PDA

View Full Version : Obama EPA out of control could be a bad deal for the O


HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 09:57 AM
I said yesterday this could be a blow up of congress needing to curtail an out of control activist led EPA.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gtuuntl8Ylc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gtuuntl8Ylc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:04 AM
What has the EPA done that is so out of control?

KC Dan
12-08-2009, 10:07 AM
What has the EPA done that is so out of control?Determining that yourexhaling is dangerous to me and every other human AND that we can all expect them to try and regulate it.

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:08 AM
Determining that yourexhaling is dangerous to me and every other human AND that we can all expect them to try and regulate it.

No one has made that preposterous determination.

Radar Chief
12-08-2009, 10:09 AM
Determining that yourexhaling is dangerous to me and every other human AND that we can all expect them to try and regulate it.

I donít see what the problem is. The Empty Suit is just getting all those pesky voters out of the way of regulating what is best for you.

KC Dan
12-08-2009, 10:12 AM
No one has made that preposterous determination.Ooh, big word...:clap::D C'mon where's the humor around here...

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 10:27 AM
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument

The very studies used to generate this garbage are under major scrutiny worldwide as a result of the leaks from the GW email fiasco. The science is not clear nor is it definitive and it is in major dispute from within the climate expert ranks.

Its amazing to me, right at the very time the entire GW issue is looking more and more like a pieced together bad presentation of questionable data that the EPA would make this move.

If they had any interest in building credibility, they would have announced they are re reviewing the data in light of the issues that have shown up.

It would be sweet justice if in fact they used data from east Anglia that is found to have been fraudulent.

I've always had a pretty high regard for many of the EPAs efforts becuse they do tend to listen to science and they do use a lot of outside sources. But that was before we had Lisa who is a pure activist and Carole Browner who is almost as bad.

Taco John
12-08-2009, 10:32 AM
They're skipping the democracy and going straight for the fascism.

Ooooh! I said the word fascism! There's a lot of people here who have no idea what fascism is, and will get their tail feathers ruffled over that one!

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 10:32 AM
No one has made that preposterous determination.

Actually, it's not that preposterous. Depending on which parts of the clean air act they use the de minimis threshold for reporting and compliance under the clean air act it can be 10 tons of CO2e 100 tons of CO2e or 250 tons of CO2e per year. EPA is working up a "tailoring" rule to alter the regulatory framework for dealing with emissions under the CAA because they recognize that to do so under the existing statute would be ludicrous. In their tailoring rule they cite judicial language stating that the EPA does not have to regulate under the CAA if the regulation would yield "absurd results" and/or for reasons of "administrative necessity" i.e. the ability to even manage such a regulation. EPA has offered an exemption via the tailoring rule for businesses and residences emitting under 25,000 tons of CO2e/year of GHGs based on this judicial language. However, should this be challenged in a court (which is almost a certainty) the sense is that it will not withstand judicial review and EPA would be required to follow the statute which puts every knick knack paddy whack shack into the pool for regulation. EPA chose the 25,000 ton threshold simply because that is the level at which they felt they could administer the program. There is absolutely no scientific reason for selecting that emission target.

This is an effort by the Administration to club hand Congress into passing a bill that contains pre-emption language in dealing with GHGs so that the legislation supercedes the CAA and EPA's authority. In short, it's a shitty tactic that makes Americans choose between being f'd and being royally f'd.

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:37 AM
They're skipping the democracy and going straight for the fascism.

Ooooh! I said the word fascism! There's a lot of people here who have no idea what fascism is, and will get their tail feathers ruffled over that one!

That's for sure.

EPA = Holocaust!!11one

KC Dan
12-08-2009, 10:39 AM
This is an effort by the Administration to club hand Congress into passing a bill that contains pre-emption language in dealing with GHGs so that the legislation supercedes the CAA and EPA's authority. In short, it's a shitty tactic that makes Americans choose between being f'd and being royally f'd.
Well, let's see... We have a Congress who BRIBED a Louisiana Senator with $300 million to vote for getting a health care bill to the floor and now we have an Administration department BLACKMAILING the Congress to pass the GW-Cap & Tax Bill. Beautiful, what a gov't to emulate!

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:40 AM
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument

The very studies used to generate this garbage are under major scrutiny worldwide as a result of the leaks from the GW email fiasco. The science is not clear nor is it definitive and it is in major dispute from within the climate expert ranks.

Its amazing to me, right at the very time the entire GW issue is looking more and more like a pieced together bad presentation of questionable data that the EPA would make this move.

If they had any interest in building credibility, they would have announced they are re reviewing the data in light of the issues that have shown up.

It would be sweet justice if in fact they used data from east Anglia that is found to have been fraudulent.

I've always had a pretty high regard for many of the EPAs efforts becuse they do tend to listen to science and they do use a lot of outside sources. But that was before we had Lisa who is a pure activist and Carole Browner who is almost as bad.

That's out of control? The EPA scientists agree with the rest of the vast majority of the world's scientists? The same conclusions that the Bush era EPA scientists had? Out of control!!! Oh noes! Doom!

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
Actually, it's not that preposterous. Depending on which parts of the clean air act they use the de minimis threshold for reporting and compliance under the clean air act it can be 10 tons of CO2e 100 tons of CO2e or 250 tons of CO2e per year. EPA is working up a "tailoring" rule to alter the regulatory framework for dealing with emissions under the CAA because they recognize that to do so under the existing statute would be ludicrous. In their tailoring rule they cite judicial language stating that the EPA does not have to regulate under the CAA if the regulation would yield "absurd results" and/or for reasons of "administrative necessity" i.e. the ability to even manage such a regulation. EPA has offered an exemption via the tailoring rule for businesses and residences emitting under 25,000 tons of CO2e/year of GHGs based on this judicial language. However, should this be challenged in a court (which is almost a certainty) the sense is that it will not withstand judicial review and EPA would be required to follow the statute which puts every knick knack paddy whack shack into the pool for regulation. EPA chose the 25,000 ton threshold simply because that is the level at which they felt they could administer the program. There is absolutely no scientific reason for selecting that emission target.

This is an effort by the Administration to club hand Congress into passing a bill that contains pre-emption language in dealing with GHGs so that the legislation supercedes the CAA and EPA's authority. In short, it's a shitty tactic that makes Americans choose between being f'd and being royally f'd.

I was referring to the threshold consideration of human breathing, which is actually preposterous.

I don't have any problem with the statement that C02 in excess quantities is a pollutant. It's accurate.

Taco John
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
That's for sure.

EPA = Holocaust!!11one

Just as I expected. Doesn't know what fascism is.

The Holocaust is a different thing than fascism, Banyon. I don't want to embarass you too much, but you should look it up sometime.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 10:46 AM
That's out of control? The EPA scientists agree with the rest of the vast majority of the world's scientists? The same conclusions that the Bush era EPA scientists had? Out of control!!! Oh noes! Doom!

Except that its clear that most of the world's scientists relied on flawed results based on bad data and that the pre-eminent authors on the subject of anthropogenic global warming have manipulated that data as well as demonstrated the motive to rig the results of their model runs to fit their preconceived notions. Not only that, their data sets have been dumped and/or destroyed and their results are not replicable within their own model with their own data. So yeah, taking a step back while the science gets its house in order is absolutely within the realm of reason.

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:46 AM
Just as I expected. Doesn't know what fascism is.

The Holocaust is a different thing than fascism, Banyon. I don't want to embarass you too much, but you should look it up sometime.

Really? No sh*t?

The point I was making (no doubt too subtle for you apparently) was that to suggest practical environmental regulations (whether you agree with them or not) are even in the same vein as what non-fringe definitions consider to be fascism is completely ridiculous.

Once again, you'd like to blur terms and lean on vagaries to support your hyperbolic ranting. I expect no specific criteria or definition on point would be forthcoming from you in any event, so I assume further discussion would be a waste of everyone's time.

Taco- Fascism= Socialism= government stuff I don't like.

Brilliant.

banyon
12-08-2009, 10:48 AM
Except that its clear that most of the world's scientists relied on flawed results based on bad data and that the pre-eminent authors on the subject of anthropogenic global warming have manipulated that data as well as demonstrated the motive to rig the results of their model runs to fit their preconceived notions. Not only that, their data sets have been dumped and/or destroyed and their results are not replicable within their own model with their own data. So yeah, taking a step back while the science gets its house in order is absolutely within the realm of reason.

No, that's not clear. What's clear is that opponents of global warming are using attempts at data distortion for a couple of years worth of data from a couple of extremely minor figures to try to paint the entire data set of centuries of data and trends as flawed because it's convenient to the agenda.

Donger
12-08-2009, 10:49 AM
No, that's not clear. What's clear is that opponents of global warming are using attempts at data distortion for a couple of years worth of data from a couple of extremely minor figures to try to paint the entire data set of centuries of data and trends as flawed because it's convenient to the agenda.

LMAO

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 10:50 AM
I was referring to the threshold consideration of human breathing, which is actually preposterous.

I don't have any problem with the statement that C02 in excess quantities is a pollutant. It's accurate.

No, it is not. CO2 is a critical component to any ecosystem on the planet. Without CO2 there is no respiration and there is no photosynthesis and therefor there is no life. And certainly CO2 does not exist in sufficient levels to justify an endangerment finding. An endangerment finding means that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are toxic to human life.

Plant life thrives in a high CO2 environment just like animals did not thrive until there was a sufficiently high enough oxygen content in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a byproduct and food stuff for life on this planet. To suggest otherwise is alarmist and misleading. Furthermore, CO2 concentrations on this planet support life at 7,000 ppm and do so quite well according to the fossil record.

If the planet hadn't warmed humanity would be eking out a living in the equatorial regions of the planet between glacial encroachments, if humanity managed to exist at all.

Taco John
12-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Really? No sh*t?

The point I was making (no doubt too subtle for you apparently) was that to suggest practical environmental regulations (whether you agree with them or not) are even in the same vein as what non-fringe definitions consider to be fascism is completely ridiculous.

There is a fringe and a non-fringe definition of fascism? Bwahahahaha! You're a crack-up! Fascism is fascism you dope. When you force your will on the people against their will because you can, that's fascistic. I don't care about the careful construction of terminology that you want to use to rationalize the bypass of democracy and enact the will of government over the will of the people. I don't care how "practical" you think that subversion is. Quit being such a ****ing dope about baseline terms just because you agree with the actions.


Once again, you'd like to blur terms and lean on vagaries to support your hyperbolic ranting. I expect no specific criteria or definition on point would be forthcoming from you in any event, so I assume further discussion would be a waste of everyone's time.

I've blurred no terms. The only waste of time here has been you trying to rationalize fascism just because you agree with the actions.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 10:53 AM
No, that's not clear. What's clear is that opponents of global warming are using attempts at data distortion for a couple of years worth of data from a couple of extremely minor figures to try to paint the entire data set of centuries of data and trends as flawed because it's convenient to the agenda.

Well there's a simple way to clear that up, revisit the raw data used to produce those results and replicate the model. Bing, bang boom. Oh, wait, they got rid of their data. It is not the fault of the skeptics they performed bad science...at best. At worst they were providing fraudulent results to advance an agenda.

Keep your raw data and make sure your results are replicable. Pretty simple scientific method there. If they can't abide by it then they ain't doin scientific method.

KC Dan
12-08-2009, 10:59 AM
LMAOThat there is classic irony! What fun!

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:00 AM
Banyon, when government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, is that fascistic?

This is really very simple stuff here. It doesn't require a fringe or non-fringe distinction.

KC Dan
12-08-2009, 11:00 AM
Banyon, when government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, is that fascistic?It's Hope and Change!!!

Did I win???

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:02 AM
It's Hope and Change!!!

Did I win???


I think you qualify as a participant of the new "mainstream!"

Congratulations!

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 11:03 AM
That's out of control? The EPA scientists agree with the rest of the vast majority of the world's scientists? The same conclusions that the Bush era EPA scientists had? Out of control!!! Oh noes! Doom!

The issue may be a bit deeper than that.

The "conclusions" are certainly not universally accepted. The debate among the science community is divided on the issue both on GWing and on the issue of declaring CO2 a pollutant when it is in fact a necessary product to sustain life. To catagorize it in the same category as manmade cancer causing products is in dispute in the science community.

You may see it as some political issue or as one of AGW vs GW and that realm of discussion but its more wide ranging than that.

The other issue is the actions that the EPA can take as a result under the guise of the CAA. The EPA has made a number of proposals and had discussions on the probable outcomes of the rule if they took this step. Those range from probably not so bad to others that are far beyond what is even proposed in the Cap and Trade legislation.

The political motivation is tied to Cap and Trade. The administration has used the threat of imposing taxes under EPA rules if the Cap and Trade did not pass. Thus they are saying that if the legislation and judgement of congress is to Vote no on Cap and Trade, then the administration can do it in spite of the vote of congress.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:05 AM
No, it is not. CO2 is a critical component to any ecosystem on the planet. Without CO2 there is no respiration and there is no photosynthesis and therefor there is no life. And certainly CO2 does not exist in sufficient levels to justify an endangerment finding. An endangerment finding means that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are toxic to human life.

Plant life thrives in a high CO2 environment just like animals did not thrive until there was a sufficiently high enough oxygen content in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a byproduct and food stuff for life on this planet. To suggest otherwise is alarmist and misleading. Furthermore, CO2 concentrations on this planet support life at 7,000 ppm and do so quite well according to the fossil record.

If the planet hadn't warmed humanity would be eking out a living in the equatorial regions of the planet between glacial encroachments, if humanity managed to exist at all.

None of what you say is incorrect, but you don't understand the definition of toxin or pollutant which is simply any element in excess of levels potentially harmful to human beings. If you were in a room full of CO2 and little 02, it would become a pollutant to your body under those circumstances as well. The context is what is important.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:05 AM
Banyon, when government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, is that fascistic?

This is really very simple stuff here. It doesn't require a fringe or non-fringe distinction.

What? I don't know what the source of this hyperbole is.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:06 AM
There is a fringe and a non-fringe definition of fascism? Bwahahahaha! You're a crack-up! Fascism is fascism you dope. When you force your will on the people against their will because you can, that's fascistic. I don't care about the careful construction of terminology that you want to use to rationalize the bypass of democracy and enact the will of government over the will of the people. I don't care how "practical" you think that subversion is. Quit being such a ****ing dope about baseline terms just because you agree with the actions.




I've blurred no terms. The only waste of time here has been you trying to rationalize fascism just because you agree with the actions.

Once again, you'd like to blur terms and lean on vagaries to support your hyperbolic ranting. I expect no specific criteria or definition on point would be forthcoming from you in any event, so I assume further discussion would be a waste of everyone's time.

Like I said. Not hard to predict more ranting.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 11:07 AM
None of what you say is incorrect, but you don't understand the definition of toxin or pollutant which is simply any element in excess of levels potentially harmful to human beings. If you were in a room full of CO2 and little 02, it would become a pollutant to your body under those circumstances as well. The context is what is important.

That was exactly my point. The CAA makes this distinction in its endangerment language and CO2 does not qualify under that standard and, according to ice core and fossil record data isn't toxic at 7,000ppm either.

As a point of reference, when a human exhales they emit 44,000ppm CO2. Consider that the next time you watch a CPR video.

Donger
12-08-2009, 11:09 AM
I was under the impression that this CRU outfit is/was one of the leading global warming research centers. Is that wrong?

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:10 AM
That was exactly my point. The CAA makes this distinction in its endangerment language and CO2 does not qualify under that standard and, according to ice core and fossil record data isn't toxic at 7,000ppm either.

As a point of reference, when a human exhales they emit 44,000ppm CO2. Consider that the next time you watch a CPR video.

Actually it does. And it's already been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf (Massachusetts v. EPA (2007))

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
The "conclusions" are certainly not universally accepted.

No, don't you understand. THe conclusions are universally accepted by something called "The Consensus." If you disagree with their conclusions, then you are either a "denier," a "skeptic," or "on the fringe." This is despite the fact that only 44% of Americans agree with the conclusions (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1427/global-warming-major-problem-around-world-americans-less-concerned) and that despite the education that has been done in this area over the last decade support for Global Warming legislation is plummeting even among Democrats (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion).

They're desperate at this point. Absolutely desperate.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
I was under the impression that this CRU outfit is/was one of the leading global warming research centers. Is that wrong?

No. The Hadley CRU was the group that provided the results on which the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based their latest findings in their 4th Assessment Report.

Radar Chief
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
I was under the impression that this CRU outfit is/was one of the leading global warming research centers. Is that wrong?

It was until they got busted manipulating data to get the results that keep funding flowing. ;)

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:12 AM
Like I said. Not hard to predict more ranting.

I love it when you embarass yourself like this ignoring what's right there in front of your face. I'll take it by your non-rebuttal that you actually feel the embarassment this time.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:12 AM
The issue may be a bit deeper than that.

The "conclusions" are certainly not universally accepted. The debate among the science community is divided on the issue both on GWing and on the issue of declaring CO2 a pollutant when it is in fact a necessary product to sustain life. To catagorize it in the same category as manmade cancer causing products is in dispute in the science community.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I didn't say universal. maybe you should reread my posts.

You may see it as some political issue or as one of AGW vs GW and that realm of discussion but its more wide ranging than that.

The other issue is the actions that the EPA can take as a result under the guise of the CAA. The EPA has made a number of proposals and had discussions on the probable outcomes of the rule if they took this step. Those range from probably not so bad to others that are far beyond what is even proposed in the Cap and Trade legislation.

The political motivation is tied to Cap and Trade. The administration has used the threat of imposing taxes under EPA rules if the Cap and Trade did not pass. Thus they are saying that if the legislation and judgement of congress is to Vote no on Cap and Trade, then the administration can do it in spite of the vote of congress.

Congress can always write laws which trump any regulations issued by the EPA, so no, it doesn't work that way.

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Banyon, I'll try again and give you a chance to save some face here. It's really a simple question - yes or no.

When government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, is that fascistic?

Everybody here knows the answer to that question. But let's see how you avoid giving the right one.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:14 AM
I love it when you embarass yourslef like this ignoring what's right there in front of your face. I'll take it by your non-rebuttal that you actually feel the embarassment this time.

Embarass myself? I didn't realize I was the one ranting about environmental regulation being fascism like an inbred mogoloid and refusing to draw any criteria which would distinguish it from any other sort of practical regulation.

oh, that was you.

Donger
12-08-2009, 11:14 AM
No. The Hadley CRU was the group that provided the results on which the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based their latest findings in their 4th Assessment Report.

Okay, so banyon's assertion that these CRU chaps are "extremely minor figures" is inaccurate?

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:14 AM
Banyon, I'll try again and give you a chance to save some face here. It's really a simple question - yes or no.

When government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, is that fascistic?

I don't agree that it's happening, but it it were, then that would be authoritarian. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you conflate the terms.

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:20 AM
I don't agree that it's happening, but it it were, then that would be authoritarian. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you conflate the terms.

It was a yes or no question Banyon. I wasn't asking if you believed that it was happening. I asked if we can come to agreement on the terms.

Are you trying to make some sort of distinction between authoritarian and fascistic? I mean, are you saying that there is a form of fascism that isn't authoritarian. (Is there a form of sapien that isn't homo?)

It was a yes or no question, Banyon. The answer is, yes, when government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, that's fascistic.

Nice try though. Always entertaining. I've gotta give you that.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 11:20 AM
Actually it does. And it's already been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf (Massachusetts v. EPA (2007))

I'm familiar with Mass v. EPA. The points of contention in Mass v. EPA were that EPA in 03 said that EPA:

1. did not have the authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act and
2. Even if it did have the authority it would not exercise it.

The Supreme Court found that EPA does have the authority and is statutorily required to exercise it. Meaning the court directed EPA to move forward and should it choose not to regulate GHGs then its decision had to be grounded in the statutes of the CAA. At no time did the Court mandate in what form, fashion, or function should EPA make its determination nor how or if it should regulate. Mass v. EPA is in no way basis in fact or science to support or refute AGW, the toxicity of GHGs, or the appropriateness of using the CAA to regulate GHGs.

In their endangerment finding the EPA made only historical reference to MA v. EPA. Instead they chose to put forth their finding in the context of "settled" science. Furthermore, the fact that EPA willingly and readily recognizes the fact that their "tailoring" rule of 25K tons CO2e/year is based solely in the administrative necessity language of judicial precedent and had nothing at all to do with science only further demonstrates the lack regard for true scientific method in this process and pulls the curtain back on this poorly veiled attempt at governance and exposes the EPA and the Administration for the political hacks they are.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 11:24 AM
I was under the impression that this CRU outfit is/was one of the leading global warming research centers. Is that wrong?

Indeed it is. Only recently has the CRU become a "minor" player in climate research as the Church of AGW tries to peddle back the true scale of the CRU in the overall world of AGW.

FTR, I'm not saying they're wrong. I am highly skeptical of AGW but I am open to science. My recommendation is that efforts to curb emissions be put on hold until true, transparent, and replicable results based on widely accepted standards and practices can be produced and analyzed.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:25 AM
It was a yes or no question Banyon. I wasn't asking if you believed that it was happening. I asked if we can come to agreement on the terms.

Are you trying to make some sort of distinction between authoritarian and fascistic? I mean, are you saying that there is a form of fascism that isn't authoritarian. (Is there a form of sapien that isn't homo?)

It was a yes or no question, Banyon. The answer is, yes, when government bypasses the will of the people in order to enact their own will, that's fascistic.

Nice try though. Always entertaining. I've gotta give you that.

You are now conflating the "is" of predication with the "is" of identity. You also appear not to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, or basic set descriptions. I recommend the following book that I used for some of the undergraduates I used to teach:

http://images.swaptree.com/images/books/29/0534584829.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/0534520065

And no, surprise, we STILL don't have any useful criteria from you for differentiating fascistic abnd non-fascistic government activities.

banyon
12-08-2009, 11:29 AM
Indeed it is. Only recently has the CRU become a "minor" player in climate research as the Church of AGW tries to peddle back the true scale of the CRU in the overall world of AGW.

FTR, I'm not saying they're wrong. I am highly skeptical of AGW but I am open to science. My recommendation is that efforts to curb emissions be put on hold until true, transparent, and replicable results based on widely accepted standards and practices can be produced and analyzed.

Wait, they were "recently" involved in the IPCC report and that somehow invalidates the reports prior to their involvement?

Taco John
12-08-2009, 11:34 AM
You are now conflating the "is" of predication with the "is" of identity. You also appear not to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, or basic set descriptions. I recommend the following book that I used for some of the undergraduates I used to teach:

http://images.swaptree.com/images/books/29/0534584829.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/0534520065

Ah, yes of course. You can't answer the question because it's sooooo full of logical fallacies that only you can see, and I'll need the book in order to decipher. I wonder if you and Jenson take clasess to learn this tactic. You both do this when you can't find a reasonable counter. "I can't answer your question because it's full of logical fallacies that I will only discuss in the most vague way so that nobody can decipher the fact that I'm wrong." The ole "baffle them with bullshit." Nice.




And no, surprise, we STILL don't have any useful criteria from you for differentiating fascistic abnd non-fascistic government activities.

Really? None? Wow. I guess I shouldn't be suprised that you wouldn't recognize it. I mean, I put it there in yes or no question form simple as day not hiding from anyone. How could you possibly see THAT!?

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 11:38 AM
Wait, they were "recently" involved in the IPCC report and that somehow invalidates the reports prior to their involvement?

Being involved in the IPCC report means the CRU is not just some two bit back bench player in the world of AGW.

banyon
12-08-2009, 12:08 PM
Ah, yes of course. You can't answer the question because it's sooooo full of logical fallacies that only you can see, and I'll need the book in order to decipher. I wonder if you and Jenson take clasess to learn this tactic. You both do this when you can't find a reasonable counter. "I can't answer your question because it's full of logical fallacies that I will only discuss in the most vague way so that nobody can decipher the fact that I'm wrong." The ole "baffle them with bullshit." Nice.


Well, when you repeatedly engage in the same sorts of fallacies, which I've put in as layperson types of terms as I am able, I don't think you should be surprised that more than one person points it out.

Really? None? Wow. I guess I shouldn't be suprised that you wouldn't recognize it. I mean, I put it there in yes or no question form simple as day not hiding from anyone. How could you possibly see THAT!?

You think asking a question in yes or no form is offering criteria? Perhaps a more remedial logic course is in order. I already answered your question begging post earlier. I know the answer didn't fit into your contorted, obtuse pigeonhole.

banyon
12-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Being involved in the IPCC report means the CRU is not just some two bit back bench player in the world of AGW.

So, they did or didn't have an effect on prior IPCC reports which concluded AGW was a problem?

Taco John
12-08-2009, 01:09 PM
You think asking a question in yes or no form is offering criteria? Perhaps a more remedial logic course is in order. I already answered your question begging post earlier. I know the answer didn't fit into your contorted, obtuse pigeonhole.


Well, whatever you say. Thanks for the rep parade. It turns out that I'm not the only one who was amused by your logic tantrum.

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 01:17 PM
So, they did or didn't have an effect on prior IPCC reports which concluded AGW was a problem?

Prior IPCC reports did not speak with such certainty and authority as the AR4...which is what made the AR4 unique...which is why they were awarded a Nobel Prize.

You don't get to put this genie back in the bottle and go back to the Golden Days of yore. The AR 4 was the most recent climate science update. The AR4 was the UN IPCC's golden moment in asserting with a high degree of certainty the role of humanity in GW. The AR4 has been the impetus and driver for public opinion on the most recent Cap and Trade legislation and the standard for the cuts that were said to be necessary.

banyon
12-08-2009, 01:35 PM
Well, whatever you say. Thanks for the rep parade. It turns out that I'm not the only one who was amused by your logic tantrum.

Ah, the "I win the debate by rep points" fallacy.

I think you've created your own genre of new fallacy, congratulations.

KC native
12-08-2009, 01:46 PM
Ah, the "I win the debate by rep points" fallacy.

I think you've created your own genre of new fallacy, congratulations.

ROFL QFT

Taco John
12-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Ah, the "I win the debate by rep points" fallacy.

I think you've created your own genre of new fallacy, congratulations.

That's not how I won the debate. Rep points are just an effect. They're not the cause.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 01:49 PM
Banyon is a whiney lib

KC native
12-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Banyon is a whiney lib

Wow, intelligence is just oozing from this post.

banyon
12-08-2009, 01:52 PM
That's not how I won the debate. Rep points are just an effect. They're not the cause.

not only did you not win the debate, you didn't even participate in one by refusing to answer even the most basic beginning point for a debate, which I predicted that you wouldn't.


I expect no specific criteria or definition on point would be forthcoming from you in any event, so I assume further discussion would be a waste of everyone's time.

I think you've confused the Austrian school of debating with the Ostrichian school of debating.

banyon
12-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Banyon is a whiney lib

Thanks for your useless input.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 01:53 PM
Wow, intelligence is just oozing from this post.

You smell like banyons balls.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 01:53 PM
Thanks for your useless input.

Please, you've shown that you don't know what facism is. Then you go off on some liberal tangent that you heard on MSNBC.

KC native
12-08-2009, 01:54 PM
You smell like banyons balls.

ROFL Any other lame jokes? At least learn from Io-allicanmakearegayjokes-awainian, he at least puts colorful language in them. If you're going to be a one trick pony you should at least be good at that one trick.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 01:57 PM
ROFL Any other lame jokes? At least learn from Io-allicanmakearegayjokes-awainian, he at least puts colorful language in them. If you're going to be a one trick pony you should at least be good at that one trick.

Is that why you've now responded to 2 of my posts? I see you aren't playing with a full deck of cards ROFL

Taco John
12-08-2009, 01:58 PM
not only did you not win the debate, you didn't even participate in one by refusing to answer even the most basic beginning point for a debate, which I predicted that you wouldn't.



Banyon, who do you think was fooled by this? Anyone reading this could easily grasp that when the government replaces the will of the people with its own will, that's fascistic. Anyone can recognize that this satisfies what you were reaching for.

Either you just simply didnt' recognize it, or chose to ignore it hoping that you could manouver your way around it with confusion about authoratarianism - as though there's some significant difference between authoritarianism and fascism. What an embarassing argument for you. You lost the debate when you tried that one. Horrible.

KC native
12-08-2009, 01:58 PM
Is that why you've now responded to 2 of my posts? I see you aren't playing with a full deck of cards ROFL

No, I want you to keep digging which you are doing.

Calcountry
12-08-2009, 02:19 PM
They're skipping the democracy and going straight for the fascism.

Ooooh! I said the word fascism! There's a lot of people here who have no idea what fascism is, and will get their tail feathers ruffled over that one!LOL. It is always fun, when you are reduced to illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

ROFL

banyon
12-08-2009, 02:33 PM
You smell like banyons balls.

Taco, is this the guy that pos repped you over this? I don't know how much pride I'd take in that if I were you.

banyon
12-08-2009, 02:34 PM
Please, you've shown that you don't know what facism is. Then you go off on some liberal tangent that you heard on MSNBC.

Where did I show that? No one ever asked me to define it. They asked me if something was an example of it and I explained why it wasn't necessarily.

When you want to graduate from tee-ball let us know.

banyon
12-08-2009, 02:36 PM
Banyon, who do you think was fooled by this? Anyone reading this could easily grasp that when the government replaces the will of the people with its own will, that's fascistic. Anyone can recognize that this satisfies what you were reaching for.

anyone who doesn't care to pause and think about the words they are using, perhaps.

Either you just simply didnt' recognize it, or chose to ignore it hoping that you could manouver your way around it with confusion about authoratarianism - as though there's some significant difference between authoritarianism and fascism. What an embarassing argument for you. You lost the debate when you tried that one. Horrible.

You certainly do have confusion about authoritarianism being a subset of fascism and not vice versa. It wasn't embarassing for me, because you didn't even understand the point I was making, so we didn't get to the point of a real argument on that.

KCWolfman
12-08-2009, 02:36 PM
I like that the EPA is taking this over. Unlike the governmanet they are required to take reports from both the pro and con side based upon multiple sources. The EPA tends toward inaction if they are in the driver's seat. Better them taking in both sides of data than the government with their process of feeding one twin whe watching the other starve.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger
12-08-2009, 02:40 PM
If these congress people and Obama were upfront about their positions on GW (as in they are believers) and were voted in, how is it fascist?

RaiderH8r
12-08-2009, 02:49 PM
I like that the EPA is taking this over. Unlike the governmanet they are required to take reports from both the pro and con side based upon multiple sources. The EPA tends toward inaction if they are in the driver's seat. Better them taking in both sides of data than the government with their process of feeding one twin whe watching the other starve.
Posted via Mobile Device

The standards and levels set out in the CAA were not designed to deal with global GHGs, rather localized pollutants that could be measured in attainment areas. There are areas of the country that are perpetually in non-attainment which doesn't sound like much but it means no further development or expansion can occur in those areas. The CAA is a series of draconian and failed regulatory policies that don't accomplish cleaning the air while managing to handcuff economic development. It's the worst of all worlds and to allow such power over the emission of a naturally occuring molecule essential for life on the planet is absurd. EPA, in short, sucks. They don't protect shit and they make life hell for businesses.

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 03:06 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/Sx5WjwU6EII/AAAAAAAANBA/ssNLNJ8O_nI/s400/theo4.gif

banyon
12-08-2009, 03:54 PM
Cartoons, cut n pastes, and one liners.

Awesome. Great thread.

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Thats what you got from the thread?

banyon
12-08-2009, 03:59 PM
The standards and levels set out in the CAA were not designed to deal with global GHGs, rather localized pollutants that could be measured in attainment areas. There are areas of the country that are perpetually in non-attainment which doesn't sound like much but it means no further development or expansion can occur in those areas. The CAA is a series of draconian and failed regulatory policies that don't accomplish cleaning the air while managing to handcuff economic development. It's the worst of all worlds and to allow such power over the emission of a naturally occuring molecule essential for life on the planet is absurd. EPA, in short, sucks. They don't protect shit and they make life hell for businesses.

The CAA failed? Tell that to people who were breathing smog every day in LA in the 70's.

Also what businesses failed or had "life made hell" as as a result? The places where there isn't air quality control, how are the asthma/lung disease rates there? Do you really want to trade atmospheres with some of the places in China on the top of the list?

I agree that as a global problem the CAA is not the ideal framework in which to address the problem, that doesn't mean that I have to start yelling Hitler at the top of my lungs either though.

banyon
12-08-2009, 04:00 PM
Thats what you got from the thread?

No, that's just what you provided, in typical fashion. Others tried to discuss.

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 04:02 PM
so you really didnt read the thread. Just stopped in to say something that you find cute and make some shallow personal attack? Do you ever tire of it?

banyon
12-08-2009, 04:03 PM
If these congress people and Obama were upfront about their positions on GW (as in they are believers) and were voted in, how is it fascist?

Because it's not THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!

banyon
12-08-2009, 04:07 PM
so you really didnt read the thread. Just stopped in to say something that you find cute and make some shallow personal attack? Do you ever tire of it?

Yeah, i'm the one saying "out of control, bad deal for the O, obama mouthpiece, government a** sitters, they have no shame (for sticking with a nativity scene)" and I'm the one engaged in petty, personal attacks?

I've made plenty of comments in this thread that you could've engaged in discussion on, instead you chose to cut and paste and add cartoons. You are what you do.

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 04:30 PM
I chose not to get into the silly points you were involved in.

Banyon, I dont care if you understand the issue. You dont.

It was well laid out and you have at least two people in this thread who have a great deal of understanding of the EPA, the CAA, and how this has all come together. You chose to ignore the opportunity to understand by instead entering into petty little comments, personal asides, and some arguements that are all off the trail anyway. Is that something new or are you just that frustrated with the current state of events?

I know it may seem hard to believe but debating with someone who does not know the topic is not very entertaining nor productive. Whats more I know you think that your comments should always be responded to, its really not that way. You may feel thats harsh but fact is, you make so few points of value anymore its sort of sad.

KC native
12-08-2009, 04:32 PM
I chose not to get into the silly points you were involved in.

Banyon, I dont care if you understand the issue. You dont.

It was well laid out and you have at least two people in this thread who have a great deal of understanding of the EPA, the CAA, and how this has all come together. You chose to ignore the opportunity to understand by instead entering into petty little comments, personal asides, and some arguements that are all off the trail anyway. Is that something new or are you just that frustrated with the current state of events?

I know it may seem hard to believe but debating with someone who does not know the topic is not very entertaining nor productive. Whats more I know you think that your comments should always be responded to, its really not that way. You may feel thats harsh but fact is, you make so few points of value anymore its sort of sad.


ROFL Ah this is good.

banyon
12-08-2009, 05:01 PM
I chose not to get into the silly points you were involved in.

Banyon, I dont care if you understand the issue. You dont.

It was well laid out and you have at least two people in this thread who have a great deal of understanding of the EPA, the CAA, and how this has all come together. You chose to ignore the opportunity to understand by instead entering into petty little comments, personal asides, and some arguements that are all off the trail anyway. Is that something new or are you just that frustrated with the current state of events?

I know it may seem hard to believe but debating with someone who does not know the topic is not very entertaining nor productive. Whats more I know you think that your comments should always be responded to, its really not that way. You may feel thats harsh but fact is, you make so few points of value anymore its sort of sad.

LOL, like I said, I made any number of comments that other posters were able to engage with. They're all there for anyone to see, your blindness aside. Also it's not clear what you think it is I don't know or don't understand since you haven't even asked anything that could clarify either.

Also, I don't really give a crap whether you reply to me or not, but when you pretend as if you made some magnanimous effort to foster a productive discussion when it couldn't be further from the truth, then I'll point that out.

RaiderH8r
12-09-2009, 11:33 AM
The CAA failed? Tell that to people who were breathing smog every day in LA in the 70's.

Also what businesses failed or had "life made hell" as as a result? The places where there isn't air quality control, how are the asthma/lung disease rates there? Do you really want to trade atmospheres with some of the places in China on the top of the list?

I agree that as a global problem the CAA is not the ideal framework in which to address the problem, that doesn't mean that I have to start yelling Hitler at the top of my lungs either though.

The catalytic converter did that, not the CAA. The CAA did not invent the catalytic converter.

How many areas of the US are in non attainment? How many were in non attainment 10 years ago? The CAA has failed in its stated purpose and goals because it attempts to force square pegs into round holes. It is an archaic mish mash of regulatory avenues with corresponding state authority either through federal fiat or state statute that creates a gordian knot of regulatory craptitude. It has managed to not totally shit on our economic landscap by the simple fact that the CAA deals with localized pollutants with small ranges of dissipation, i.e. don't linger in the air for too long. CO2 and global ghgs do not fall into this category. We'll be using the CAA to regulate American businesses for emissions coming over from China, Russia, and India. This isn't just a bad idea it is damn near traitorous to sell out the American people like that against all interests that are American for a cause and purpose that is based on science that has been brought into serious question as to its validity and authenticity.

Again, the EPA makes this endangerment finding for the sole purpose of using the CAA to cajole, arm twist, and f' over the American public into supporting a scam of a Cap and Trade Bill by creating enough "pain" to make their robber baron tax bill preferable to the regulatory economic ass reaming of the EPA and the CAA. Period. End of f'ing story.

This endangerment finding was never intended by the CAA which is demonstrable if you read the debate about the CAA and the CAA Amendments of 1990. The CAA is ill equipped to handle such a regulatory scheme which is demonstrated by the fact that EPA is proposing the "tailoring" rule (exemption for under 25,000 tons/yr) for purposes of "administrative necessity" and to avoid "absurd results". And, by EPA's own admission they recognize the 25,000 ton exemption has no basis whatsoever in science or to serve the purpose of mitigating global warming but rather to address the two judicial caveats state above and allow them to use the CAA to regulate where it was never intended to in the first place.

How many times do you want me to flat wear you out over this issue? I'm happy to educate every other person on the board reading this thread if you're happy to continue serving as my whipping boy.

RaiderH8r
12-10-2009, 09:12 AM
So we're done with this? This thread wraps with a disjointed discussion on the very definitions of fascism and logic?

HonestChieffan
12-10-2009, 09:24 AM
The subject..EPA and its issues and how they work are pretty complex if you have not had some experience with it. Trying to explain in on here especially when you have to deal with the bunny trail BS that occurs is pretty difficult.

Royal Fanatic
12-10-2009, 09:25 AM
You are now conflating the "is" of predication with the "is" of identity.

So we're done with this? This thread wraps with a disjointed discussion on the very definitions of fascism and logic?

I thought the highlight of the thread was when Banyon basically said "That depends upon what your definition of 'is' is".

RaiderH8r
12-10-2009, 09:36 AM
I thought the highlight of the thread was when Banyon basically said "That depends upon what your definition of 'is' is".

Pretty anticlimactic. I guess I'll claim victory and go home.:D

Baby Lee
12-12-2009, 01:32 PM
The world misses Mr. Feynman

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

PornChief
12-12-2009, 01:55 PM
so your Obama fella couldn't get his cap and trade thing so he's got a cap with no trade one instead via the EPA? And some people actually believe CO2 is a 'pollutant'?