Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,596
2,241
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Because this is an area that with the right direction it could be beneficial. What we dont need is hundreds more civil servants hired and then do little.
The problem was solved with corn ethanol ....

Actually, government made it worse.

But, government takes the lead, does the right thing, sets the example ....

You seem to only want the "good" Big Brother, not the stupid, thieving, bullying Big Brother. Why do you think a bully, idiot, thief could/would decide to be good? I don't see the logic in your POV.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,509
10,542
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
The problem was solved with corn ethanol ....

Actually, government made it worse.

But, government takes the lead, does the right thing, sets the example ....

You seem to only want the "good" Big Brother, not the stupid, thieving, bullying Big Brother. Why do you think a bully, idiot, thief could/would decide to be good? I don't see the logic in your POV.
With that logic we should dissolve the military.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,596
2,241
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
With that logic we should refrain from military adventurism overseas and only use it as a last resort.
FIFY

Now, if the government said, "Ethanol was a mistake; it makes things worse on many fronts. We're repealing bad policy before we try something new" then they'd have my attention. But, your "good" government rarely reverses bad policy. It just keeps piling on the garbage.

So, explain your logic please.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
Hey, maybe when we close all of our power plants with the nice scrubbers on the smoke stacks and go to alternate, uber expensive alternatives we could sell the nasty old coal to the rest of the world. They will naturally improve all of their coal plants to meet the new regs since POTUS set such a fine example. Besides the atmosphere over their countries won't mix with ours, will it?
 

BamaFlum

Hall of Fame
Dec 11, 2002
7,176
1,609
287
53
S.A., TX, USA
FIFY

Now, if the government said, "Ethanol was a mistake; it makes things worse on many fronts. We're repealing bad policy before we try something new" then they'd have my attention. But, your "good" government rarely reverses bad policy. It just keeps piling on the garbage.

So, explain your logic please.
Like! They rarely if ever roll back policy. For example, with good gas mileage in cars, there has been less tax dollars flowing in for roads (not to mention grossly misappropriating those funds for pet projects which is the main problem to begin with) so let's add a per mile tax without removing the gas tax-double taxing the public without solving the main problem (mishandling funds).
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,509
10,542
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
FIFY

Now, if the government said, "Ethanol was a mistake; it makes things worse on many fronts. We're repealing bad policy before we try something new" then they'd have my attention. But, your "good" government rarely reverses bad policy. It just keeps piling on the garbage.

So, explain your logic please.
I'm not going to debate ethanol. As far as global warming is concerned, it will either be governments or nothing to solve the problem. I'm not going to defend our civil service system but if the government doesn't at least try to fix or mitigate the problem you can eventually kiss all coastal cities good bye and deal with the unrest caused by hundreds of millions of people and businesses being displaced and thats just for starters.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,596
2,241
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
I'm not going to debate ethanol.
How many times does the government have to lie, cheat, and steal for you to become suspicious of their motives and actions?

As far as global warming is concerned, it will either be governments or nothing to solve the problem. I'm not going to defend our civil service system but if the government doesn't at least try to fix or mitigate the problem you can eventually kiss all coastal cities good bye and deal with the unrest caused by hundreds of millions of people and businesses being displaced and thats just for starters.
Blind Faith was a good band. Blind faith does not make for good public policy.
 

tidegrandpa

All-American
I'm not going to debate ethanol. As far as global warming is concerned, it will either be governments or nothing to solve the problem. I'm not going to defend our civil service system but if the government doesn't at least try to fix or mitigate the problem you can eventually kiss all coastal cities good bye and deal with the unrest caused by hundreds of millions of people and businesses being displaced and thats just for starters.
I've lived 3 feet above the water here for 10 years on the coast in Corpus Christi,TX; my dock is the same above the waterline as it was when I moved here.
:rolleyes:
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
All cost and no benefit:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/08/05/president_obamas_clean_power_plan_all_cost_no_benefit_101768.html


On Monday President Obama announced the final "clean power plan" regulation for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating plants, the centerpiece of the broader Climate Action Plan being implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid the many assertions about the looming climate crisis confronting "the planet," about which more below, one central parameter was conspicuous by its absence. To wit: What effect on future temperatures---that, after all, is the supposed benefit of the rule---would this regulation provide?

Interestingly enough, the president did not tell us. Nor did the EPA provide an estimate of temperature effects so obviously central to the discussion when it published the rule in
draft form in June last year. Amazingly, EPA omits this even from its regulatory impact analysis of the final rule: Table 4-1 ("Climate Effects") informs us that the "global climate impacts" from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (presumably, all greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents), of ozone, of particulates, and of other greenhouse gases have not been quantified or monetized. EPA directs interested readers to the administration's deeply flawed analysis of the "social cost of carbon," which does not answer this central question; and to its own "integrated science assessments" and to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, without specific references. (Neither the ISAs nor IPCC answers this basic question either.) EPA does note, however, that it "assess[es] these co-benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods." Wow.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
How many times does the government have to lie, cheat, and steal for you to become suspicious of their motives and actions?
Only when Republicans are running it.

That's the answer for a number of folks here - it's just that a number of them won't actually come out and say it.

Of course, the reverse is ALSO true. Some folks here are suspicious as all get out when the Democrats run things and suddenly become all patriotic when the regime changes hands.

Until the day the rest of you buying into this remove all of YOUR OWN carbon footprint (or whatever else), don't even talk to me about what I need to do. One hundred years from now, earth will still be here having evolved or adapted and they'll be laughing as ridiculously at us as we do now about the Y2K thing.
 

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
On Monday President Obama announced the final "clean power plan" regulation for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating plants, the centerpiece of the broader Climate Action Plan being implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid the many assertions about the looming climate crisis confronting "the planet," about which more below, one central parameter was conspicuous by its absence. To wit: What effect on future temperatures---that, after all, is the supposed benefit of the rule---would this regulation provide?

Interestingly enough, the president did not tell us. Nor did the EPA provide an estimate of temperature effects so obviously central to the discussion when it published the rule in draft form in June last year. Amazingly, EPA omits this even from its regulatory impact analysis of the final rule: Table 4-1 ("Climate Effects") informs us that the "global climate impacts" from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (presumably, all greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents), of ozone, of particulates, and of other greenhouse gases have not been quantified or monetized. EPA directs interested readers to the administration's deeply flawed analysis of the "social cost of carbon," which does not answer this central question; and to its own "integrated science assessments" and to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, without specific references. (Neither the ISAs nor IPCC answers this basic question either.) EPA does note, however, that it "assess[es] these co-benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods." Wow.
Reminds me of Dean Martin's quote in the movie "Airport". "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.