EPA Crack down on poluters!!!

[sickyute]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

My friend just started a great talk/off-topic dedicated forum. If you are interested in these type of issues and want to talk to a great bunch of well-educated guys (doctors, lawyers, PhD's etc) you might want to check it out.

www.justput.com/forum

i'll get high blood pressure ...
i'll go, read, etc ... but i'll refrain as much as possible ... i'll just get pissed and my blood pressure will go up ... social issues really get to me ...

it's the reason why i stay away from the water cooler topics ...

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by sickyute

i'll get high blood pressure ...
i'll go, read, etc ... but i'll refrain as much as possible ... i'll just get pissed and my blood pressure will go up ... social issues really get to me ...

it's the reason why i stay away from the water cooler topics ...

I hear you. Sometimes I just wish I was a dumb blue collar monkey that made a great living and didn't give a damn. I have another friend that runs a septic tank business and makes $300K a year. He couldn't care less about any of these issues and he's probably happier for it (but he does work in the poo all day LOL). And no, I am not being sarcastic.

[ErichPryde]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

The only people that believe in man made global warming are those without a background in science and those with a vested interest ($$$$) in it. To think man could even change the overall climate for the better or even to think we really know what "for the better" is in the long run is ridiculous. Just ask those that destroyed Yellowstone when they tried to "preserve it" or just ask all the people that could be farming deserts if the climate was slightly warmer but we have decided we should attempt to starve them in our infinite wisdom.

That's all I am going to say about it here. I learned my lesson with the CAI argument. If people can't wrap their minds around that simple bit of science I certainly am not going to kill myself on this one. This site is mainly composed of the prime demographic to extract the most money out of global warming fears. Looks to me like it's working great.

It's funny you should mention yellowstone here, because in fact, when we drove the indians out of yellowstone, and they quit doing what they were doing with the brush, and various plants changed dominance, we did in fact inadvertently completely destroy the original ecosystem to some degree.
What I find amusing about all this is that you would say we can't effect the climate for the better- and you are suggesting that we also can't effect it for the worse, by stating that global warming is a sham.
Now, I don't believe that global warming is AS bad as it is sometimes stated, but I do believe that humans DO have an impact on the globe.
We build cities, we destroy the wilderness, we build vehicles that increase emissions of gases that would NOT normally be sent into the atmosphere in the amounts we send them up in- all of this is having some effect on the climate.
To what degree, I am not sure. However, it would be moronic to assume that we are not having some impact on the environment.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

It's funny you should mention yellowstone here, because in fact, when we drove the indians out of yellowstone, and they quit doing what they were doing with the brush, and various plants changed dominance, we did in fact inadvertently completely destroy the original ecosystem to some degree.
What I find amusing about all this is that you would say we can't effect the climate for the better- and you are suggesting that we also can't effect it for the worse, by stating that global warming is a sham.
Now, I don't believe that global warming is AS bad as it is sometimes stated, but I do believe that humans DO have an impact on the globe.
We build cities, we destroy the wilderness, we build vehicles that increase emissions of gases that would NOT normally be sent into the atmosphere in the amounts we send them up in- all of this is having some effect on the climate.
To what degree, I am not sure. However, it would be moronic to assume that we are not having some impact on the environment.

Having an impact on the environment and global climate change are two completely different issues. The fact is the climate of this planet has been different at different times and yet life has still flourished. Why do we automatically assume the current climate is the "best" climate? Plants thrive on C02 and what are now deserts could possibly be fertile farmland, yet you never hear anyone even state that equally plausible possibility. That's how I know we are dealing with bad science. Really all you have to do is follow the money (as is usually the case).

The best correlation out there right now is that global warming is much more closely tied to solar radiation vs anything man made. I guess man is also causing the measure global warming of all the other planets in our solar system as well? The fact is when you look at the solar radiation theory, Earth is actually behind the curve of the rest of our solar system. Ironically it's theorized that the only reason we are behind is the "pollution" we have in our air.

In the end my point is that the science is very bad, yet we are committing billions of taxpayer dollars to it. Twenty years ago the world was screaming about "global cooling" (look it up) and we did the same thing committing billions of dollars and making policy that strangled US businesses compared to the rest of the world in our knee-jerk reactions.

The thing is you are never even presented these counter points of view and that is simply "junk science." A good scientist immediately sets out to attack his own theories to make sure they stand up. That simply isn't being done here. It's being sold like you sell Coke, on pure emotion. That's just scary to me.

[ErichPryde]

From Wikipedia, Global Warming
Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC


Then, there's the leading theory on what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. At the end of the Permian (251 million years ago), about 96% of all Marine Life, and somewhere around 70% of all land vertebrates, suddenly went extinct. there are a lot of theories, but one of the leading theories has something to do with an increase in Methane Hydrate in the atmosphere.

From wikipedia (again. I'm sure someone will undoubtedly bash me for my use of Wikipedia)

Methane is a greenhouse gas about 62 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Its effect declines fairly quickly as it oxidizes readily, producing one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water per molecule of methane. A portion of the carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.

If you want to read more about the Permian-Triassic extinction event, you can here.

[ErichPryde]

Yes, life has still flourished, but there have been several massive changes in the environment that have wiped out the majority of species on several occasions. If we cut down all the rainforests in south america, I can guarantee you that there will be a massive die-off of species. Even if global warming isn't a problem, which is, as you pointed out, highly debatable, our entire system of Industrialization (which I strongly support, apparently) is incredibly destructive to life on this planet.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

Yes, life has still flourished, but there have been several massive changes in the environment that have wiped out the majority of species on several occasions.

You mean like meteors and ice ages before man was ever even around? Yet through those disasters life has flourished.

If we cut down all the rainforests in south america, I can guarantee you that there will be a massive die-off of species.

Yet plants then need C02 to flourish elsewhere to even out these losses. Hmmm??

Even if global warming isn't a problem, which is, as you pointed out, highly debatable, our entire system of Industrialization (which I strongly support, apparently) is incredibly destructive to life on this planet.

There is no doubt man has created some ecological disasters. On that I will totally agree, but the fact is there are over 6.6 BILLION people on this planet. Without industrialization, most people on this planet would die off, most likely of starvation. It takes a very high and mighty person to make that decision (read your typical Hollywood imbecile) for all those other people while they eat sushi in their 7000sq ft Malibu Mansions (Al Gore just bought a new home this size with all the profit he has been raking in).

If you look at past history, as economies grow stronger people demand to not live in shit-holes. So even China, which produces 3 x the pollution/GDP ratio that America does will one day have a populace that demands a cleaner environment. Otherwise we just strangle our own economy while our competitors flourish and do we really want to see China more powerful than America? For all our faults we still have more guaranteed rights than any other humans on this planet and I have yet to hear of a good argument why we should allow that to change.

[ErichPryde]

I actually did a search for "solar radiation causing global warming?" and read an article. it had some scientific backing to it, but it bothered me that it felt the need to actually attack proponents of the global warming theory like THIS:

One of the main parties interested in making a living of the man-made-global-warming hoax is Canada's federal government. It loves "global-warming" because the public's acceptance of the hype constantly provides new means to collect new taxes and to ram through its agenda for socialization and world-income equalization, until we all are at the same level of poverty, or until the Canadian economy collapses in ruins, whichever comes first.

If the article was using strong scientific fact, it would have NO need to attack anything. the science would speak for itself.

This is just like arguing evolution vs. creationism, and I find it completely pointless. I shouldn't have let myself get sidetracked- the original point of this post had something to do with the manufacturer of a specific part being penalized by the government, when it is in fact the consumer buying it and using it for the wrong purposes, who should be penalized.
I think the government is viewing it this way- it's under-the-table knowledge that the majority of defoulers are NOT, in fact, used as they are supposed to. The government can't track down all of us who use defoulers. Therefore, they are attacking the company itself.

Still wrong. Just like with guns, the consumer is given the opportunity to use them incorrectly or correctly.

[ErichPryde]

I'm not only talking about the plants that need the CO2. I'm talking about every animal dependent upon the destroyed ecosystem. insects, monkeys, you name it. I could get into how the whole thing is tied together, but I'm sure you understand that
All I'm trying to suggest is that we are destroying the world's ecosystems simply by being what we are, the issue of global warming being but a minor issue in what should be the bigger concern. It's an unfortunate fact. I have no solution, and I have no intention of not driving to work. I like to live in comfort, as, I am sure, do you.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

I'm not only talking about the plants that need the CO2. I'm talking about every animal dependent upon the destroyed ecosystem. insects, monkeys, you name it. I could get into how the whole thing is tied together, but I'm sure you understand that
All I'm trying to suggest is that we are destroying the world's ecosystems simply by being what we are, the issue of global warming being but a minor issue in what should be the bigger concern. It's an unfortunate fact. I have no solution, and I have no intention of not driving to work. I like to live in comfort, as, I am sure, do you.

I think your fears are exaggerated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant. All I am asking for is the vigilance be based on proper science and not just the want of billions in government handouts that keep scientist employed while they produce nothing. The ecosystem will always be changing on this planet, that's simply a fact. It always has in the past and even through global catastrophe, life finds a way to adapt and survive and even flourish. Keep in mind the Yellowstone disaster was from trying to preserve the environment, and that was only in a relatively small geographic area compared to global climate change.

LOL, there is a great line in the movie Ghostbusters (yeah I know I am quoting Ghostbusters) when they get fired from the uiversity and Dan Akroyd (Ray) says;

Personally, I like the University. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector. They expect results.

I think that pretty much sums up the motive behind keeping the global warming machine going as we see it primarily comes from our federally (taxpayer) funded university system.

[iomatic]

When anyone starts using the term 'junk science' and then perhaps refer to that term's namesake Website made up by a stooge of the petrochemical/Right-wing interests, I have to discount what you say. If you follow the money -- as you say -- down this path, you'll find people debating the credibility of global warming caused by human output, namely the oil interests.

To wit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy
"Writing in The New Republic in January 2006 Paul Thacker noted Milloy's long-term, close relationships with corporations, including ExxonMobil and Philip Morris."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...xon_chart.html
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i...=thacker020606

Ironically, it would be a more Conservative approach to actually prevent anything from occurring and taking precautionary steps to insure that we don't indeed harm the environment from industrial waste, pollution or toxins. Global warming could very well be caused by human output, and that is still up for debate. The fact that it is, means the Conservatives should be well, Conservative about this issue, and stop pollutants until we can prove otherwise. This is but one of many Conservatively-created conflicts. It's not bad science, it's real science being "debunked" by cronies with specific interests.

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

Having an impact on the environment and global climate change are two completely different issues. The fact is the climate of this planet has been different at different times and yet life has still flourished. Why do we automatically assume the current climate is the "best" climate? Plants thrive on C02 and what are now deserts could possibly be fertile farmland, yet you never hear anyone even state that equally plausible possibility. That's how I know we are dealing with bad science. Really all you have to do is follow the money (as is usually the case).

The best correlation out there right now is that global warming is much more closely tied to solar radiation vs anything man made. I guess man is also causing the measure global warming of all the other planets in our solar system as well? The fact is when you look at the solar radiation theory, Earth is actually behind the curve of the rest of our solar system. Ironically it's theorized that the only reason we are behind is the "pollution" we have in our air.

In the end my point is that the science is very bad, yet we are committing billions of taxpayer dollars to it. Twenty years ago the world was screaming about "global cooling" (look it up) and we did the same thing committing billions of dollars and making policy that strangled US businesses compared to the rest of the world in our knee-jerk reactions.

The thing is you are never even presented these counter points of view and that is simply "junk science." A good scientist immediately sets out to attack his own theories to make sure they stand up. That simply isn't being done here. It's being sold like you sell Coke, on pure emotion. That's just scary to me.

[ErichPryde]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC
[/i]

[si_civic]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

Canada, home of socialized medicine (where the really sick need to come to America for treatment), ultra high tax rates, government censorship of "offensive materials." Would you really like to debate this?

Oh please, don't start. No need to bash this great country of mine.

ultra high tax rates

13% is not high... Denmark has 68%. Do some research.

Government censorship of 'offensive' materials?

Sorry, we don't have pornography in every corner there guy. North Korea is the most censored country in the world. Once again, do some research before you blab your patriotic mouth.

Canada, home of socialized medicine (where the really sick need to come to America for treatment)

Again, I must stress do research your findings Sorry, I don't know anyone in Canada who relied on the USA for their treatment. We can do just fine on our own. USA ranked 37th in the world. Canada is 30th.

*cough 60% overweight cough*

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by iomatic

When anyone starts using the term 'junk science' and then perhaps refer to that term's namesake Website made up by a stooge of the petrochemical/Right-wing interests, I have to discount what you say. If you follow the money -- as you say -- down this path, you'll find people debating the credibility of global warming caused by human output, namely the oil interests.

To wit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy
"Writing in The New Republic in January 2006 Paul Thacker noted Milloy's long-term, close relationships with corporations, including ExxonMobil and Philip Morris."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...xon_chart.html
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i...=thacker020606

Ironically, it would be a more Conservative approach to actually prevent anything from occurring and taking precautionary steps to insure that we don't indeed harm the environment from industrial waste, pollution or toxins. Global warming could very well be caused by human output, and that is still up for debate. The fact that it is, means the Conservatives should be well, Conservative about this issue, and stop pollutants until we can prove otherwise. This is but one of many Conservatively-created conflicts. It's not bad science, it's real science being "debunked" by cronies with specific interests.

Ahh, yes. It's all a big business conspiracy. You also incorrectly assume the the website "Junk Science" somehow preceded the term. So the EPA is cracking down like crazy and that's because our government supports big business? Colleges are getting billions in funds while the government is proposing windfall taxes on oil companies? The big business/government conspiracy theories are simply not born out when you look at government actions. It makes no logical sense unless you want to see a conspiracy and then you will see what you want to see regardless of the evidence.

When people claim that "only a few scientists disagree" that is an outright lie. The global warming lobby actually currently employs 50K people, far more than oil interests! I don't take my information from any right or left wing propaganda machines like the ones you posted above. I always look at things from the standpoint of the hard evidence and using my own understanding of the scientific method which I can state 100% for a fact is not being followed in the great global warming swindle.

The myth that there is consensus is also a lie. The fact is that's hardly the truth and in the end consensus does not make something scientifically valid, repeatability and testability do. No one is debating if the Earth is warming or not, the cause is what's up for debate and yet that debate simply isn't occurring. Instead you have non-scientists like Al Gore (shouldn't that be a huge red flag right there?) who owns multiple mansions and his own jet plane and a Kennedy making wildly emotional statements like "you are a traitor if you don't believe." You know where I hear that same kind of ridiculous hyperbole; religious leaders. Global warming is a religion and Al Gore is it's prophet.

In the end there simply isn't any money to be made in disproving global warming. The government isn't handing out billions in grants for that.

So, you can either use your own personal logical resources to come to your own conclusions, or you can be led around by the nose of those that stand to make billions (and we certainly aren't talking about the oil companies). The choice is yours.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by si_civic

Oh please, don't start. No need to bash this great country of mine.

I am not trashing it at all. The greatest band in the world comes from Canada!! Many issues that are moral issues are fine there while my government tries to do the impossible (and Unconstitutional) and legislate morality and it wastes billions doing it.

13% is not high... Denmark has 68%. Do some research.

Ummm, ok. Canada's LOWEST income tax rate is 15% and it ranges as high as 29%. Ahhh, but you also forgot to include the 7% VAT. Bringing other countries into the argument is a red herring.

Sorry, we don't have pornography in every corner there guy. North Korea is the most censored country in the world. Once again, do some research before you blab your patriotic mouth.

Who said anything about morality? Again, we were only comparing Canada to the US so your red herrings are a red flag to the weakness of your position.

Again, I must stress do research your findings Sorry, I don't know anyone in Canada who relied on the USA for their treatment. We can do just fine on our own. USA ranked 37th in the world. Canada is 30th.

Hmmm, do you know how that number was computed? They placed a huge weight on how basic services are paid for. Of course in America we pay personally and even though the average Canadian doesn't pay out of pocket (lol, private health insurance was ILLEGAL there up until a few years ago) you aren't penalized by the increased tax burden. That's because the study you cite was specifically designed to give socialized countries a boost in the ratings. In the end it doesn't change the fact that Canadians who really become ill and can afford to come here for treatment. Enough said.

*cough 60% overweight cough*

Red Herring number three in one post, cough.

Research is really good. You might want to try it.

If you think I am motivated by patriotism you simply don't know me at all. The only allegiance I have are to my own principles, not to any country or flag. Patriotism is how governments motivate weak minded individuals to stand up for things they don't even believe in. I believe in the power of the individual and not the power of the state ergo I don't worship the state (Mt Rushmore stands against everything our founding fathers stood for). America has a lot of problems, that's for certain. Still, the fact remains that no other country on the planet guarantees the freedoms and liberties that America does. However, I do see those unalienable rights eroding and that's what I constantly fight against. When I mention other countries, it's not to bash them out of some retarded sense of patriotism, it's to show why we shouldn't head down some of the paths we are heading down.

[sickyute]

well ...
this has gone way off topic ...
i'd close it but it is of some benefit to everyone who can make decisions for themselves ...

so to the watercooler ..

[ScottPrindle]

its not flawed science that makes global warming what it is... there are anthropogenic gases building up, but when politics gets a hold of anything scientific they will skew it how they want it. it exists, the severity is whats in question.

another thing i cant stand is the hypocracy of it all. id say more of the anthropogenic gases are caused by industrialization, and the credit system they devised is a croc of sh*t to create a new source of income for businessmen. its not cutting down on emissions, just shifting money from one persons pockets to another; all while they continue to produce the same amount of anthropogenic gases. the OP's story is basically another way to bleed people of their money, through lawsuits. not solving the problem, punishing the existing circumstances.

/rant

[sickyute]

just to add my piece on health care ...
we should all go to cuba for that ... but it's true ... they do have exceptionally great healthcare and medical facilities and schools over there

just my 2c ... ...

good lil debate with lots of info from all sides ...
maybe we should have a education section on here now ... what more can u ask for ... u come on here to for ur car and u get an education in healthcare + global warming etc etc

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by sickyute

just to add my piece on health care ...
we should all go to cuba for that ... but it's true ... they do have exceptionally great healthcare and medical facilities and schools over there

just my 2c ... ...

good lil debate with lots of info from all sides ...
maybe we should have a education section on here now ... what more can u ask for ... u come on here to for ur car and u get an education in healthcare + global warming etc etc

Yeah, that's why people try and float themselves and their entire families here on rigged rafts risking it all because Cuba is so great. This is why I get so angry at people that think socialism/communism is so great. These people simply don't know the value of freedom and they really don't deserve it.

History has proven time and again the nanny state fails. Invariably the problems socialism tries to address are made worse. All the while the government simply grows in size and gets more greedy with the money it takes from us through it's monopoly on force. I always find it funny that left wing loons who find conspiracy everywhere somehow think it's a good idea for the government to control so many aspects of their lives (healthcare, education, etc.). I wonder if they have any ability at all to reason.