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

[bripat9643]

We never even had any toxic sites when Obama was President

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We never even had any toxic sites when Obama was President

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

This is all a stupid distraction. the conversation we should be having, and which is exceedingly relevant in light of what happened in Houston is how to handle our superfund sites . how to pay for them, where to put them, how to manage them, etc.

 

[bripat9643]

We never even had any toxic sites when Obama was President

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

This is all a stupid distraction. the conversation we should be having, and which is exceedingly relevant in light of what happened in Houston is how to handle our superfund sites . how to pay for them, where to put them, how to manage them, etc.

It's all "distraction" created by snowflakes like you.

 

[deanrd]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

Lying is all they can do. It's all they have.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation



Remember, after the BP oil spill, Republicans like Joe Barton felt it was the people living in the Gulf who should clean up BP oil spill.

Yea, really.

 

[bripat9643]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

Lying is all they can do. It's all they have.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation



Remember, after the BP oil spill, Republicans like Joe Barton felt it was the people living in the Gulf who should clean up BP oil spill.

Yea, really.

"Mother Nature Network?" How credible do you imagine we think that is?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 *****...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.

Dr Tim Ball has an excellent essay over on WUWT. He explains why current modeling is so very wrong.. Its an excellent read.

Climate Models Can’t Even Approximate Reality Because Atmospheric Structure and Movements are Virtually Unknown

How do you build a computer model to represent this structure and all the mechanisms it encompasses? But the challenge is much greater than that because the diagram is a representation of the average, which is a fixed statistical condition. In reality, it is an extremely dynamic system that changes on an almost infinite number of time scales from hourly to millions of years. Even if you can approximate the data and mechanisms with a mathematical formula there is the problem mathematician and philosopher A. N. Whitehead identified,

“There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

Another Phd wrote;'
"…and, since the models also cannot model individual thunderstorms and small circulation, and per this post cannot accurately model or project large circulation changes, so essentially they cannot model the power, flux and speed of the earth’s hydrological cycle, and therefore they simply are not fit for purpose."

Leave it to Dr Archibald to state the obvious.

 

[Billy_Bob]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

Lying is all they can do. It's all they have.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation



Remember, after the BP oil spill, Republicans like Joe Barton felt it was the people living in the Gulf who should clean up BP oil spill.

Yea, really.

How are you going to stop all the oil that NATURALLY seeps into the ocean every year? You do know that it is 100 times the amount of that oil spill you cite, don't you?

It appears your screams of ignorance by others are unfounded and yet, you cant seem to come to grips with your own..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We never even had any toxic sites when Obama was President

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

This is all a stupid distraction. the conversation we should be having, and which is exceedingly relevant in light of what happened in Houston is how to handle our superfund sites . how to pay for them, where to put them, how to manage them, etc.

It's all "distraction" created by snowflakes like you.

And you jumped right in with both feet. Whine some more.

 

[bripat9643]

We never even had any toxic sites when Obama was President

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

This is all a stupid distraction. the conversation we should be having, and which is exceedingly relevant in light of what happened in Houston is how to handle our superfund sites . how to pay for them, where to put them, how to manage them, etc.

It's all "distraction" created by snowflakes like you.

And you jumped right in with both feet. Whine some more.

I "jumped in" to point out that you're a moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't be stupid. There was only so much Obama could do in the face of massive GOP resistance. We know they promote toxic filth. Look at you.

What regulations to safeguard against hurricanes did Obama try to implement?

This is all a stupid distraction. the conversation we should be having, and which is exceedingly relevant in light of what happened in Houston is how to handle our superfund sites . how to pay for them, where to put them, how to manage them, etc.

It's all "distraction" created by snowflakes like you.

And you jumped right in with both feet. Whine some more.

I "jumped in" to point out that you're a moron.

That's nice. But I am unphased, since you appear to know less than nothing about anything. When we need help defending trump picking his nose, we'll call you.

 

[cnm]

Unless you are one of tens of millions who knows its a hoax s0n.

Ah, dumb **** rightards. Only 30 odd million of them.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

So you're saying over 200 scientific organizations around the world, haven't observed, measured or quantified anything these past 50 years? Are you calling the data (on sea levels and temperatures) NOAA receives from their buoy's, doesn't constitute a shred of evidence?

Climate science wants literally TRILLIONS of dollars more, in addition, they want us to make draconian changes in the way we live.

How is becoming more energy efficient, a draconian change?

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.

You cannot separate pollution and climate. Pollution is part of the climate. It interacts with the climate. And that interaction, produces change.

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?

It's done a lot. Cars running on unleaded gas, is a good thing for the environment and our lungs. The biggest reason slowing down changes to protect the environment, is climate deniers, such as yourself and the current President of the United States, actively trying to silence scientists advocating man-made climate change.

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.

Unless you're part of the sustainable energy industry, then it is putting money in your 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.

How can the findings of over 200 science organizations around the world, be fake?

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Your position is very political. If it wasn't, you wouldn't feel the need to stack the deck in your favor when it comes to discussing this issue.

Take these two hurricanes we just had. Fox News of Harvey and Irma mentioned climate change 7 times and all were dismissive in nature. Not one expert (supporting global warming) was part of their fair and balanced coverage.

Outlets owned by Murdoch’s umbrella corporations, News Corp and 21st Century Fox, clearly led the denialist camp. These firms constitute the core propaganda machine of the right in the English-speaking world.​

That is very political. For it not to be political, you would hear from both sides of the argument. And the fact that you keep trying to make this about me and my understanding of the issue, is a very political tactic on your part.

 

[SSDD]

You cannot separate pollution and climate. Pollution is part of the climate. It interacts with the climate. And that interaction, produces change.

That is what you have been told no doubt...and clearly haven't bothered to research. Tell me, since you seem to think you know...how does pollution alter the climate? Lets hear what you have been told. And do back it up with some published, peer reviewed literature.

You It's done a lot. Cars running on unleaded gas, is a good thing for the environment and our lungs. The biggest reason slowing down changes to protect the environment, is climate deniers, such as yourself and the current President of the United States, actively trying to silence scientists advocating man-made climate change.

You are talking about CO2...Sorry guy, but at present, there isn't a single piece of real data that supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...and research is showing that we have little to no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with our paltry emissions...so no, cutting emissions on cars has not done squat with regards to the climate. Admittedly, it is good for our lungs, but it does nothing for the climate.
[/quote]

Unless you're part of the sustainable energy industry, then it is putting money in your coffers.

So you do grasp that the climate crisis has a profit motive in the abstract...but once again, for you it is just trivia...you are unable to apply that knowledge to the real world and see the climate scam for what it is...it puts money in the coffers of everyone who is involved...except us taxpayers.

How can the findings of over 200 science organizations around the world, be fake?

The findings of those organizations are mostly just wrong...the media is guilty of most of the fakery...and if you had any historical context, you would realize that in science, especially relatively new branches of science, the general scientific community is damned near always wrong during the discovery process...and the discovery process takes a very long time. At present, we have barely scratched the surface as to how energy moves through the earth system...Here, let me give you just a few of the literally thousands of instances where the general scientific community was wrong until enough was known about the topic to begin to get it right.

• Ulcers- until very recently practically every scientist on earth would have told you that ulcers were the result of stress...they were wrong.
• Continental drift - until relatively recently, the world wide scientific consensus was that continents do not "slide" along on moving plates in the earth's crust
• Cholseterol - for a good long time the general scientific consensus was that cholesterol caused heart disease...research shows that it doesn't.
• Salt - for a very long time the general scientific consensus has been that salt would cause elevated blood pressure...it doesn't.
• Saturated fats - tied to cholesterol..turns out that butter and bacon fat aren't the demons that science has been telling us they are.
• Sugar vs Artificial sweeteners - turns out that the artificial stuff is what is really bad for us
• Thalidomide- given to pregnant women as a sedative and to prevent morning sickness...it was the consensus but caused birth defects
• Quasicrystials- till very recently they were thought to not exist and people who though they did had their careers ruined over their position...

These are just a few of the literally thousands of instances where science across the globe has been wrong. And why were they so wrong for so long on these and thousands of other issues? The answer is junk science. Science done with the intent of a particular outcome. And when at long last, science started looking at the issues and doing unbiased studies designed to actually learn something rather than promote an agenda or agree with the consensus, the facts came out and the consensus was proven wrong. Believing in a thing because the consensus says it is so...especially in matters of relatively new science is almost a sure bet to be wrong.

Holding up the consensus in matters of relatively new science is the weakest of arguments.

 

[SSDD]

Your position is very political. If it wasn't, you wouldn't feel the need to stack the deck in your favor when it comes to discussing this issue.

The scientific deck is simply stacked in the favor of skeptics...when you start looking at real science vs models, and media hype, the case for man made global warming simply starts to crumble...I didn't stack the deck...I just provided you the research..and the newer the research is, the less it supports the AGW hypothesis. Look back through all these threads...the research that supported the AGW claims tends to be quite old...you will note that most of the research I provide is pretty new and oddly enough, generally unknown among the AGW believers.

Take these two hurricanes we just had. Fox News of Harvey and Irma mentioned climate change 7 times and all were dismissive in nature. Not one expert (supporting global warming) was part of their fair and balanced coverage.

Alas billo...trying to connect the hurricanes...any hurricanes to climate change is political grandstanding...science acknowledges that there is no relationship between our emissions and hurricanes and cyclones...it is pure politics to try and conflate them to climate change. You are arguing politics, not science. I am short on time but will bring you a wheel barrow full of data illustrating that hurricanes aren't connected to climate change.

You are the one motivated by politics and don't even have enough of a grasp of the topic to realize it.

 

[deanrd]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

Lying is all they can do. It's all they have.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation



Remember, after the BP oil spill, Republicans like Joe Barton felt it was the people living in the Gulf who should clean up BP oil spill.

Yea, really.

"Mother Nature Network?" How credible do you imagine we think that is?

There is a video right there shitstain.

What the **** is wrong with you?

 

[bripat9643]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

Lying is all they can do. It's all they have.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation



Remember, after the BP oil spill, Republicans like Joe Barton felt it was the people living in the Gulf who should clean up BP oil spill.

Yea, really.

"Mother Nature Network?" How credible do you imagine we think that is?

There is a video right there shitstain.

What the **** is wrong with you?

I'm not watching any video of some politician blabbering.

 

[Billo_Really]

That is what you have been told no doubt...and clearly haven't bothered to research.

You don't need to research "air". The air is atmosphere. Pollution, pollutes the air. On a smoggy day, you can see the air is brown. You don't need to research the air is brown, you can ******* see it!

Tell me, since you seem to think you know...how does pollution alter the climate?

Turns it brown. Makes it unhealthy to breathe. Depletes the ozone layer.

Lets hear what you have been told. And do back it up with some published, peer reviewed literature.

There you go repeating yourself again. Listen, there is more peer reviewed literature saying your full of shit, than there is that support your nonsense.

You are talking about CO2...Sorry guy, but at present, there isn't a single piece of real data that supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...and research is showing that we have little to no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with our paltry emissions...so no, cutting emissions on cars has not done squat with regards to the climate. Admittedly, it is good for our lungs, but it does nothing for the climate.

There is a mountain of data proving global warming and there has been for years. Your position is political and ridiculous. Your position is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes. That's how stupid your position is.

So you do grasp that the climate crisis has a profit motive in the abstract...but once again, for you it is just trivia...you are unable to apply that knowledge to the real world and see the climate scam for what it is...it puts money in the coffers of everyone who is involved...except us taxpayers.

WTF are you talking about? Sustainable energy company's pay taxes to.

The findings of those organizations are mostly just wrong...

How convenient.

Conversation over. You are ******* whack!

 

[Billo_Really]

The scientific deck is simply stacked in the favor of skeptics...when you start looking at real science vs models, and media hype, the case for man made global warming simply starts to crumble...I didn't stack the deck...I just provided you the research..and the newer the research is, the less it supports the AGW hypothesis. Look back through all these threads...the research that supported the AGW claims tends to be quite old...you will note that most of the research I provide is pretty new and oddly enough, generally unknown among the AGW believers.

0.5% of the science community supports your claim. 99.5% supports mine.

Alas billo...trying to connect the hurricanes...any hurricanes to climate change is political grandstanding...science acknowledges that there is no relationship between our emissions and hurricanes and cyclones...it is pure politics to try and conflate them to climate change. You are arguing politics, not science. I am short on time but will bring you a wheel barrow full of data illustrating that hurricanes aren't connected to climate change.

You are the one motivated by politics and don't even have enough of a grasp of the topic to realize it.

So you are saying hurricanes have nothing to do with the climate?

BTW, we got two more coming in. That's 4 in 3 weeks.

 

[SSDD]

Turns it brown. Makes it unhealthy to breathe. Depletes the ozone layer.

And again....that has exactly what to do with the global climate? And you think smog depletes the ozone layer?

There you go repeating yourself again. Listen, there is more peer reviewed literature saying your full of shit, than there is that support your nonsense.

You want to bring some old outdated literature and attempt to argue against the latest research? Go ahead...at least you would at least be trying to support your position.

There is a mountain of data proving global warming and there has been for years. Your position is political and ridiculous. Your position is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes. That's how stupid your position is.

Really? So lets see a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Just one single piece of data from that mountain of data that you claim exists. Clearly I spend a lot more time looking at the research than you do and I haven't found it...and I have asked actual climate scientists for it as well and even they can't deliver. Climate science is all models all the time...and model output isn't actual data.

WTF are you talking about? Sustainable energy company's pay taxes to.

Guess the point went right over your head...

How convenient.

I would call it tragic.

Conversation over. You are ******* whack!

Cut and run...and still not a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....you are just another warmer wackaloon who can't manage to find anything resembling science to support your beliefs.