Forums - Politics Discussion - EPA Withdrawing from Clean Power Plan

Should EPA withdraw from the CPP?

Yes, because I have no gr... 19 21.35%
 
No. 70 78.65%
 
Total:89
KLAMarine said:
sc94597 said:

Sure, but if only increased it by .000001% per year, why would we care? Magnitude matters just as much as whether or not its happening, especially when we are making cost-benefit-risk assessments. 

Where did you get the ".000001%" number from?

sc94597 said:

This is still a global claim though, because storms are not going to be more extreme everywhere in the world. So using global trends to explain any particular intense storm without empirical evidence of causation does harm, because when one sees a region with calmer weather they are going to say, "What are you talking about? The weather is calmer here." Since you can't verify causation, you can't make the claim you made. 

To that statement I would counter that I never stated a warmer climate would cause extreme weather or bring to an end calm weather, all I claimed is warmer oceans would amplify extreme weather if said extreme weather were to manifest.

I didn't get the ".0000001%" it is a hyperbolic hypothetical to make a point. But if you read the article I posted one of the meteorologist mentioned how there should be a 10% surge in rainfall by the end of the century, and there is no reason to believe this increase is going to happen linearly. But that is mostly a guess. We don't know what the actual increase is, and that is why we shouldn't talk as we do. 


"According to Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, the amount of increased precipitation in Harvey is not significant. Landsea expects a 10 percent surge in rainfall by the end of the century due to climate change, which he predicts would only have only increased rainfall by an inch or two in this case.

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said he could justify a 5 to 15 percent increase in rainfall during Harvey from climate change effects, which then increase with natural variability."


KLAMarine said:

To that statement I would counter that I never stated a warmer climate would cause extreme weather or bring to an end calm weather, all I claimed is warmer oceans would amplify extreme weather if said extreme weather were to manifest.

Fair enough. 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Errorist76 said:

Oh I can....I had grandfathers and grand grandfathers who told me about it decades ago already. Luckily I’ve not been raised by ignorants. You fools...you deniers are ruining our children’s future and you’re even proud of it. Missing empathy and selective perception are a really tough burden for ALL of us. Antisocial as can be. It’s incredible. You just need to open up your eyes to see what is happening. Stop putting your head in the dirt.

I am not a climate-change denier. But you are definitely anti-science if you promote "experience" over data. You obviously don't understand anything about climate change and just accept it out of mimicry. Being able to identify climate change locally, is impossible. You have to take data points from all over the world over a long period of time. 

For example, how would anyone in Alabama identify global warming based on their experience in Alabama where temperatures are cooler than a century before? 

 

I’m not promoting my experience instead of science. My own experience backs up what 95% of all scientists have been saying since decades. 30 years ago and before we used to have cold winters with snow in Germany, these days we hardly have any snow at all. The summers have become very different as well, much more thunderstorms and unusual ups and down all the time. The glaciers in the alps are melting away, some have already disappeared. Skiing these days can only be ensured by snow cannons. These days we can grow wine in Germany that just 2 decades ago was only possible to grow in the south of France and Italy. Believe me, I understand as much about climate change as any other educated open minded individual. 



Errorist76 said:

Sorry to say this, but I feel ashamed to be forced to share this planet with egoistic specimen like you, to be honest. Using the word climate alarmist as something bad is exactly the rhetoric I’d expect but what do you gain from putting that head in the dirt?! I don’t understand...too lazy to change something, too stubborn to accept reality?! Sometimes I really wish they’d put LSD in people’s fresh water. Please watch the documentaries Samsara, Baraka, Kooyanisqatsi. Maybe this can burst your bubble, although I doubt it. You’re probably too scared you might be forced to change your mind anyway. You seem to boast with your knowledge but you know nothing, you’re a fool...willingly dragging us all down with you.

It's exactly what it is, nothing but bullshit climate alarmism but I don't expect others like you to understand ... 

Neat ad hominem, my aren't we offended much ? LMAO, accusing others of being "too stubborn to accept reality" and then calling them a "fool" when you can't even make a proper retort with facts shows desperation on your part ... 

LOL, calling me "scared" when I know better than most including you that there's no life to be had either way on Earth in the far future after a billion years when solar output will make all of our ocean's boil regardless ...

What other insults do you have next in store to show how much more off base you can get ?



KLAMarine said:

This may come as a surprise but predicting short term weather changes is more difficult than predicting longer term changes.

For example, I can't tell you with 100% accuracy that tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today but I am willing to bet big money that in the Northern hemisphere, summer 2018 will be warmer than winter 2017.

That's not even true with sensitive and chaotic systems such as the climate ... 

Are you willing to bet big money that summer's in the northern hemisphere will warmer than the previous summer's in 100, 10000 or even a million years ? 

KLAMarine said:

Ah yes, that familiar claim: that CO2 concentrations were 10x higher back then and yet we had ice ages. This is completely, positively, undeniably TRUE!...

...

BUT our sun was also much weaker then too! Understand that our CO2 levels alone does not determine average world temperatures, it's far more complicated than that and the sun certainly plays a role. Time does too and melting immense masses of snow takes time the same way bringing water to a boil takes time so it's not incompatible that there was a period when we had both a snowy Earth and high CO2 concentrations at the same time.

@Bold Which is why we should all calm down even as CO2 levels are spiking when solar activity is just as big of a factor in determining average temperatures ... (even a change in the Earth's orbit could affect temperatures!) 

The fate of Earth is boiling oceans either way so we have to find a new planet to live on (if our species even survives that long) whether if we continue to use fossil fuels or not ... 



It's nice if a country wants to be like China but why do they have to pick 90's China and not current China?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Errorist76 said:

Sorry to say this, but I feel ashamed to be forced to share this planet with egoistic specimen like you, to be honest. Using the word climate alarmist as something bad is exactly the rhetoric I’d expect but what do you gain from putting that head in the dirt?! I don’t understand...too lazy to change something, too stubborn to accept reality?! Sometimes I really wish they’d put LSD in people’s fresh water. Please watch the documentaries Samsara, Baraka, Kooyanisqatsi. Maybe this can burst your bubble, although I doubt it. You’re probably too scared you might be forced to change your mind anyway. You seem to boast with your knowledge but you know nothing, you’re a fool...willingly dragging us all down with you.

It's exactly what it is, nothing but bullshit climate alarmism but I don't expect others like you to understand ... 

Neat ad hominem, my aren't we offended much ? LMAO, accusing others of being "too stubborn to accept reality" and then calling them a "fool" when you can't even make a proper retort with facts shows desperation on your part ... 

LOL, calling me "scared" when I know better than most including you that there's no life to be had either way on Earth in the far future after a billion years when solar output will make all of our ocean's boil regardless ...

What other insults do you have next in store to show how much more off base you can get ?

You probably don’t have kids if you really deny that we’re rapidly speeding processes up. No, I don’t want to understand your ignorant kind. You’re cancer to humanity.



fatslob-:O said:

@Bold Which is why we should all calm down even as CO2 levels are spiking when solar activity is just as big of a factor in determining average temperatures ... (even a change in the Earth's orbit could affect temperatures!) 

The fate of Earth is boiling oceans either way so we have to find a new planet to live on (if our species even survives that long) whether if we continue to use fossil fuels or not ... 

I agree that global warming is a relatively short term problem in the grand scheme of all humanity's history, past and future, but that doesn't mean I'm going to gloss over the possible shorter term humanitarian consequences.



Errorist76 said:

You probably don’t have kids if you really deny that we’re rapidly speeding processes up. No, I don’t want to understand your ignorant kind. You’re cancer to humanity.

Ooh, you have me scared now ... /sarcasm 

What are you gonna do ? Continue using more of your feelings in an argument like how anti-intellectual's would ? LOL ... (Can't put up any facts to back up any of your crap ?)

Teeqoz said:

I agree that global warming is a relatively short term problem in the grand scheme of all humanity's history, past and future, but that doesn't mean I'm going to gloss over the possible shorter term humanitarian consequences.

Yes but those consequences don't necessarily have to be all or a net detriment ... 

Even NASA is willing to admit that higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures than before benefits plant life so far shows this ... (climate change is and was never a doomsday scenario to begin with as we literally don't have enough reserves/deposits to create a runaway greenhouse gas effect, the most likely doomsday scenario was our sun progressing into a red giant but even that isn't for another billion or so years) 



There is just no reason to not pursue renewable energy. Sure, maybe climate change isn't real and blahblahblah. But even if that turned out to be the case, we would end up with a better energy source that doesn't rely on limited resources.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

What is 'clean power'?