Republican war on science

[cancel2 2022]

well that's it -the over-reach. ephemeral streams and pond waters are prt of the EPA's purview?? That was nutz.
Traditionally interstate waterways are federal -intrastate are regulated by the state.

The states can ask for help, or if things get too bad the EPA can step in.
But NOT just power grab like WOTUS-that's an abomination to balance of powers

Obama turned the EPA into an evangelising agency and stuffed it full of place men and women, Trump is rolling that back and that's a good thing.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Of course, that's why I asked. But now he will be compelled to write some gobbledygook legalese jailhouse state's rights tenth amendment jurisprudence hatched in the Nazi wing of a state pen perverting some 19th century cae that's been westlaw treated negatively 4000 times. It's how they roll.

Well it does make for some entertaining reading.

 

[cancel2 2022]

That's not the point. I would imagine their motive was to protect the environment. The point is that the claim that WOTUS is/was Federal over reach is simply not true.

No the motive was to empire build, I mean holy shit you aren't wet behind the ears, are you? If you were maybe you have to get an EPA licence for that as well? You know how government agencies work ffs, it's all about power, prestige, politics and position.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[Micawber]

This is a science thread or at least it is supposed to be. Politics and religion should stay away.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

You aren't a climate scientist, you have done no experiments, you have published no climate science papers to peer review. You are 100% politically motivated. All your sources are politically motivated.

You are also now a proven liar, because it's obvious you have contempt for climate scientists. They, en mass, disagree with you 100%. You are chemist. (presumably) All climate scientists have strong chemistry backgrounds too. Not all chemists have climate science backgrounds. Not all science can be reproduced by humans. For example, astronomical and quantum physics is hard to replicate other than confirming observations and modeling. But you would not say the problems of distance and scale make it non-scientific. Similarly climate science is infinitely complex and grand in scale. The difficulties this presents should make you more respectful rather than less. You just tarred a discipline without the names. Please publish the names of the climate scientists who you disagree with that lack the scientific rigor, credentials and reasoning skills you expect of them.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well what do you expect when you provide documentation from such non-credible sources Tom? If I'm going to site you data or research on a scientific topic I'm probably going to use a peer reviewed source and Not a source that's primary purpose is advocacy.

Oh for God's sake you really are the limit. I have posted literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers on here and you've never addressed any of them, so stop with that bullshit. You tried that peer reviewed crap too many times, it is just evasiveness on your part. I posted one here from the Scripps Institute just yesterday, have you heard of them? This was on the subject of ocean acidification and coral, you just totally ignored it. I posted another the other day from Nature Climate Change, primarily because McAwful was banging on about Nature, you ignored that as well,so spare me your bullshit.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[Micawber]

Its simple....If "man made global warming" and the supposed ability of man to control earth's carbon footprint were REAL SCIENCE, there would be no debate possible.

Science is always debating, particularly at the cutting edge. Whether the methodology proves a hypothesis, are the controls correct etc etc. And please don't confuse the right wing's mere gainsaying with debate. Scientific debate that I value is only done among scientists within the field of expertise embraced by the subject of debate. Your political problem is that within that community THERE IS NO DEBATE because they all agree.

I will add that man's ability to control his carbon footprint, as you aptly but inadvertently put it, is very much up for debate, but that, unfortunately, is a political question.

 

[Micawber]

Oh for God's sake you really are the limit. I have posted literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers on here and you've never addressed any of them, so stop with that bullshit. You tried that peer reviewed crap too many times, it is just evasiveness on your part. I posted one here from the Scripps Institute just yesterday, have you heard of them? This was on the subject of ocean acidification and coral, you just totally ignored it. I posted another the other day from Nature Climate Change, primarily because McAwful was banging on about Nature, you ignored that as well,so spare me your bullshit.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Sorry, I must have missed it because the post I saw simply professed that you did not like glam high impact prestigious scholarly journals, using some other guy's reputation to battle for you, as is your wont.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You aren't a climate scientist, you have done no experiments, you have published no climate science papers to peer review. You are 100% politically motivated. All your sources are politically motivated.

You are also now a proven liar, because it's obvious you have contempt for climate scientists. They, en mass, disagree with you 100%. You are chemist. (presumably) All climate scientists have strong chemistry backgrounds too. Not all chemists have climate science backgrounds. Not all science can be reproduced by humans. For example, astronomical and quantum physics is hard to replicate other than confirming observations and modeling. But you would not say the problems of distance and scale make it non-scientific. Similarly climate science is infinitely complex and grand in scale. The difficulties this presents should make you more respectful rather than less. You just tarred a discipline without the names. Please publish the names of the climate scientists who you disagree with that lack the scientific rigor, credentials and reasoning skills you expect of them.

Holy shit, I've posted their names many times. Start with Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Trenberth and John Cook. Actually John Cook isn't a climatologist but that didn't stop him publishing that 97% consensus bullshit survey.

So the paper I posted from Nature Climate Change was politically motivated, why are you such an arsehole? I have absolutely no political motivation but it's clear enough that what drives you though.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[cancel2 2022]

Holy shit, I've posted their names many times. Start with Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Trenberth and John Cook. Actually John Cook isn't a climatologidts but that didn't stop him publishing that 97% consensus bullshit survey.

So the paper I posted from Nature Climate Change was politically motivated, why are you such an arsehole? I have absolutely no political motivation but it's clear enough that what drives you though.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Also there are many climatologists, atmospheric physicists, astrophysicists, meteorologists etc that disagree with the current orthodoxy. Let's start with a few, there are many many more but I have to go rearrange my sock drawer.

Freeman Dyson
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
Ivar Giaever
Nir Shaviv
Ian Plimer
Steven Koonin
Garth Paltridge
Roger Pielke
Anastasios Tsonis
Hendrik Tennekes
John Christy
Stanley Goldenburg
Patrick Michaels
Leonard Weinstein
Robert Laughlin
Hans Jelbring
John Reid
Hilton Radcliffe
Mike Hulme
Hendrik Svensmark
Jasper Kirkby
Lennart Bengtsson
James Lovelock





Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[Stretch]

Man-made climate change hoax Exhibit A:

Hoaxer scientists tell CA, "You're in a permanent drought due to climate change."

Recent hoaxer scientists during torrential rains and Oroville dam crisis tell CA, "You're not in a permanent drought due to climate change."

 

[anatta]

No the motive was to empire build, I mean holy shit you aren't wet behind the ears, are you? If you were maybe you have to get an EPA licence for that as well? You know how government agencies work ffs, it's all about power, prestige, politics and position.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

excatly.left to their own devices any bureaucracy inevitably seeks more and more power.
I believe WOTUS was self generated with no specific Congressional authority-an example of bureaucrats run wild

 

[cancel2 2022]

Holy shit, I've posted their names many times. Start with Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Trenberth and John Cook. Actually John Cook isn't a climatologist but that didn't stop him publishing that 97% consensus bullshit survey.

So the paper I posted from Nature Climate Change was politically motivated, why are you such an arsehole? I have absolutely no political motivation but it's clear enough that what drives you though.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[domer76]

His bio sketch says pretty well demonstrates exactly what he's all about. One thing it does not appear that he is, and that's a climate scientist. But he is a hired gun for a laissez faire M or L street type think tank. He clearly had sympathies or a job on the other side of the table and through age or money, developed the opinion ecology lobby types were too militant. That is hardly an argument against global warming, and as stated, he ain't the guy to convincingly make such an argument, just like Milagro.

He's also a liar. Follow the money and see who pays his bills.

Farmers and ranchers have the same exemptions that they always had under the CWA. So his final paragraph is a lie.

 

[domer76]

Its simple....If "man made global warming" and the supposed ability of man to control earth's carbon footprint were REAL SCIENCE, there would be no debate possible. All you left wing nerds and self pronounced god's need do is PROVE IT via the scientific method of Objective, Testable, Repeatable, evidences. Again......the reality is the demonstrable truth that anyone who promotes the ideology/theory/....claims that a "consensus" establishes scientific truth is engaging in "Pseudo Science"....a philosophy based upon opinions and conjecture with no real evidence to prove that man can somehow control climate change...i.e., THE WEATHER patterns that have historically changed the climate since the earth was created.

Real Science does not attempt to stop investigation and challenges to any theory.....it embraces the challenge. Man Made Global Warming is nothing but a political position used to con the public into assimilating into a left wing political mold.

Hey, Ralphie. There you are! You disappeared pretty quickly when I challenged you to prove the truth of your book without using your circular reasing. Here's your chance again. You are already on Failure #1.

Objective, Testable, Repeatable

 

[domer76]

How can one stay away from the truth? Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason RELIGION does not make sense is due to a lack on your part in not comprehending the simple truth that has existed for over 3500 years? Of course if you are not versed in the study and comprehension of the Word of God....it will never make sense to anyone that serves man instead of accepting the reality that there is a superior creating force to everything physical. The message from the Creator is one of a spiritual nature.

I once lacked faith until I attempted to use my knowledge and education to prove that God does not exist....with every test, I begin to realize that it was "I" that was lacking in truth and honesty. I spent the first part of my life "playing cowboy" in order to hide from the true heritage passed down to me from my Grandfather......Native American.

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tell that to Mott, he just loves federal bureaucracy.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Oh if you only knew! LOL

Why do you think I work in the private sector?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Obama turned the EPA into an evangelising agency and stuffed it full of place men and women, Trump is rolling that back and that's a good thing.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Nonsense. The changes in EPA from Clinton to Bush II to Obama and going into Trump have been largely minor or amendments to the major acts. If you want to talk about large sweeping changes in Environmental law and EPA as an evangelizing agency then you'd want to take a Good look at who signed the major acts into law.

Environmental Protection Act - 1970 Nixon
CAA - 1963 Johnson
FIFRA - 1972 Nixon
SDWA - 1974 Nixon
RCRA - 1976 Ford
TSCA - 1976 Ford
CERCLA - 1980 Carter
EPCRA - 1986 Reagan
SARA - 1986 Reagan
CAA Amendment - 1990 Bush

Those were just the major acts signed into law. Notice who's name is missing? Only one significant environmental law, though not a major act, was signed by the Obama administration. That was the Chemical Safety act of 2016. Significant but hardly of the scope of the CAA or RCRA.

As for enforcement I think if you'll take the time to look there were more enforcement actions, particularly against the oil and gas industry under George W. Bush than under Obama. From my anecdotal experience...there wasn't a whole lot of difference.

So I don't know where you're getting your information but it doesn't jive with the reality on the ground.

Sorry Tom

 

[cancel2 2022]

Nonsense. The changes in EPA from Clinton to Bush II to Obama and going into Trump have been largely minor or amendments to the major acts. If you want to talk about large sweeping changes in Environmental law and EPA as an evangelizing agency then you'd want to take a Good look at who signed the major acts into law.

Environmental Protection Act - 1970 Nixon
CAA - 1963 Johnson
FIFRA - 1972 Nixon
SDWA - 1974 Nixon
RCRA - 1976 Ford
TSCA - 1976 Ford
CERCLA - 1980 Carter
EPCRA - 1986 Reagan
SARA - 1986 Reagan
CAA Amendment - 1990 Bush

Those were just the major acts signed into law. Notice who's name is missing? Only one significant environmental law, though not a major act, was signed by the Obama administration. That was the Chemical Safety act of 2016. Significant but hardly of the scope of the CAA or RCRA.

As for enforcement I think if you'll take the time to look there were more enforcement actions, particularly against the oil and gas industry under George W. Bush than under Obama. From my anecdotal experience...there wasn't a whole lot of difference.

So I don't know where you're getting your information but it doesn't jive with the reality on the ground.

Sorry Tom

Well I already said that the EPA became far more political under Obama. He did his best to distribute money across many agencies to make it difficult for Trump to find.

"The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending from fiscal 2008 through 2013 alone.

But that figure could well be too low. The Obama administration didn’t always include "climate" in program names, said Alice Hill, director for resilience policy on Obama’s National Security Council."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...pending-made-harder-by-obama-s-budget-tactics

Sent from my iPhone 10S

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well I already said that the EPA became far more political under Obama. He did his best to distribute money across many agencies to make it difficult for Trump to find.

"The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending from fiscal 2008 through 2013 alone.

But that figure could well be too low. The Obama administration didn’t always include "climate" in program names, said Alice Hill, director for resilience policy on Obama’s National Security Council."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...pending-made-harder-by-obama-s-budget-tactics

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Tom that is conspiracy theory nuttery. EPA's annual budget is only $8 billion. You're talking more than double EPA's entire annual budget for 5 years on climate related activities. That's just not only implausible it's insane.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Tom that is conspiracy theory nuttery. EPA's annual budget is only $8 billion. You're talking more than double EPA's entire annual budget for 5 years on climate related activities. That's just not only implausible it's insane.

Pay attention, I didn't say, and nor does the Bloomberg article, that all the money went to the EPA. But it is undoubtedly true that Obama did his level best to ensure that a fuckton of money was buried across many agencies. Even going to the lengths of deliberately misnaming funds to ensure even greater invisibility.

Sent from my iPhone 10S