The Pelosi premium...

[Jeepers]

Saving the planet does seem like a good idea.

After all, we might need it someday.

Not all that sure any more... Havent you heard? There's water on mars. Once we screw this planet, we can start over on the red one....

Granted we'd have to solve a slight atmospheric oxidizing problem there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not all that sure any more... Havent you heard? There's water on mars. Once we screw this planet, we can start over on the red one....

Granted we'd have to solve a slight atmospheric oxidizing problem there.

They think the ground on Mars is toxic now from the recent lander. Guess you don't keep up, ehh?

 

[Ravi]

Lets take a look at pollution shall we? It has steadily gone DOWN every year since the 70's. We put out less and clean up more. And we continue to work on ways to lower it EVEN more. We continue to look for old sites that we polluted before we wised up ( you know back when the dems ran everything) and clean them as well.

Link?

 

[Jeepers]

We aren't you loon. We are very much for Conservation. We are not, however, for cutting our economic throat on the say so of idiots, loons and retards.

Lets take a look at pollution shall we? It has steadily gone DOWN every year since the 70's. We put out less and clean up more. And we continue to work on ways to lower it EVEN more. We continue to look for old sites that we polluted before we wised up ( you know back when the dems ran everything) and clean them as well.

Meanwhile the loons do not want us to actually USE the technology we have. Or did you miss where they are against the CO2 scrubbers developed from being used?

Now the developing nations are a problem , but unless you advocate aggressive wars against them for pollution you really haven't a leg to stand on.

HUh.. Clean skies allows for plants to operate without the scrubbers that Carter gave the industry 30 years to install.. where are you getting your pollution emmission facts from?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Link?

You doubt? Lets do a little reality check shall we?

In the 60's and early 70's LA and other cities were so air polluted that they had to issue warnings not to go outside and to wear masks. Are you saying we have less cars and industry 40 years later? Or are you claiming that our pollution in those cities has not gone down?

A little common sense doesn't actually hurt Ravi, try it, I realize you will be exersizing long dorment brain cells but give it a try.

 

[busara]

Find the actual Scientific theory and how it has been tested and shown to be viable. OR admit it is just a bunch of guys in white smocks talking out of their ass.

You are aware how the Scientific method works right?

::sigh::

yes, i know how it works. and in this case scientists have observed species extinction and used the data to estimate the total number of species lost every year. they then look at estimates for extinction in the past and compare it. it cant be completely proven because the data simply doesnt exist, and will not exist, because we havent been around long enough to collect it. and you know that the slam dunk evidence cant be given, which is an easy way for you to say it's all rubbish.

 

[Jeepers]

Um Charlotte NC has repeated RED Ozone Alerts.. Just cause this info is not daily on your news doesnt mean that pollution has miraculously gone away...

 

[Ravi]

You doubt? Lets do a little reality check shall we?

In the 60's and early 70's LA and other cities were so air polluted that they had to issue warnings not to go outside and to wear masks. Are you saying we have less cars and industry 40 years later? Or are you claiming that our pollution in those cities has not gone down?

A little common sense doesn't actually hurt Ravi, try it, I realize you will be exersizing long dorment brain cells but give it a try.

So you don't have a link. Boy, am I surprised.

Perhaps you don't know that many pollutants are invisible to the naked eye and that even where I live there are days when people are advised to stay inside if they need to breathe.

And that's just air pollution. You haven't even attempted to not link to facts about water pollution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

HUh.. Clean skies allows for plants to operate without the scrubbers that Carter gave the industry 30 years to install.. where are you getting your pollution emmission facts from?

Here is a quick answer.

United States
Looking down from the Hollywood Hills, with Griffith Observatory on the hill in the foreground, air pollution is visible in downtown Los Angeles on a late afternoon.
Looking down from the Hollywood Hills, with Griffith Observatory on the hill in the foreground, air pollution is visible in downtown Los Angeles on a late afternoon.

In the 1960s, 70s, and 90s, the United States Congress enacted a series of Clean Air Acts which significantly strengthened regulation of air pollution. Individual U.S. states, some European nations and eventually the European Union followed these initiatives. The Clean Air Act sets numerical limits on the concentrations of a basic group of air pollutants and provide reporting and enforcement mechanisms.

In 1999, the United States EPA replaced the Pollution Standards Index (PSI) with the Air Quality Index (AQI) to incorporate new PM2.5 and Ozone standards.

The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:[37]

* carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons
* nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons
* sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons
* particulate emissions fell by 80%
* lead emissions fell by more than 98%

In an October 2006 letter to EPA, the agency's independent scientific advisors warned that the ozone smog standard “needs to be substantially reduced” and that there is “no scientific justification” for retaining the current, weaker standard. The scientists unanimously recommended a smog threshold of 60 to 70 ppb after they conducted an extensive review of the evidence. [38]

The EPA has proposed, in June 2007, a new threshold of 75 ppb. This falls short of the scientific recommendation, but is an improvement over the current standard.

Polluting industries are lobbying to keep the current (weaker) standards in place. Environmentalists and public health advocates are mobilizing to support compliance with the scientific recommendations.[citation needed]

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are pollution thresholds which trigger mandatory remediation plans by state and local governments, subject to enforcement by the EPA.

An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit, and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. Almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast. [39]

Air pollution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jeepers]

So you don't have a link. Boy, am I surprised.

Perhaps you don't know that many pollutants are invisible to the naked eye and that even where I live there are days when people are advised to stay inside if they need to breathe.

And that's just air pollution. You haven't even attempted to not link to facts about water pollution.

Here is a fascinating link... Note .. not too much Clean air out there anywhere...

US Air Quality Gradebook - Maps

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is a fascinating link... Note .. not too much Clean air out there anywhere...

US Air Quality Gradebook - Maps

I never said our air was without pollution, I stated and have provided a link to show it has DECREASED as we fight it from the hey day of doing nothing.

But you two slap your selves on the back and ignore reality all you want. Seems to be a Liberal trait, do you inherit it or do you learn it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

::sigh::

yes, i know how it works. and in this case scientists have observed species extinction and used the data to estimate the total number of species lost every year. they then look at estimates for extinction in the past and compare it. it cant be completely proven because the data simply doesnt exist, and will not exist, because we havent been around long enough to collect it. and you know that the slam dunk evidence cant be given, which is an easy way for you to say it's all rubbish.

Yes and anti religious zealots will point out that the Bible , even though factual in some parts with historical evidence is simply claims made by men of faith.

There is no science that can prove the extinction rate is some magic number and we have seriously tipped it to far. Hell we don't even know how many species are ON this planet. How many are created a new each year and how many naturally die out. It is all one big guess, then a further guess how long they SHOULD last, another guess how many have died from "natural" causes, another guess how many die in a year, another guess...... well if you had half a brain you would get the point. But I am sure you do not.

 

[busara]

I never said our air was without pollution, I stated and have provided a link to show it has DECREASED as we fight it from the hey day of doing nothing.

But you two slap your selves on the back and ignore reality all you want. Seems to be a Liberal trait, do you inherit it or do you learn it?

its great that we have started polluting less. i guess those libs did something good for once, eh RGS?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

its great that we have started polluting less. i guess those libs did something good for once, eh RGS?

We didn't JUST start. It has been going on steadily since the late 60's and it CONTINUES to go on, including through Republican administrations and Congresses. But you pretend other wise, I notice Ravi and Jeepers have run away from their ignorant claims as usual.

 

[busara]

Yes and anti religious zealots will point out that the Bible , even though factual in some parts with historical evidence is simply claims made by men of faith.

There is no science that can prove the extinction rate is some magic number and we have seriously tipped it to far. Hell we don't even know how many species are ON this planet. How many are created a new each year and how many naturally die out. It is all one big guess, then a further guess how long they SHOULD last, another guess how many have died from "natural" causes, another guess how many die in a year, another guess...... well if you had half a brain you would get the point. But I am sure you do not.

can you make a single post without including an insult? my god. if you didnt get so angry over someone having a different opinion you could actually have a nice, meaningful discussion.

you can call it a guess, but you very well know they are estimates based off the data our scientists have gathered. theyre not out of the blue. and i get your point, that it isnt proven. guess what? evolution isnt proven to exist. neither has gravity. nor jesus' resurrection. nor the amount of oil in ANWR. do you dismiss all of those because they dont have the slam dunk evidence you require? if you werent so uptight and angry you would see the point im making, which is it may not be proven, but there is probably something to it and we shouldnt ignore it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

can you make a single post without including an insult? my god. if you didnt get so angry over someone having a different opinion you could actually have a nice, meaningful discussion.

you can call it a guess, but you very well know they are estimates based off the data our scientists have gathered. theyre not out of the blue. and i get your point, that it isnt proven. guess what? evolution isnt proven to exist. neither has gravity. nor jesus' resurrection. nor the amount of oil in ANWR. do you dismiss all of those because they dont have the slam dunk evidence you require? if you werent so uptight and angry you would see the point im making, which is it may not be proven, but there is probably something to it and we shouldnt ignore it

Ohh really? Where did I insult you in the last post?

 

[busara]

We didn't JUST start. It has been going on steadily since the late 60's and it CONTINUES to go on, including through Republican administrations and Congresses. But you pretend other wise, I notice Ravi and Jeepers have run away from their ignorant claims as usual.

whether we started 1 year ago or 100 doesnt matter. we "started" at some point. you just love to argue, dont you?

did i say the repubs havent continued it? the repubs didnt start environmentally sustainable actions, those crazy tree huggers spread awareness. i just think its funny that you, the man who claims libs are all stupid and wrong, is happily showing we have been polluting less. and the reason we started that is the libs

 

[busara]

Ohh really? Where did I insult you in the last post?

well if you had half a brain you would get the point. But I am sure you do not.

do you consider that to be friendly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

do you consider that to be friendly?

When it appears to be true, yes. You have taken a stand on an issue that is not even close to being a pillar of scientific theory or process. This one requires so many guess and assumptions as to be useless. Yet here you are acting like it is written in stone. I suggest you have not used most of your brain coming to that conclusion.

 

[Ravi]

We didn't JUST start. It has been going on steadily since the late 60's and it CONTINUES to go on, including through Republican administrations and Congresses. But you pretend other wise, I notice Ravi and Jeepers have run away from their ignorant claims as usual.

I'm going to research it a bit more. You could have edited the wiki link just before you posted it as evidence, for all I know. I did notice that the USA puts out more CO2 from cars than anyone else, according to your link.