Anybody see a problem with this EPA plan?

[Pad_Foot]

Ocean acidification is a complicated cycle. It is not directly associated with atmospheric CO2. For example, it takes almost 40 years for the cycle to progress from atmosphere to say...upwelling of acid water on the Pacific US coast. But...there is a more direct link with the coral dying

Yeah?? Well it’s fucking on the rise
So? Stop it!!
Good luck

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah?? Well it’s fucking on the rise
So? Stop it!!
Good luck

Ya might want to take a look in China and India's back yard. High production of sulfates, sulfides, nitrates and chlorides precipitating into our oceans.

 

[ll74]

Ya might want to take a look in China and India's back yard. High production of sulfates, sulfides, nitrates and chlorides precipitating into our oceans.

The majority exists because of the US. India and China have just recently caught up.

 

[Chobham]

Human beings, you twat.

Which "Human Beings?" There seems to be a considerable difference of opinions there as well. So you'll have to name "specific" human beings.

 

[ll74]

Which "Human Beings?" There seems to be a considerable difference of opinions there as well. So you'll have to name "specific" human beings.

If you don't get it, that's your fault. But since you don't recognize reality, it's not a surprise.

 

[icanhelp1]

CO2!! No problem! plant billions of trees and go nuclear **problem solved**

 

[Chobham]

If you don't get it, that's your fault. But since you don't recognize reality, it's not a surprise.

Oh, because I haven't bought into the "Climate Cult" I 'don't get it.' Sane people rarely "get" what cultists preach.

 

[ll74]

Oh, because I haven't bought into the "Climate Cult" I 'don't get it.' Sane people rarely "get" what cultists preach.

Actually discussing solutions to problems are always difficult when you decide that the problems don't exist.

Yah, not doing that. My point was clear.

 

[Chobham]

Actually discussing solutions to problems are always difficult when you decide that the problems don't exist.

Yah, not doing that. My point was clear.

Points based on premises that have NOT been established as fact make for poor public policy. This is especially true when those policies will have NO measurable effect.

Here's some reading for you.

Statistics

 

[Dribble]

^^perfect example of not being able to get research published in a peer reviewed journal so they post it on a blog.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Did anyone hear the moron's statements re. this new rule?

"Reducing CO2 will lead to longer, healthier, lives." No it won't.

"CO2 is pollution." No it isn't.

Who does he think he's speaking to, fellow morons?

He's clearly speaking to (and for) a lot of the posters on this board; those who prefer man at the center of the solar system and not the sun.

Too bad that only a small fraction of the fauna of the planet can weigh in on this topic because I think the flora might have something to add to this conversation...

 

[Chobham]

^^perfect example of not being able to get research published in a peer reviewed journal so they post it on a blog.

He's actually well published.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

A lot of these "advocates of Science" will balk at what it takes for them to personally stop producing CO2.

They want everyone else to sacrifice so they can breathe more feely...

 

[Dribble]

He's actually well published.

But not that.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Libertarian take:

https://reason.com/2023/05/11/epas-...-hard-to-implement-possibly-unconstitutional/

 

[Chobham]

But not that.

And your point is?

 

[ll74]

Points based on premises that have NOT been established as fact make for poor public policy. This is especially true when those policies will have NO measurable effect.

Here's some reading for you.

Statistics

Oh look, you're jerkBuddy AJ came to play.

Anthropogenic warming is a real thing. Excess CO2 is pollution. The thing that you don't recognize is that many plans are meant to spur innovation and add funding to new ideas.

Maybe nature will cycle back in your favor

 

[Dribble]

And your point is?

Science is messy. Sometimes some studies are wrong. Focusing on these few instead of focusing on the hundreds of thousands that have not been questioned isn't science. But you know that.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Maybe reality will cycle back in your favor.

 

[Chobham]

Science is messy. Sometimes some studies are wrong. Focusing on these few instead of focusing on the hundreds of thousands that have not been questioned isn't science. But you know that.

What 'hundreds of thousands?'

There is a basic flaw in the entire premise of catastrophic 'climate change.' That flaw being that EVERY prognostication has been wrong. Why is that, I mean other than the 'weather' doesn't seem to be cooperating?

The entire premise is based on statistics and that is the field that Dr. Briggs happens to be one of the top academicians in. He points out, quite correctly, that the statistics being used are flawed, flawed to the very core. Smoothing techniques are being applied to raw data, raw data of uncertain reliability, and the results are then being used to produce forward looking data. The GIGO rule applies here. Or if you want to apply Murphy, "All errors in calculations will compound geometrically over time."

 

[VinnyVeritas]

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

 

[Dribble]

What 'hundreds of thousands?'

There is a basic flaw in the entire premise of catastrophic 'climate change.' That flaw being that EVERY prognostication has been wrong. Why is that, I mean other than the 'weather' doesn't seem to be cooperating?

The entire premise is based on statistics and that is the field that Dr. Briggs happens to be one of the top academicians in. He points out, quite correctly, that the statistics being used are flawed, flawed to the very core. Smoothing techniques are being applied to raw data, raw data of uncertain reliability, and the results are then being used to produce forward looking data. The GIGO rule applies here. Or if you want to apply Murphy, "All errors in calculations will compound geometrically over time."

Yes. Hundreds of thousands. My name is on 48 or 49 of them. I no longer update my vita

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Lmao...

 

[Chobham]

I always get a kick out of the disclaimer that comes along with all the marketing attempts to sell stocks or commodities, "Past performance does not guarantee future results." And to an extent that is exactly what the 'climate cultists' are trying to sell, future results based on past performance and so far their future prognostications are not panning out.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Among other things:

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...uations_to_defeat_global_warming_zealots.html