I'm jumping in late, but I always find it truly telling when certain individuals have no problem dismissing a mountain of evidence that they simply don't agree with & ridicule the idea of consensus, but as soon as a study - which it appears had admitted bias - comes out with one bit of contradictory information, it's gospel.
Uh oh! The planet is cooling
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and who has done that?
Tinfoil, for starters. He dismisses everything but the most obscure studies he can find.
He stuck by his "ice bubble" study for years, until I actually looked into the thing & found that most of the authors believed in AGW....
And the Gumby family is joined by another one of them. Soon we'll have the whole cast of Shakespeare's Macbeth...
You don’t understand our system of government and regulatory oversight, Mr. Anger Management Problem.
If you want to do ANYTHING from the legislative or regulatory level to promote green energy, and reduce greenhouse emissions, the legislators and regulators have to make findings of fact to support those laws and programs. They literally can’t be implemented or codified without findings of fact to support them.
In short, any type of public policy, law, or regulation designed to promote green energy and reduce greenhouse emissions has to make a legal finding, a determination of fact, if you will, that greenhouse emissions are a significant threat to public health, safety, and the environment. That's why saying "I don't care if humans are contributing to global warming", is a non-starter.
In order to make that legal finding, we have to rely on technical/scientific/legal expertise to support it. And, in this case, the expertise is in the global scientific community which has concluded that it is very, very likely that human greenhouse emissions are largely responsible for the warming trend of the earth for the last century.
You have to admit the problem (and the factual basis defining the problem) before you can enact public policy to address the problem.
That’s what a comprehensive energy policy is. If you said, well we don’t like Saudi oil, and we want to get off it, you don’t have the legal or programmatic basis to develop a policy that address ALL environmental and national security concerns pertaining to energy.
Except we gave good reasons to use such a policy even if there wasn't a consensus. You do have it, you just refuse to see it because somebody said something other than CO2...
CO2 is just one MORE reason to do it, not the ONLY reason.
Thread Director has never been more on target.
WC Grouch
New member
Consensus is not science...it is faith.
There is consensus that the world is round, and that you'll drown if you try to inhale water for a lengthy period of time.
I have faith in those concepts.
If you simply go by sheer numbers there is an even larger consensus that there is a Creator who cares whether or not you eat pork.
Kind of a bogus comparison, don't you think?
I'm not talking about human consensus. I'm talking about consensus among those who actually study the field.
Just a teensy difference there....
then you'd be designing a national energy policy that doesn't include, or codify, requirements to address green house gas emissions. It might be based on reducing depending on saudi oil, or reducing sulfur compound emission. But, in your zest to never admit you were wrong about greenhouse emissions, the policy you propose would have no requirement to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Which means, that power plants, not being required to reduce greenhouse emission (only being required to reduce sulfphate or particle emissions) could switch to domestic or candadian natural gas. Or, to biomass gas. Or to anynumber of fuels that STILL emit greenhouse gasses.
And your leaving out a host of other industries, outside the energy and power industries, that make huge contributions to green house emissions. They wouldn't have to do anything, or even be regulated, under what your suggesting.
Ah, so again, there are many who study theology who would also have that consensus. In fact, an even larger field of consensus would still exist using that as criteria.
The reality is that science is skepticism and testing, not consensus and indoctrination. If we failed to test consensus hypothesis we'd still believe in Geocentrism and that biomatter could produce itself out of nowhere if the right conditions existed. (Search out the doctrine of spontaneous generation if you don't believe me).
I, for one, am glad for those who would question consensus and seek new theories.
The "requirement" would be to remove all emissions, or can't you understand what I have typed previous to this long-winded version of the repetition of "CO2!"?
You're comparing something spiritual & something for which there can be no proof with science, and kind of disparaging the scientific method in the process, just by comparison. Consensus was not arrived at by "indoctrination" with regard to global warming; how do you arrive at that conclusion? That shows more your personal belief on the subject & bias, than anything else.
I'm surprised you'd try that. It's a really bogus, dishonest comparison, and I think you have to know that.
You can't require companies to remove CO2 emissions, unless there's a legal basis for doing so.
If Congress is unwilling to make a legal finding, as part of an energy policy, that CO2 is a pollutant by virtue of its greenhouse properties and the findings of the climate science community, you can't ENFORCE a zero emissions policy on industry. Unless you legally make a finding that CO2 is an environmental threat, you can't make anybody stop emitting it. It's not like there's one techonology that magically eliminates all emissions.
If you tried to enforce a zero emission policy on polluters (including CO2 emissions) without a legal basis, or finding of fact on the harm of CO2, your energy policy would be sued in court, and you would lose big time
And the only way to legally find that CO2 is an environmentall threat, if for rightwing deniers to finally admit what the rest of us know: CO2 is heating the planet up. That's the ONLY basis on how you can regulate it. It's not a pollutant, at atmospheric concentrations, in any other sense of the word "pollution."
WC Grouch
New member
Those aren't concepts, they are facts.
The "consensus" provides us with "evidence" but they are woefully short on fact.
The Vikings grew grapes in Greenland back when it was green. The Little Ice Age came along and turned Greenland white. The American Revolution was fought during the peak of the Little Ice Age....you know, back when the Delaware River used to freeze solid every winter. We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. We'll be back to our normal weather pattern when grapes grow in Greenland again. Do you really want to interfere with Mother Nature?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
well, there are those on both sides that are so beholden to their beliefs that they refuse any discussion unless it involves agreeing with them.
Tinfoil on one side.... Gumby on the other.
Don't you wingnutters understand this???
You can't impose a zero emissions policy, on anyone without a legal and scientific basis.
If you are unwilling to conclude that, human emissions of CO2 are, beyond a reasonable doubt, a major and serious contributor to planetary climate change, you cannot force anyone to stop emitting it.
Your "zero emissions" energy policy would be sued by industry groups in court, and you would get the living tar beat out of you by their lawyers.
Under your policy, their position would be: "fine, we'll install scrubbers to remove particulate matter. But, we're going to use domestic and canadian natural gas, and you can't do shit about regulating our emissions of greenhouse gas from those fossil fuel".
Nor, under you idiotic policy, would you have ANY authorirty to go after other industries that don't involve fossil fuels and yet are major greenhouse gas contributors: the agricultural industry, and in particular the large livestock and confined animal operations.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... damn Gumby you really do crack me up. Your head is so far up the governments ass that they shit, tell you its good for you and you accept it. WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT ON THE IDIOTS IN DC GUMBY. WE DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT BLESSING TO ACT.
Even the guy your voting for, recognizes the need to a national energy policy, and legislation to implement it.
The fact that you think the free markets will solve it all on their own, shows the child like nature of your knowldge in addition to the out of control, angry white male side of your personality.
Under you alleged scheme, there would be no authority for pollutors to limit greenhouse emissions. Your position, is that we really don't know if CO2 from human activities is a major player in climate, or not. Therefore, you would have no legal basis to regulate it. Power companies could just as easily switch to clean burning domestic natural gas. But, that still emits greenhouse gases.
Other industrial operations that don't involve fossil fuels, but still emit greenhouse gases, would have no incentive, legal or otherwise, to reduce emissions.