Houston's chemical pollution and Trump's firing half the EPA will revive that debate after Harvey.

[Billo_Really]

LOL

You cant understand what you read because you don't know science... Your so far off base it is worse than simply being wrong.

Listen, William-Robert, your position, other than doggy, is political. Mine, is not.

0.5% of the science community, support you. 99.5% of the science community, support me.

And I told you before, Bi-Bo, don't talk to me about science when we have a President who has declared a "War on Science".

 

[SSDD]

Spare me your bullshit modeling mantra. Models are nothing more than a software program. And software programs can be written to achieve any outcome you want. Then you throw in all these cartoons and monster mega-answers to frame the debate into something that is impossible to discuss in a rational and relative manner.

Finally a bit of knowledge. Yes, models are nothing more than software programs and can be written to achieve any outcome you want. But knowledge that you aren't able to apply to reality is nothing more than trivia. Lets put that knowledge to use so that it isn't just a bit of trivia in your head.

You understand that models are just software and can give you just about any result that you want.....what you don't seem to understand is that almost all of climate science, their claims, their predictions, their hypotheses themselves are the result of computer modeling. Almost no real data.

The models fail to predict, or even reflect the reality of the climate because what we know about how energy moves through the atmosphere is pitifully lacking at this time. And at present the models fail for some pretty specific reasons.

• we have very little real data...temperatures are homogenized beyond recognition, precipitation is barely accounted for, atmospheric pressure and atmospheric water content are almost entirely left out. Very few real numbers from out here in the real world ever get into the models.
• Data is replaced with symbols that eliminate almost all natural variability
• In far to many cases, the data that goes into one model is generated from another model and is used as if it were real data gathered out in the real world.
• The models are for the most part non moving representations of "average" conditions...and in a system as large as earth...average has very little meaning. For example, the average temperature today on earth is something like 58 degrees F...but the spread of temperatures across the earth today cover a range of almost 200 degrees...from -120 degrees below zero to about 115degrees above. And the models don't reflect that...nor do they reflect the seasonal changes in the climate...and for that matter, they don't even reflect the fact that only half of the earth is exposed to the sun at any given time

The models fail because they have very little input that could be called reality.

Now you need to understand that practically everything you believe is based on climate models. The greenhouse effect itself as described by climate science is the product of a computer model. There have never been any actual observations or measurements of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the greenhouse effect can't even be accurately quantified...it is the result of a computer model...and the manmade climate change hypothesis is entirely the result of computer models. There have never been any actual measurements that demonstrate that additional CO2 in the atmosphere results in warming..and the fact that we are approaching 2 decades now with no statistically significant warming while atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise merrily along.

The simple fact billo is that nearly all of what you believe is the result of computer models...that is why I can very confidently ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis...there just isn't any...it is all the result of computer models.

Or maybe this conversation is a little over my head and you understand this subject a little more than I do? What I do understand, is Trump is firing scientists and deconstructing the EPA to make it more favorable to the coal and gas industry. I also understand Harvey and Irma are not normal and have occurred just a week apart.

The mandate of the EPA is not climate change...it is to clean up toxins, pollution, and poison from our environment...Trump is bringing the agency back in line with its government mandate...the people he is removing are associated with climate research which is not part of the EPA's mission....and no matter how much they wish it were true, CO2 is not a pollutant and there isn't a shred of real world evidence that supports the claim that it causes warming...all the evidence is the product of computer models.

The same goes for NASA...they are supposed to be working on space related projects...broadening our knowledge of our own solar system and what lies beyond it...they are not a weather, or a climate agency and keeping global temperature records is not in their mission statement. We have agencies whose job is to do that and neither NASA nor the EPA are included in that group. So complain if you don't like it that Trump is bringing the agencies back in line with their government mandated missions if you like, but that does not constitute a war on science...he is not doing anything with the agencies whose job it is to monitor and research the climate...just those who's job is to do something other than climate research who have become involved in doing something other than what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[SSDD]

LOL

You cant understand what you read because you don't know science... Your so far off base it is worse than simply being wrong.

Listen, William-Robert, your position, other than doggy, is political. Mine, is not.

0.5% of the science community, support you. 99.5% of the science community, support me.

And I told you before, Bi-Bo, don't talk to me about science when we have a President who has declared a "War on Science".

You have made it pretty clear that we shouldn't talk to you about science because you don't understand it...you could perhaps understand it if you could separate it from your politics and look at reality and look at the climate with something like actual context....

I keep addressing all your points and refuting them with peer reviewed, published literature and it has no effect on your position whatsoever....it is like talking to religious zealots...they believe what they believe and no amount of actual evidence will ever move them from their belief....no matter how much actual research you are shown that contradicts what you believe...you will hold to your belief because you are operating from a position of faith and not any real knowledge, or research on the topic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are major papers showing why modeling fails..

"According to mainstream climate science, most of the recent global warming is our fault – caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. The rational for this is a speculative theory about the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide that dates back to 1896. It’s not disputed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, what is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

This sensitivity may have been grossly overestimated by Svante Arrhenius more than 120 years ago, with these overestimations persisting in the computer-simulation models that underpin modern climate science [2]. We just don’t know; in part because the key experiments have never been undertaken [2]."

The IPCC politicians took a topic they thought they could control,tried to destroy Capitalism and take over the US. The problem is, they didn't do the science and now the science is calling them out as charlatans and whores.. Now real sciences is showing their spewing's false. The Fail is epic.

Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural

origin source

 

[Crick]

And you believe no one has studied the behavior of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1896?

God are you stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And you believe no one has studied the behavior of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1896?

God are you stupid.

NO, the stupid ass is you... The science to determine what is actually happening is not being done.. But hey, if don't fit your agenda you must ignore it...

"To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation."

That peer reviewed and published paper kills your meme dead... It shows the intentional deception by cherry picking of start points. It's intentional deception and that is the antithesis of real science.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thread destroyed...................turned into another we are all gonna die thread because of Global Warming thread.....

Useless.

 

[Billo_Really]

Finally a bit of knowledge. Yes, models are nothing more than software programs and can be written to achieve any outcome you want. But knowledge that you aren't able to apply to reality is nothing more than trivia. Lets put that knowledge to use so that it isn't just a bit of trivia in your head.

You understand that models are just software and can give you just about any result that you want.....what you don't seem to understand is that almost all of climate science, their claims, their predictions, their hypotheses themselves are the result of computer modeling. Almost no real data.

The models fail to predict, or even reflect the reality of the climate because what we know about how energy moves through the atmosphere is pitifully lacking at this time. And at present the models fail for some pretty specific reasons.

• we have very little real data...temperatures are homogenized beyond recognition, precipitation is barely accounted for, atmospheric pressure and atmospheric water content are almost entirely left out. Very few real numbers from out here in the real world ever get into the models.
• Data is replaced with symbols that eliminate almost all natural variability
• In far to many cases, the data that goes into one model is generated from another model and is used as if it were real data gathered out in the real world.
• The models are for the most part non moving representations of "average" conditions...and in a system as large as earth...average has very little meaning. For example, the average temperature today on earth is something like 58 degrees F...but the spread of temperatures across the earth today cover a range of almost 200 degrees...from -120 degrees below zero to about 115degrees above. And the models don't reflect that...nor do they reflect the seasonal changes in the climate...and for that matter, they don't even reflect the fact that only half of the earth is exposed to the sun at any given time

The models fail because they have very little input that could be called reality.

Now you need to understand that practically everything you believe is based on climate models. The greenhouse effect itself as described by climate science is the product of a computer model. There have never been any actual observations or measurements of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the greenhouse effect can't even be accurately quantified...it is the result of a computer model...and the manmade climate change hypothesis is entirely the result of computer models. There have never been any actual measurements that demonstrate that additional CO2 in the atmosphere results in warming..and the fact that we are approaching 2 decades now with no statistically significant warming while atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise merrily along.

The simple fact billo is that nearly all of what you believe is the result of computer models...that is why I can very confidently ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis...there just isn't any...it is all the result of computer models.



The mandate of the EPA is not climate change...it is to clean up toxins, pollution, and poison from our environment...Trump is bringing the agency back in line with its government mandate...the people he is removing are associated with climate research which is not part of the EPA's mission....and no matter how much they wish it were true, CO2 is not a pollutant and there isn't a shred of real world evidence that supports the claim that it causes warming...all the evidence is the product of computer models.

The same goes for NASA...they are supposed to be working on space related projects...broadening our knowledge of our own solar system and what lies beyond it...they are not a weather, or a climate agency and keeping global temperature records is not in their mission statement. We have agencies whose job is to do that and neither NASA nor the EPA are included in that group. So complain if you don't like it that Trump is bringing the agencies back in line with their government mandated missions if you like, but that does not constitute a war on science...he is not doing anything with the agencies whose job it is to monitor and research the climate...just those who's job is to do something other than climate research who have become involved in doing something other than what they are supposed to be doing.

What I don't understand, is why is this so important to you to prove climate change isn't man-made? Why do you care? What's in it for you? Your posts show you don't give a shit about the human race, so what is the driving force for this passion of yours?

What are "your" forcings?

 

[Billo_Really]

You have made it pretty clear that we shouldn't talk to you about science because you don't understand it...you could perhaps understand it if you could separate it from your politics and look at reality and look at the climate with something like actual context....

I keep addressing all your points and refuting them with peer reviewed, published literature and it has no effect on your position whatsoever....it is like talking to religious zealots...they believe what they believe and no amount of actual evidence will ever move them from their belief....no matter how much actual research you are shown that contradicts what you believe...you will hold to your belief because you are operating from a position of faith and not any real knowledge, or research on the topic.

I understand your position is political. Mine is not.

 

[SSDD]

What I don't understand, is why is this so important to you to prove climate change isn't man-made? Why do you care? What's in it for you? Your posts show you don't give a shit about the human race, so what is the driving force for this passion of yours?

What are "your" forcings?

Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been flushed down the man made climate change toilet without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the hypothesis. Climate science wants literally TRILLIONS of dollars more, in addition, they want us to make draconian changes in the way we live.

We are facing some very real, and very serious environmental issues with pollution in all its forms and some critical land use issues. At present, climate change has co-opted environmentalism such that people conflate pollution with climate change. The two are very different issues. One we can and need to address...the other is a non issue.

Until the man made climate change pseudoscience is put to bed, nothing of any consequence is going to be done with regard to the environment. Look at the history of the past 30 years or so since climate change took center stage....what has actually been done with regard to our actual environmental issues? Prior to climate change we were making some pretty major strides towards cleaning up the environment..cleaning up rivers, considering rational use of land resources....since climate change came along, it is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

The driving force for me is that I would like to see at least some of the money that is presently being flushed down the drain on climate pseudoscience spent on real environmental issues...then I would like to see some actual climate science being done in strict adherence to the scientific method. So long as there is a fake crisis, none of that is going to be done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What I don't understand, is why is this so important to you to prove climate change isn't man-made? Why do you care? What's in it for you? Your posts show you don't give a shit about the human race, so what is the driving force for this passion of yours?

What are "your" forcings?

Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been flushed down the man made climate change toilet without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the hypothesis. Climate science wants literally TRILLIONS of dollars more, in addition, they want us to make draconian changes in the way we live.

We are facing some very real, and very serious environmental issues with pollution in all its forms and some critical land use issues. At present, climate change has co-opted environmentalism such that people conflate pollution with climate change. The two are very different issues. One we can and need to address...the other is a non issue.

Until the man made climate change pseudoscience is put to bed, nothing of any consequence is going to be done with regard to the environment. Look at the history of the past 30 years or so since climate change took center stage....what has actually been done with regard to our actual environmental issues? Prior to climate change we were making some pretty major strides towards cleaning up the environment..cleaning up rivers, considering rational use of land resources....since climate change came along, it is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

The driving force for me is that I would like to see at least some of the money that is presently being flushed down the drain on climate pseudoscience spent on real environmental issues...then I would like to see some actual climate science being done in strict adherence to the scientific method. So long as there is a fake crisis, none of that is going to be done.

You REALLY need to understand something:

You are presenting NO challenge to accepted scientific theories to claim they are false. I know you think you are, because you obviously think very highly of yourself. But you are not. Accepted theories are supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. No, some blog-educated fool who has no experience in the field, no education in the field, and has published no science does not present an actual challenge to these theories. in fact, it is hilariously absurd for you to think that it does, and all you have accomplished is to make yourself look completely ridiculous.

 

[SSDD]

I understand your position is political. Mine is not.

You understand very little.....which one of us has defended his position with peer reviewed, published research paper after paper after paper. Which one of us is actually looking at the science and taking the time to read the literature and which one of us posts a couple of misleading graphs and a couple of pictures as the sole support for his position?

I am afraid that it is you who holds the position based on politics....you can't provide any actual science that supports what you believe. You show evidence of a changing climate and then tack on an assumption that we are causing it without the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that assumption.

You have such a weak grasp of the topic that you can't even identify the difference between a political position and one that is firmly rooted in science. When you start supporting your position with actual research, then you can start to claim that your position is not political...till then, no matter what you say...your position is a reflection of your politics.

 

[SSDD]

You REALLY need to understand something:

You are presenting NO challenge to accepted scientific theories to claim they are false.

I asked you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports those "accepted" scientific hypotheses and as I predicted, you couldn't do it...and why not? Because no such evidence exists. I wouldn't have asked, nor would I be skeptical of the "accepted" scientific hypotheses if any such evidence were in existence. I have been looking for it for decades and with every year that passes without any such evidence turning up, I become more skeptical.

I know you think you are, because you obviously think very highly of yourself. But you are not. Accepted theories are supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

So lets see some of it. I asked for just a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I am not asking for definitive proof, or a mountain of evidence, or even a molehill of evidence...I am asking for one single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability and have been asking for that one piece of evidence for about 30 years now and to date, it has not been produced.

No, some blog-educated fool who has no experience in the field, no education in the field, and has published no science does not present an actual challenge to these theories.

Name calling...reference to an education you know nothing about. Were I an uneducated bumpkin I would probably not know which questions to ask...and would probably not be able to ask for that single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability with such supreme confidence that it isn't going to turn up.

in fact, it is hilariously absurd for you to think that it does, and all you have accomplished is to make yourself look completely ridiculous.

You want to know what is hilarious?...all the excuses you warmers give for not being able to produce that single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. The atmosphere and climate are, after all, observable, measurable, quantifiable entities....hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by climate science and still, not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Lets see just one piece hot rod...slap me down with it....make me your bitch...put me in my place...and what will you do? Probably call me some more names, maybe invoke a couple of logical fallacies such as an appeal to authority, or an appeal to the bandwagon, or maybe even an appeal to ridicule. What will you not do? You won't provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability because no such evidence exists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You REALLY need to understand something:

You are presenting NO challenge to accepted scientific theories to claim they are false.

I asked you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports those "accepted" scientific hypotheses and as I predicted, you couldn't do it...and why not? Because no such evidence exists. I wouldn't have asked, nor would I be skeptical of the "accepted" scientific hypotheses if any such evidence were in existence. I have been looking for it for decades and with every year that passes without any such evidence turning up, I become more skeptical.

I know you think you are, because you obviously think very highly of yourself. But you are not. Accepted theories are supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

So lets see some of it. I asked for just a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I am not asking for definitive proof, or a mountain of evidence, or even a molehill of evidence...I am asking for one single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability and have been asking for that one piece of evidence for about 30 years now and to date, it has not been produced.

No, some blog-educated fool who has no experience in the field, no education in the field, and has published no science does not present an actual challenge to these theories.

Name calling...reference to an education you know nothing about. Were I an uneducated bumpkin I would probably not know which questions to ask...and would probably not be able to ask for that single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability with such supreme confidence that it isn't going to turn up.

in fact, it is hilariously absurd for you to think that it does, and all you have accomplished is to make yourself look completely ridiculous.

You want to know what is hilarious?...all the excuses you warmers give for not being able to produce that single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. The atmosphere and climate are, after all, observable, measurable, quantifiable entities....hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by climate science and still, not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Lets see just one piece hot rod...slap me down with it....make me your bitch...put me in my place...and what will you do? Probably call me some more names, maybe invoke a couple of logical fallacies such as an appeal to authority, or an appeal to the bandwagon, or maybe even an appeal to ridicule. What will you not do? You won't provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability because no such evidence exists.

"I asked you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports those "accepted" scientific hypotheses"


yes, and your logic is that, because i did not spoonfeed them to you, they don't exist. yes, that is the idiotic, convoluted logic of a denier idiot. Enjoy.

 

[SSDD]

yes, and your logic is that, because i did not spoonfeed them to you, they don't exist. yes, that is the idiotic, convoluted logic of a denier idiot. Enjoy.

I have been looking for 3 decades and have asked some top shelf scientists the same question and they have not delivered either. One must wonder how many more excuses for not ponying up the information you might make before you cut and run. After all, claiming that such data exists and not providing it just makes you look stupid. This is a scientific discussion forum after all where people of any intelligence at all are expected to support their positions with research. You hold a position that you can't support...you hold a position that is so unsupportable that you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity like the climate that supports your position over natural variability.

How weak is that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yes, and your logic is that, because i did not spoonfeed them to you, they don't exist. yes, that is the idiotic, convoluted logic of a denier idiot. Enjoy.

I have been looking for 3 decades and have asked some top shelf scientists the same question and they have not delivered either. One must wonder how many more excuses for not ponying up the information you might make before you cut and run. After all, claiming that such data exists and not providing it just makes you look stupid. This is a scientific discussion forum after all where people of any intelligence at all are expected to support their positions with research. You hold a position that you can't support...you hold a position that is so unsupportable that you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity like the climate that supports your position over natural variability.

How weak is that?

"I have been looking for 3 decades "

And, in your mind, this is somehow a substitute for an actual education and a lifetime of doing actual research and of compiling mountains of actual scientific research. you need to come to terms with the fact that you know less than nothing about this topic as compared to people who have dedicated their lives to it. No, you are not presenting a real challenge to any accepted theory, anymore than a person who screams over and over "The earth is flat!" presents a true challenge to the idea that the earth is round.

 

[SSDD]

And, in your mind, this is somehow a substitute for an actual education and a lifetime of doing actual research and of compiling mountains of actual scientific research. you need to come to terms with the fact that you know less than nothing about this topic as compared to people who have dedicated their lives to it. No, you are not presenting a real challenge to any accepted theory, anymore than a person who screams over and over "The earth is flat!" presents a true challenge to the idea that the earth is round.

And talk and talk and talk and talk...and still not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. If there is actual observed, measured, quantified data in those "mountains" of research you should have little problem bringing a piece of it here and slapping me down with it....but will you? Of course not because no such data exists.

Therein lies the difference between being educated and not. I have researched the topic to the point that I can confidently ask anyone for that single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability and be quite sure that no one can deliver...because the data simply doesn't exist.

Useful idiots like you certainly believe it exists...and believe that it exists in copious quantities but when you actually start looking, you find that there is none...or when asked, it suddenly occurs to you that you wouldn't have the slightest idea what that sort of data might look like, or where you might start to look for it...That would be because your critical thinking skills are so frail that you have little choice but to pick a side based on your politics and then simply repeat whatever you think you are supposed to say.

Then someone like me comes along and asks for just a single piece of data that you can't produce and out come the logical fallacies...name calling, ridicule, appeals to authority, and on and on..but what never comes out...because it doesn't exist is that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe these right wingers are defending what's toxic.

They not only want to live in filth, but toxic filth. Is that their message?

The health dangers from Hurricane Harvey’s floods and Houston’s chemical plants

Short term: Chemical dangers

Texas is thick with chemical plants as well as natural gas and oil refineries. On Thursday, a tanker at one such factory caught fire after its refrigeration system failed. The chemical, called a liquid organic peroxide, is extremely flammable. The chemical plant company said it expected the other organic peroxide containers to catch fire as well.

Environmental experts are also monitoring several Superfund sites in flood-damaged areas. The EPA usually reinforces such sites before impending hurricanes hit. Despite this, past storms have spread contamination, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Southeast of Houston, Wes Highfield, a researcher at Texas A&M University Galveston, said he saw children swimming in flooded retention pools downstream from the Brio Refinery Superfund site. "And that's not good," he told The Post.

--------------------------

Remember the many thousands of carcinogenic trailers Republicans passed on to the poor and survivors after Katrina?
It only proves why it's a mistake putting Republicans in charge. If they don't poison you, they give you cancer and tell you to shut up and be thankful.

Anyone who imagines there are going to be no problems when a city is deluged with 53 inches of water simply isn't playing with a full deck. All the facilities you listed were in compliance with the regulations in force under the Obama regime. Why did they allow all these issues to occur? Don't you believe government is infallible?

 

[bripat9643]

At Least 10 Houston Area Chemical Facilities and Oil and Gas Refineries Have Already Reported Problems With Dozens More Threatened

• The Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas is at risk of explosion due to refrigerators keeping them at stable temperatures losing power.
• The floating roof on one of the tanks at Baytown partially sank at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, causing more than 12,000 pounds of benzene and toluene, two carcinogens, and volatile organic compounds to be released.
  
  
• There were reports of gas leaking from a transmission pipeline in Ingleside.
  
  
• In La Porte, a 14-inch pipeline reportedly spewed anhydrous hydrogen chloride, a toxic gas, for several hours.
  
  
• The external floating roof at the Shell Oil Deer Park refinery had material on it, requiring the company to place foam on material to lower emissions.
  
  
• The cooling water pump at the Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant reported and unexpected issue, despite the company having performed a controlled shutdown of the refinery.
  
  
• Benzene and unspeciated volatile organic compounds got on top of an external floating roof and into a dike firewall at a Valero facility.
  
  
• At another facility, Chevron Phillips reported it had sent more than 766,000 pounds of chemicals to its flare for burning, releasing dangerous toxins into the air.
  
  
• A tank at Kinder Morgan’s Pasadena Terminal has tilted, releasing 279,500 pounds of chemicals into a containment dike. The company announced that a fire retardant foam had been placed over the exposed liquid, and that it was emptying the liquid from the tank and containment dike.

-------------------------------------

How long before people being poisoned make it into the news again? Remember, Trump dismissed half the EPA board.

Invisible Killer in Katrina Victims' Trailers

Remember when Republicans passed out toxic and carcinogenic trailers after Katrina? Who would do something so awful to unsuspecting disaster victims. Well, I guess we already know.

You mean the chemicals Obama left there of r 8 years? LOL!

Oh grow up.

What can Obama do about Texas state laws? You can't blame right wing Republican filth on Obama. Those days are gone.

You mean the EPA can't override Texas state law?

 

[bripat9643]

At Least 10 Houston Area Chemical Facilities and Oil and Gas Refineries Have Already Reported Problems With Dozens More Threatened

• The Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas is at risk of explosion due to refrigerators keeping them at stable temperatures losing power.
• The floating roof on one of the tanks at Baytown partially sank at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, causing more than 12,000 pounds of benzene and toluene, two carcinogens, and volatile organic compounds to be released.
  
  
• There were reports of gas leaking from a transmission pipeline in Ingleside.
  
  
• In La Porte, a 14-inch pipeline reportedly spewed anhydrous hydrogen chloride, a toxic gas, for several hours.
  
  
• The external floating roof at the Shell Oil Deer Park refinery had material on it, requiring the company to place foam on material to lower emissions.
  
  
• The cooling water pump at the Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant reported and unexpected issue, despite the company having performed a controlled shutdown of the refinery.
  
  
• Benzene and unspeciated volatile organic compounds got on top of an external floating roof and into a dike firewall at a Valero facility.
  
  
• At another facility, Chevron Phillips reported it had sent more than 766,000 pounds of chemicals to its flare for burning, releasing dangerous toxins into the air.
  
  
• A tank at Kinder Morgan’s Pasadena Terminal has tilted, releasing 279,500 pounds of chemicals into a containment dike. The company announced that a fire retardant foam had been placed over the exposed liquid, and that it was emptying the liquid from the tank and containment dike.

-------------------------------------

How long before people being poisoned make it into the news again? Remember, Trump dismissed half the EPA board.

Invisible Killer in Katrina Victims' Trailers

Remember when Republicans passed out toxic and carcinogenic trailers after Katrina? Who would do something so awful to unsuspecting disaster victims. Well, I guess we already know.

And then you vote for a president to reduce regulation so you can make more profit. Just so you don't have to safeguard against hurricanes.

Why didn't the Obama admin pass regulations to "safeguard against hurricanes?"