be no other moral option then to actively oppose hunger insecurity, bad sanitation etc.

Instead, you cozily explain through historical materialist means (nice Marxist thought ya got there) the entire validity of someone's views. Ever thought about doing that to your politics (more like belittlement politics)? In fact, I have no attachment to leftist politics as they are understood in America nor anywhere. I am anti-left and anti-right. Neither offer a genuinely better alternative to current exploitative model in any sense of the Universal Human Rights Declaration that we supposedly adhere to--but we all know this is name only. Human rights are a "letter to Santa Claus" as one state official said decades ago. They are treated that way too. No one can deny it unless you deny reality and sadly many people simply don't look at reality.

We can agree that there must be caps on pollution IFF we care about ALL people. If we only care about our family, tribe and money then we throw out universal morality. Arsenic, PM2.5 and thousands of other pollutants need caps but these caps will be dismissed for those making profit as is the standard procedure. These loopholes cannot exist (like the EPA permit to pollute known as antipollution permits) if we wish to take this seriously before we determine what levels are acceptable. Some are not acceptable to any degree and we must keep that in mind. We cannot have everything the way it is and still make serious progress towards keeping air safe etc.

The system of profit has become so vile that profit has come to control politics. This throws a wrench in Democracy (that is if we care about Democracy). 70% of the population has virtually no voice and as you climb up the ladder of success, at the top you have people getting what they want on most issues. So why would we expect a reasonable discussion about setting limits when the same folks who get what they want also oppose such limits because it limits profits.

Our most fundamental divergence is where people should be able to pursue their private interests when it means other people do not have safe water and regular meals. In other words, are some people are intrinsically more valuable than others? No doubt people are extrinsically more valuable than others, but inherently, people are the same. Thus we should not justify our actions to exploit people based on extrinsic and conditional values that were placed on them at birth with no say of existence, let alone status. But we do it anyway because without doing so, we find it difficult to meet our needs (especially our ceaseless wants). And when we don't get what we want, we do what we can to change that. We find it advantageous to fully participate in this profit system that unabashedly exploits billions of people. Once we get our tiny share, we say "Good" and since we cannot faithfully address these issues without wrestling with introspection we simply give up universal morals and inherent dignity of human beings. So yeah, I'm not leftist by any stretch. I am anti-establishment. There needs to be discussions about how the establishment fails and is predicted to fail increasingly so. A Yale study recently came out like 2 days ago saying those unemployed now should expect to stay that way because they calculate only 11% of them will enter the workforce again, ever. So despite leftist rhetoric matching my hopes, they're almost entirely moderately republican in action. The left approving terror--check (drone is a form of terrorism); the left approving welfare cuts--check; the left approving no legal recourse against Wall Street damning millions of Americans--check; antipollution permits--check! Take a look! You're might be leftist without knowing!

 

[flacaltenn]

I did not reverse engineer a thing.. I merely read your words.. Perhaps you should read your post that I responded to and try again to stay on the point of what role MONEY and science/economic analysis plays in determining the LEVEL of enviro mitigations that gets chosen..

My explanation of "historical materialist means" was part of the convo. The rest of your post is tangential to that idea thread..

 

[flacaltenn]

I made a present for ya.. It's my secret Gnarly decoder that I used to understand your post #31..
Feel free to frame it...

The output filter and classifier of my Gnarly decoder tells me that there is an 85% probability that you have been infected
by a logic resistant strain of the Chomsky virus.. It's curable -- but there will be discomfort and swelling..