patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Climate on this planet always changed, long before homo sapiens evolved.

There was also a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. So what?

Saying that "current changes must be natural since changes occur naturally" is the same as saying that "people die naturally of old age, therefore murders don't happen".

A miniscule percentage of deaths are due to murder. It would be silly to focus on banning all tools that can be used for murder, like screw drivers and cars, for the purpose of increasing average life span. That's what the nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol are akin to.

edvard2 says

Dinasaurs weren't going around driving in cars.

They were probably worse than cars as far as "global warming gas" production was concerned: they produced methane!

Here's another obvious thing a lot of right-wingers miss in these debates: Its not just for the sake of climate change, but for their own health. A lot of conservatives were against and are still against environmental regulations- many drastically cleaned up the air and water in the US.

The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.

If conservatives had had their way we would've been more like China, with smog and so on. Look up some pictures from Chinese cities these days: That's what you get with little to no regulations, and in turn it not only ruins the natural environment, but the human environment too.

China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.

Sticking heads in the sand, claiming that our pollutive activities don't have an impact on the environment-including our everyday living environment- is foolish and ridiculous.

It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.

marcus says

What kind of person dislikes a post that's nothing more than a video of a weather expert talking about how jetstreams work ?

Oh, I get it. It's because I posted it and it's all about someone's feelings. God forbid you actually watched the video and learned something.

Don't forget to dislike this one too.

I watched the video, and did not bother with marking "dislike" on the post. However, the video presentation is factually false: the arctic ice cover has grown dramatically this past year, prior to the record-breaking cold we are experiencing in the northern atmosphere. Either the model that they are presenting in the video is false, or the global cooling is even more severe: it's cold despite their model predicting warmer weather for us if the arctic ice cover grows back.

Reality says

The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.

Baloney. And again- the correct term is climate change. Pollution control measures have increased drastically in the past few decades, the biggest being the installation of catalytic converters, large particulate scrubbers for coal and power plants, diesel engine emission controls such as Urea injection and piezoelectric injection, the either removal or replacement of various CFCs and aromatic chemicals, the improvements and cost reduction of solar, wind, and hydroelectric generating sources, and so on.Reality says

China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.

Wait a minute... weren't you the commentator that scientific programs, infrastructure, and other basic government functions in the US were all "Big Gubbermint"? So in that case you seem to be making a contradiction, seeing as how the EPA, OSHA, and other going concerns of the US government were in fact responsible for instilling these laws and regulations that drastically cleaned up the air and water? So in that case you must be agreeing to what these agencies do, seeing as how we are not in fact- China, and thus lack their pollution situation as a result?Reality says

It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.

Exactly what do you think was meant by that statement made earlier? You see- climate change and the means to counteract it such as the implementation of standards such as particulate matter reduction go hand in hand.

edvard2 says

correct term is climate change

That's funny. As if "global warming" is incorrect.

This guy agrees with you, although he doesn't suggest that one is correct (implying the other is not). He also seems at least slightly more aware than you are, that he is expressing an opinion when he states that "climate change" is more scientifically acurate. It's an editorial.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

I understand the reasons for CHOOSING to emphasize climate change rather than global warming. It has its advantages and its disadvantages.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

edvard2 says

Reality says

The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.

Baloney. And again- the correct term is climate change. Pollution control measures have increased drastically in the past few decades,

And computers and smart phones have become more powerful over the past decade; do you think that's because of the rampant financial fraud and collapse in the real estate financing industry? The less resources are devoted to frauds like the real estate financing bubble and "combating" global-warming/"climate change," the more resources would be available for real productive pursuits.

edvard2 says

China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.

Wait a minute... weren't you the commentator that scientific programs, infrastructure, and other basic government functions in the US were all "Big Gubbermint"? So in that case you seem to be making a contradiction, seeing as how the EPA, OSHA, and other going concerns of the US government were in fact responsible for instilling these laws and regulations that drastically cleaned up the air and water? So in that case you must be agreeing to what these agencies do, seeing as how we are not in fact- China, and thus lack their pollution situation as a result?

China has a much more power-grabbing EPA and OSHA-equivalent than we do. It's not possible to open even a restaurant, much less a factory, there without having to bribe the local EPA and OSHA-equivalent officials. The US FDA has about 2000 bureaucrats, whereas the Chinese FDA has 200,000 bureaucrats . . . guess which country's food is safer? You are dreaming if you think bureaucrats make the country safer and cleaner. It is the society's respect for the relatively non-intrusive consistent minimalist laws and consequently people's desire to abide by them that makes a society efficient and functional.

edvard2 says

It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.

Exactly what do you think was meant by that statement made earlier? You see- climate change and the means to counteract it such as the implementation of standards such as particulate matter reduction go hand in hand.

No they do not. Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate at all, one justification was for combating global cooling. With the new "need" to combat global warming, there are idiot scientists who suggest "we" should pump SO2 into the atmosphere just for the heck of it to cool down the planet.

Reality says

Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason
was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate
at all, one justification was for combating global cooling.

Aaah, and here is the point where skeptics (who can't define albedo) cry out, "Well in the '70s 'they' said pollution was going to cause an ice age!" Suggesting that climate science is randomly made up as a justification to ignore science.

The fact is, pollution in America was different back then. The particulate and aerosol emissions blocked heat gain from sunlight more than rising CO2 was trapping it. These emissions were technically easier to clean than CO2, and getting rid of them made a HUGE difference in air quality. Eliminating these from the balance tipped the climate to gain much more heat. I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Well SEE, those smog controls CAUSED global warming, stupid hippies!" So the threat of global cooling was real and successfully addressed in the 70s- it was real then, not "a wrong guess by these scientists (who obviously don't know what they're talking about!)"

I've lived in Los Angeles all my life and can remember third stage smog alerts throughout the '70s and into the '80s. Today we have 20X the people and cars, and 1/20 the pollution in the air.

Reality says

It would be silly to focus on banning all tools that can be used for murder, like screw drivers and cars, for the purpose of increasing average life span. That's what the nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol are akin to.

I made a remark about climate change and your answer is about the Kyoto Protocol.

Now climate change existence still says nothing about what to do about it. These are 2 separate things.

But let's face it: that's why a lot of republicans don't want to admit humans influence on climate.

It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."
It's the logic implicit in your answer.

It's still global warming ya'll, the sun just missed a spot.

Reality says

China has a much more power-grabbing EPA and OSHA-equivalent than we do. It's not possible to open even a restaurant, much less a factory, there without having to bribe the local EPA and OSHA-equivalent officials. The US FDA has about 2000 bureaucrats, whereas the Chinese FDA has 200,000 bureaucrats . . . guess which country's food is safer? You are dreaming if you think bureaucrats make the country safer and cleaner. It is the society's respect for the relatively non-intrusive consistent minimalist laws and consequently people's desire to abide by them that makes a society efficient and functional.

Here we go again... just like last week's biazzare conversation where well accepted and proven facts and history are ignored in order to conjur up some sort of right-wing wet dream about what amounts to no government at all. Dandy.

Comparing the EPA and OSHA to any Chinese equivalent is a joke. There is NO comparison because their efforts are clearly a far cry from the US. You are totally dreaming that somehow, we could get away without any government regulations, everyone would sing kum-ba-ya, and we would live in a peaceful, and utterly tranquil, clean environment. In that regard, why even have jails? In your theory the mystical powers of society without a government would somehow make everyone instantly become totally righteous, well-behaved individuals. Uh huh... what other strange ideas do you have to tell us?

But let me give you some historical context so you'll have a better understanding of what the EPA, OSHA, and other environmental agencies to not only for the environment, but you and me.In order to to so its important to look back at precisely what the US was like BEFORE there were widespread government regulations.

For example, electronics manufactures all up and down the Northeast directly dumped PCBs into the Hudson river. If you don't know what PCBs are, well they are a chemical that has incredible staying power, binds really well with fatty tissues, and has been linked to cancer and other health issues. To this day parts of the Hudson river is one of the largest superfund sites in the country. This is just one example. Companies of all kinds not only dumped toxic waste directly into rivers, lakes, and streams, but they had working environments that were also highly toxic. Companies that manufactured plastics used aromatic esters in their products and in many cases the smoke and gas produced from the molding machines wasn't vented properly, meaning workers were for years exposed to carcinogenic substances.

In 1969 the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught on fire because of the high concentration of flammable pollutants floating on its surface. This is an example of just how bad things had become. Cities like LA routinely had health advisories over smog when the smog was particularly bad.

All of this happening at a time when there was little regulations. This totally disproves your theories of having no regulations and somehow believing people will do the "right thing". That simply doesn't happen.

The EPA was setup in 1970 under the Nixon administration and since then it has been a part of many landmark decisions that ultimately led to a vastly less polluted country. This list in part includes:

1: The implementation of regulations for car exhaust- aka, catalytic converters and emission controls.
2: The removal of leaded gasoline
3: The regulation and identification of toxic substances
4: The regulation of public drinking water
5: The identification and then management of superfund sites

The list goes on and on. Reality says

No they do not. Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate at all, one justification was for combating global cooling. With the new "need" to combat global warming, there are idiot scientists who suggest "we" should pump SO2 into the atmosphere just for the heck of it to cool down the planet.

Particulate matter from diesel and coal plant exhaust is carcinogenic and by the nature of particles suspended in the air, will in fact retain and trap heat. Take anything thats black, like a trash bag, the lid off of a black spray can and sit it in the sun. What happens? It gets hot. So what do you think happens when many metric tons of black, sooty particles are suspended in the atmosphere? The same thing. Newer emission controls are helping to reduce diesel emissions even further.

So you lost last week's debate pretty good and you're on the right track for losing this one as well. Good job!

The real issue is that the climate models of the supposed "experts" have been greatly and consistently inaccurate. The urgency and panic is based on the projections of computer models and not on current temperatures. If the models however, fail to predict hemispheric temperatures over periods as long as 16 years - the screams of panic should be taken with a grain of road salt.

Do greenhouse gasses cause warming in laboratory conditions? Yes.
Is C02 a greenhouse gas? Yes.
Are humans increasing the amount of C02 they produce. Yes.
Has the earth been warming? Yes.
Has C02 been contributing to that warmth. Probably.
Have the computer models of climate scientists been statistically accurate in their predictions since the mid 90's. No.
Was it proven that Gore's C02 to Temperature graph was mathematically manipulated to produce the pronounced "hockey stick". Yes.
Should we panic based on the predictions of failed climate models? No.

On the other hand:
Do we have clean air problems worldwide not related to C02. Yes.
Are humans producing most of the polluted air? Yes
Have scientific studies accurately shown that polluted air is hazardous to our health. Yes.
Should we worry more about polluted air than specifically about C02? Absolutely.

Are there food problems worldwide due to populations in regions with poor cultivation? Yes.
Are there modern miracle fertilizers which can allow crops to grow in desert and difficult to cultivate regions? Yes.
Is nitrogen from modern nitrogen rich fertilizers 1000 times more potent as a greeenhouse gas (per millionth part of a cubic foot of atmosphere) than C02? Yes.
Has it been scientifically shown that these fertilizers increase crop production in the difficult regions by a factor of 10? Yes.
Do climate alarmists want to stop modern, nitrogen-rich fertilizers from helping to feed people in poor nations. (if they truly believe in the dangers of greenhouse gases, then...YES)
Have climate organizations tried to block their usage? Yes.
So, the alarmists believe it's better that people continue to go hungry rather than use nitrogen rich fertilizers? Apparently, yes.
Do climate alarmists want their efforts to block usage of nitrogen rich fertilizers to become widely publicized? Absolutely not.

Should we worry about issues which are proven to endanger human life both now and in the future? Yes. Has C02 production scientifically been shown to be one of these issues. No.

What is the most important single tree in the world? YAD06

Heraclitusstudent says

It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."

It's the logic implicit in your answer.

This is exactly correct. I think in many cases, they even know it's real and an effect of mans activity, but they will lie and deny it because they think their role is preventing regulations and protecting the interests of existing big business.

Fully accepting it, and therefore the (possible) risk it poses to humanity's future, means that maybe there should be more regulations and also government subsidy of clean energy or other new technologies. But this could disrupt the profitability of big oil and many other entrenched huge industries.

And besides, democrats are the enemy and must be prevented from doing anything, and since democrats tend to believe global warming is real and that it should be addressed that alone is (believe it or not) a reason to deny it.

A favorite cop out is, "hey we aren't even nearly the biggest polluter in the world, so we can't do anything about it.

This is 2014 in America.

Trees eat carbon dioxide and shit oxygen.

Yay, trees, more oxygen for flame throwers.

Automan Empire says

So the threat of global cooling was real and successfully addressed in the 70s- it was real then, not "a wrong guess by these scientists (who obviously don't know what they're talking about!)"

You are kidding right? Do you also believe that the sun rose this morning because somewhere in the world yesterday some criminal was murdering human for sacrifice to the pagan gods?

I've lived in Los Angeles all my life and can remember third stage smog alerts throughout the '70s and into the '80s. Today we have 20X the people and cars, and 1/20 the pollution in the air.

Like I said before, local pollution issues were real. Anthropogenic blobal cooling and anthropogenic global warming are nonsense. Don't conflate the two entirely different issues.

deepcgi says

Is nitrogen from modern nitrogen rich fertilizers 1000 times more potent as a greeenhouse gas (per millionth part of a cubic foot of atmosphere) than C02?

IT may be a potent greenhouse gas. But The amount doesn't put it in the same league as C02.

Here are two sources for info on greenhouse gasses. One doesn't include nitrous Oxide (why ?). The other puts it at 6%. The EPA says 5%

https://www.ameslab.gov/sustainability/where-greenhouse-gases-come

http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?651/ten-sources-of-greenhouse-gases-gallery

Just out of curiosity are you a republican ?

deepcgi says

Should we worry about issues which are proven to endanger human life both now and in the future? Yes. Has C02 production scientifically been shown to be one of these issues. No.

What constitutes proof in your view ? What if it's not proven to your personal satisfaction until there are so many feedback loops in place that an irreversible extinction event is in motion ?

Why in hell is that a chance you are willing to take ?

Are you guys aware that our atmosphere is a SHOCKING 78% Nitrogen?
If it's a greenhouse gas, it's a pretty essential one.

Apparently he meant laughing gas (N20). Like C02, naturally occuring, but man cranks out additional amounts.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html

edvard2 says

Here we go again... just like last week's biazzare conversation where well accepted and proven facts and history are ignored in order to conjur up some sort of right-wing wet dream about what amounts to no government at all. Dandy.

Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.

edvard2 says

Comparing the EPA and OSHA to any Chinese equivalent is a joke. There is NO comparison because their efforts are clearly a far cry from the US.

You were the one who brought up China, probably under the mistaken assumption that they do not have EPA or OSHA-equivalent. The reality is that they have far more intrusive EPA and far more intrusive OSHA-equivalent bureaucrats.

edvard2 says

You are totally dreaming that somehow, we could get away without any government regulations, everyone would sing kum-ba-ya, and we would live in a peaceful, and utterly tranquil, clean environment. In that regard, why even have jails? In your theory the mystical powers of society without a government would somehow make everyone instantly become totally righteous, well-behaved individuals. Uh huh... what other strange ideas do you have to tell us?

I never said anything about people singing kum-ba-ya . . . that was a dream that your ilk had during your youth. My view is that people don't sing kum-ba-ya even after being put in the costumes of bureaucrats! So your theory about about creating more bureaucratic positions and throwing bureaucrats with coercive power at problems would solve them is destined to failure . . . just like the Chinese are facing: with mountains of bureaucratic enforcers, yet even greater mountains of problems.

edvard2 says

let me give you some historical context so you'll have a better understanding of what the EPA, OSHA, and other environmental agencies to not only for the environment, but you and me.

So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?

If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.

If the answer is less, then the bureaucracy should also be reduced because there is less problem now for it to solve. Lest it start looking for "problems" to justify its own existence and expansion, thereby causing the society real problems like the Chinese bureaucracy has evolved into.

Bureaucracy, being a hirarchical monopoly, has a tendency to expand itself until it is beyond the carrying capacity of the underlying society.

edvard2 says

In that regard, why even have jails?

Funny how "liberals" have become advocates for more jails. LOL. In case it is not obvious, jail is the very antithesis of liberty. While at any given time, some jail may be unpleasant necessity, a just society should always strive to reduce the size of jails and the number of inmates . . . by removing irrational laws and regulations, for example.

Wow. I just checked this thread from incognito mode and saw this.

So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?

If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.

Nominated.

The question isn't whether we have more than back then. The question is do we have more than if there were no regulations.

Don't strain yourself.

In 1980 crime in the US had been increasing rapidly for 20 years. Was this proof that there was no point in laws or law enforcement ?

Heraclitusstudent says

Now climate change existence still says nothing about what to do about it. These are 2 separate things.

But let's face it: that's why a lot of republicans don't want to admit humans influence on climate.

It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."

It's the logic implicit in your answer.

Anthropogenic climate change theories are classic examples of hubris. The high priests in human society have engaged in that kind of demogoguery for thousands of years; e.g. blaming your neighbors' immorality for natural disasters. The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet. Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that. Before then, CO2 and N2 made up the bulk of the atmosphere.

deepcgi says

The real issue is that the climate models of the supposed "experts" have been greatly and consistently inaccurate. The urgency and panic is based on the projections of computer models and not on current temperatures. If the models however, fail to predict hemispheric temperatures over periods as long as 16 years - the screams of panic should be taken with a grain of road salt.

That's an other big fallacy of denialists: computer models are mathematic abstractions that have nothing to do with reality, which is proved by the fact that they are inaccurate.

That's BS. The role of a model is not to predict the future. It is to project a possible future.

No one can predict the future because, to start with, no one knows what actions will be taken against CO2 emissions 2yrs from now.

What models do is analyze dependencies between different variables. That's all they do. IF we have so much CO2, THEN so much heat is trapped in the atmosphere, etc... The physical world is known to respect quantitative patterns known as the laws of physics, and you project what will happen according to these patterns.

That they are not strictly exact is also normal. Reality is complex and models get refined incrementally as scientists model increasingly more effects that affect the outcomes. This is similar to knowledge of the physical universe being refined when you observe something that differs from your knowledge. Models are quantitative knowledge of the climate or aspects of the climate. This the only way, in fact, humans accumulate knowledge on climate.

And this knowledge claims eloquently that under most assumptions CO2 generated by humans will cause the earth to warn enough to cause problems.

marcus says

The question isn't whether we have more than back then. The question is do we have more than if there were no regulations.

Most of the local pollution issues are long solved. The real issue on the table now is whether more resources should be poured into a bureaucracy that has run out issues to regulate and actively looking for more issues to perpetuate itself.

The historical issue about whether pollution back then would have been checked without government bureaucrats like the EPA . . . the answer is of course a Yes! There is a thing called private law suits. It is the threat of lawsuits ultimately convinced the polluters to behave themselves. The government regulators often become clearing house and/or umbrella coverage for polluters by providing "safe harbor" regulations.

Don't strain yourself.

In 1980 crime in the US had been increasing rapidly for 20 years. Was this proof that there was no point in laws or law enforcement ?

Another "liberal" lover of the jackboot. What solved the crime problem in the 1980's was job opportunity for the youth when taxes were lowered. You can see flash mob crimes on the rise today even as law enforcement bureaucrats drive municipalities into bankruptcy with their pay demands. Why? lack of legit job opportunity for the youth under the overburdening taxes and regulations.

Reality says

The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet.

The carbon output can be calculated easily from oil/gas/coal consumption.
You want to do the math and show us how small this CO2 is?

Reality says

Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that.

Sure you can always place yourself in a framework where O2 is pollution...

In that context, humans don't matter, human civilization doesn't matter... whatever happens bacteria can start again and evolve back to intelligent life in 500 millions yrs or so, so why care about anything?

So what is your point really? I don't know.

Once again, why is there a confusion as to general industrial pollution, like dumping dioxins into the rivers/lake, vs CO2, leading to global warming?

I think both Love Canal in Niagara NY and 'A Civil Action' in Woburn MA clearly made their points that living in industrial waste areas are hazardous to one's heath.

CO2 is what, 1+% of the air out there? And last I'd checked, our plants and planktons convert it into sugar and oxygen via photosynthesis. Plus, we exhale it; it's not toxic, as breathing on your garden is good for it.

In contrast, the planet Venus, the clear greenhouse winner is 95+% CO2 with 90 times our atmospheric pressure but that's like comparing Apples to Cantaloupes.

Sorry, but I don't think the work is done in making the conclusion that global weather changes are clearly vis-a-vis to greenhouse gases and not a solar phenomena nor a combination effect.

Reality says

Funny how "liberals" have become advocates for more jails. LOL. In case it is not obvious, jail is the very antithesis of liberty. While at any given time, some jail may be unpleasant necessity, a just society should always strive to reduce the size of jails and the number of inmates . . . by removing irrational laws and regulations, for example.

Funny how you are trying to dodge the actual conversation at hand by totally not getting the gist of my previous comments, which are to point out how ridiculous your claims are when it comes to the purpose and necessity of government and how you seem to somehow be suggesting that if we got rid of government controls and regulations that somehow EVERYONE would automatically be perfectly good citizens, companies would never-ever pollute, and it would be like paradise on earth. Do you now what the opposite of government is? Anarchy. You show me one country ( and sorry, your examples of small islands does not count) that lacks a government and succeeds. You won't. So let's move on.Reality says

So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?

If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.

If the answer is less, then the bureaucracy should also be reduced because there is less problem now for it to solve.

Amazing. Simply amazing. The answer is the levels of pollution in the air, water, and soil is far less than it was, and this is a direct result of the effects of the EPA. The answer ISN'T to then reduce their powers. That is utterly stupid. Do you have any idea how many 10's of thousands of chemicals, man-made substances, and manufacturing techniques get invented on a yearly basis? We're talking about untold numbers of chemicals and other agents that have to be evaluated and studied, sometimes for long term periods. How do you think the EPA works? One of the jobs they have is to categorize, analyze, and label a steady, continuous stream of new material. By shutting them down would reduce that ability.Reality says

Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.

You were the one who amazed us all with your lack of even basic historical knowledge and lost that argument and yet continued to present nonsense as a response. You're doing an equally grand job of slopping this one up too.

Reality says

The historical issue about whether pollution back then would have been checked without government bureaucrats like the EPA . . . the answer is of course a Yes! There is a thing called private law suits.

Here's the story about the family vs W.R. Grace Corp in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action

That law firm had to file for bankruptcy

In the end, it was the EPA, who took down the deep pockets of the corporation.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet.

The carbon output can be calculated easily from oil/gas/coal consumption.

You want to do the math and show us how small this CO2 is?

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that.

Sure you can always place yourself in a framework where O2 is pollution...

In that context, humans don't matter, human civilization doesn't matter... whatever happens bacteria can start again and evolve back to intelligent life in 500 millions yrs or so, so why care about anything?

So what is your point really? I don't know.

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

edvard2 says

Funny how you are trying to dodge the actual conversation at hand by totally not getting the gist of my previous comments,

No I did not. I addressed your points point-by-point in a long post, then made a separate post about your worship of jails.

which are to point out how ridiculous your claims are when it comes to the purpose and necessity of government and how you seem to somehow be suggesting that if we got rid of government controls and regulations that somehow EVERYONE would automatically be perfectly good citizens, companies would never-ever pollute, and it would be like paradise on earth.

You are once again making a strawman tactic. I already made it quite clear that I do not advocate the instant abolishment of government, but instead, reduce government: making it smaller; when we can live with a smaller one, make it even smaller yet. It's just like food cost, the overall history of human progress is making food cost less and less in terms of human labor time . . . yet it is not zero cost.

Do you now what the opposite of government is? Anarchy.

You seem to conflate "anarchy" with "chaos." The two are different concepts. LSAT test prep would have helped you clarify on the difference.

You show me one country ( and sorry, your examples of small islands does not count) that lacks a government and succeeds. You won't. So let's move on

Living standards in Somalia improved much faster during their brief brush with Anarchy than during any time in that country's history when there was a central government.

In fact, the relative advancement of West Europe in the last 500 years, compared to the centralized bureaucracies of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Chinese Empire, was largely the result of not having a centralized government ruling the entire Western Europe.

Reality says

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

Ahhhh! again.... how hard is this to understand? "Global warming" doesn't mean that Minnesota will suddenly become like Miami. It indicates drastic weather patterns as part of that change, meaning you get extreme weather like frigid cold, increased levels of hurricanes, droughts, and so on. Reality says

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Co2 isn't the one and only material used to measure pollution. When it comes to the total amount of greenhouse gasses such as CFCs, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants, man's total contribution to those gasses is around 28%, which is significant.

edvard2 says

Amazing. Simply amazing. The answer is the levels of pollution in the air, water, and soil is far less than it was, and this is a direct result of the effects of the EPA. The answer ISN'T to then reduce their powers. That is utterly stupid. Do you have any idea how many 10's of thousands of chemicals, man-made substances, and manufacturing techniques get invented on a yearly basis? We're talking about untold numbers of chemicals and other agents that have to be evaluated and studied, sometimes for long term periods. How do you think the EPA works? One of the jobs they have is to categorize, analyze, and label a steady, continuous stream of new material. By shutting them down would reduce that ability

You are joking, right? The US EPA has a total head count of less than 18k. Do you really think they are the ones doing all the chemical research and categorization in this country? New material labeling is mostly the work of producers of the material. A jail-loving "liberal" idiots like you would fit right in in a country like Communist China or North Korea.

edvard2 says

Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.

You were the one who amazed us all with your lack of even basic historical knowledge and lost that argument and yet continued to present nonsense as a response. You're doing an equally grand job of slopping this one up too.

Funny how you rewrite history. You brought the long list claiming NASA credit, and I shot every one of them down! Unless you think NASA also invented time machine, it simply wasn't possible for NASA to have invented the stuff before NASA itself was created.

Reality says

No I did not. I addressed your points point-by-point in a long post, then made a separate post about your worship of jails.

You are confused apparently. I did not in any way "Worship" jails. You didn't address anything because you didn't actually get what my point was, which was to compare your statements concerning the lack of need for "Bureaucratic" environmental controls to an equally absurd comparison of the lack of the need for jails. Reality says

I already made it quite clear that I do not advocate the instant abolishment of government, but instead, reduce government: making it smaller; when we can live with a smaller one, make it even smaller yet. It's just like food cost, the overall history of human progress is making food cost less and less in terms of human labor time . . . yet it is not zero cost.

I find that hard to believe. We've had a number of debates, some that included some of the most highly accepted, documented, and scientifically important programs and institutions- now in regards to the EPA- and your overall response is predictably the same every time, which is that they were wastes of money, unnecessary, followed up with the same Kum-Ba-Ya , fuzzy feelings ideology that somehow everyone would be soooo much better had none of those things existed and that humans would be free, hopping around with little to no government.Reality says

You seem to conflate "anarchy" with "chaos." The two are different concepts. LSAT test prep would have helped you clarify on the difference.

Nope. The very term "Anarchy" is a term that describes a society without a government. hence my comments in regards to people who seem to always be blabbering on and on about how EVERYTHING would be better without government, without thinking about how ironic it is that as they write that, they enjoy one of the safest, most stable, most economically successful countries in the world. Oh the irony is so rich you couldn't shovel it with a steam shovel.Reality says

Living standards in Somalia improved much faster during their brief brush with Anarchy than during any time in that country's history when there was a central government.

In fact, the relative advancement of West Europe in the last 500 years, compared to the centralized bureaucracies of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Chinese Empire, was largely the result of not having a centralized government ruling the entire Western Europe.

You seriously aren't trying to suggest that are you? Gah... amazing and depressing at the same time.

edvard2 says

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

Ahhhh! again.... how hard is this to understand? "Global warming" doesn't mean that Minnesota will suddenly become like Miami. It indicates drastic weather patterns as part of that change, meaning you get extreme weather like frigid cold, increased levels of hurricanes, droughts, and so on.

Nonsense. That claim is backwards curve-fitting and really bad at it. The global temperature has been going down since 1998. . . yet according to your ilk the weather pattern has been getting more extreme . . . so now not only your global warming theory is shot, but also the theory about warming weather causing extreme weather is also shot.

edvard2 says

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Co2 isn't the one and only material used to measure pollution. When it comes to the total amount of greenhouse gasses such as CFCs, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants, man's total contribution to those gasses is around 28%, which is significant.

Utter nonsense. What's the unit and rate of conversion between "CFC, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants" vs. CO2 to arrive at your 28%? The particulates produced by forest fire and volcanic eruption are far greater than any human industrial process. There isn't even a comprehensive number on the total amount of CO2 produced by undersea volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires around the world.

Reality says

Funny how you rewrite history. You brought the long list claiming NASA credit, and I shot every one of them down! Unless you think NASA also invented time machine, it simply wasn't possible for NASA to have invented the stuff before NASA itself was created.

You actually didnt because just as seen in the majority of the statements I've made, you did not understand the original statement. The technologies I listed are in fact Spinoffs from Nasa, and if you want to see this database, you can easily see it here:
http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinhist.html

Reality says

Utter nonsense. What's the unit and rate of conversion between "CFC, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants" vs. CO2 to arrive at your 28%? The particulates produced by forest fire and volcanic eruption are far greater than any human industrial process. There isn't even a comprehensive number on the total amount of CO2 produced by undersea volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires around the world.

Nope. Not nonsense. Look it up dude.

But before we continue, I really want to understand what people like yourself think in regards to limate change and pollution in general. I fail to understand why some folks seem to have this absolute fear of even suggesting even a teeny bit that all of the millions and billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and chemicals we release into the environment could possibly cause problems, not just for the environment, but MORE importantly, problems for the areas they live in. Its like arguing for the sake of arguing. Most of us think that living with less pollution is a good thing. Not sure why others don't

edvard2 says

You are confused apparently. I did not in any way "Worship" jails. You didn't address anything because you didn't actually get what my point was, which was to compare your statements concerning the lack of need for "Bureaucratic" environmental controls to an equally absurd comparison of the lack of the need for jails.

You don't seem to understand the most basics of human society: more and more bureaucrats and more and more jails don't solve problems. There is a natural human yearning for liberty and freedom (including bureaucrats to engage in corruption when they are sufficiently numerous and anonymous). Decreasing jails and decreasing bureaucratic head count make for efficient and functional societies. Of course your accusation that any suggestion about reducing jails and reducing bureaucracy means instant closing of all jails and instant shutting down of all bureaucracy is absurd strawman tactic.