Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Climate Change & The Environment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Climate Change & The Environment Discuss EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by ShivaTD The science is not partisan. Doing something about it is. Republicans are willing to sacrifice mankind ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:43 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,068
Thanks: 7,612
Thanked 6,402 Times in 3,887 Posts
Default Re: EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The science is not partisan. Doing something about it is. Republicans are willing to sacrifice mankind so that their financial supporters can profit from the destruction of mankind.

For example the Koch bothers make a lot of money off of coal and using the argument that 50,000 coal mining jobs are dependent upon the burning of coal the Republicans oppose regulations that have had nothing to do with the loss of jobs in the coal industry (Don't ask me why but the coal jobs have been lost to lower cost natural gas and no due to emission restrictions on coal).

Clean "green" technology is one of the fastest grown field in the private sector and it's expanding at 18% annually. Over 600,000 "green technology" jobs are predicted to be created in 2017 but those jobs don't benefit the Koch brothers.

So it's a puzzlement why the Republicans are opposing green technology and supporting the very limited coal industry unless it's about supporting the Koch brothers that dump hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican agendas every year.

But the science is not political. The polluting of the atmosphere with excess CO2 is causing global warming and the predictions that if left unchecked it will result in a catastrophic situation, including the early documentation of the 6th mass extinction of the species in the last 500 million years (that could threaten the extinction of mankind), is not being disputed scientifically.
Shiva, if the "green" sector is where the growth will be, then the Koch Bros, along with Soros and Buffet, will be on it like Trump on abandoned buildings. Profit opportunity is not partisan. 18% expansion is a profit opportunity.

The science is most certainly political. Climate grants go nearly 100% to liberal doomsday advocates. Any funding of the skeptics comes from private industry.

Regarding the 6th (that we think we know about) mass extinction, the last five occurred long before hominoids existed. Earth covered in ice, earth at very high temperatures, earth covered with CO2. Tropical forests where there are lakes. And even the shortest switches happened over thousands of years.

I do believe that humanoids will be become extinct at some point, or they will adapt to changing conditions. Nearly all species do. Or we will move to similar rocks elsewhere, which we will be able to do sooner than you think.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:10 AM
winston53660's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,219
Thanks: 1,852
Thanked 4,258 Times in 3,188 Posts
Default Re: EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Shiva, if the "green" sector is where the growth will be, then the Koch Bros, along with Soros and Buffet, will be on it like Trump on abandoned buildings. Profit opportunity is not partisan. 18% expansion is a profit opportunity.
.
One of every five dollars invested in the U.S. today targets sustainable investments. Not to be outdone, private capital is flowing there too. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and other tech titans recently committed $1 billion to launching a new, low carbon energy fund. Warren Buffett's company is busy investing in new solar and wind energy projects, including the world's largest solar plant. And 84 major corporations have pledged to source 100 percent of their energy from renewables going forward.

All of this investment activity may seem counterintuitive. After all, the incoming Trump administration has vowed to reverse environmental regulations, and his Cabinet is being packed with old-school fans of fossil fuels. Despite this, big global trends like climate change are hastening investment in technology solutions to environmental problems.

Many investors recognize this opportunity and are thinking "green" – as in the color of money. Investments targeting companies that are addressing environmental challenges with products or services have been shown to outperform the overall stock market. Academic studies have shown that companies with high environmental, social and governance ("ESG") standards have outperformed companies with low or no standards.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/warre...ommentary.html
__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:28 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,068
Thanks: 7,612
Thanked 6,402 Times in 3,887 Posts
Default Re: EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
One of every five dollars invested in the U.S. today targets sustainable investments. Not to be outdone, private capital is flowing there too. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and other tech titans recently committed $1 billion to launching a new, low carbon energy fund. Warren Buffett's company is busy investing in new solar and wind energy projects, including the world's largest solar plant. And 84 major corporations have pledged to source 100 percent of their energy from renewables going forward.

All of this investment activity may seem counterintuitive. After all, the incoming Trump administration has vowed to reverse environmental regulations, and his Cabinet is being packed with old-school fans of fossil fuels. Despite this, big global trends like climate change are hastening investment in technology solutions to environmental problems.

Many investors recognize this opportunity and are thinking "green" – as in the color of money. Investments targeting companies that are addressing environmental challenges with products or services have been shown to outperform the overall stock market. Academic studies have shown that companies with high environmental, social and governance ("ESG") standards have outperformed companies with low or no standards.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/warre...ommentary.html
Exactly my point. When there is profit to be made, people will make profits.

Shiva claims otherwise. It's just the Koch brothers intending to make coal profitable again, and it's just the Republicans benefiting.

As of now the profits flow from government subsidies. I don't know of a single green industry that would stand on its own. I have mixed feelings on that, but that's another thread.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-19-2017, 09:59 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,943
Thanks: 1,423
Thanked 2,110 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default Re: EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Then you, meaning the left wing doomsday climate grant getters should have an easy time making the rest of us look like the fools you think we are.

The first debate question should be where did the 97% figure come from.

Regarding those predictions. We're all still eating. The east coast is not under 10 feet of water. We're all still breathing. Had fish for dinner just last night. Polar bear populations are 6 times higher than 50 years ago. Ships are getting stuck in ice that wasn't supposed after 2016. Boulder, Co still gets its water from the Arapahoe Glacier. Those might be questions put forth in a debate.

I do agree with you, however, that these failed predictions are largely due to the basing doomsday predictions on models. Since the failure rate approaches the mythical 97% number, it might be wise to pass some of the grant money to the 3% and see if we can figure out what went wrong.
The science is not "left-wing" or "right-wing" and the predictions are based upon the science.

What failed predictions? The constant rise in global warming that's been predicted has been constantly documented. For example there was a so-called hiatus in the tropospheric temperature increases but measurements of increases in the ocean temperatures accounted for the continued increase in the global temperatures that matched the climate models.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the current Trump administration are being provided the ultimate forum for debate in the United States.

Juliana v. U.S.

Quote:
Youth filed their constitutional climate lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S., against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. Other plaintiffs in the case include world-renowned climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, serving as guardian for future generations and his granddaughter, and Earth Guardians, as an organizational plaintiff.

Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.

The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed. On April 8, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended the denial of their motions to dismiss., and U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin's recommendation, with the issuance of an historic *November 10, 2016 opinion and order*that denied the motions. When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order,*Judge *Aiken denied the Trump administration's motions*on June 8, 2017. The following day, the Trump administration filed a*petition for "writ of mandamus" to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking, again, to avert a trial.*The Ninth Circuit has not requested the parties to submit briefs on the government’s petition, and could deny it without doing so.

On June 28, 2017, Judge Coffin issued an order releasing the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case, and setting a trial date for February 5, 2018 before Judge Aiken at the U.S. District Court of Oregon in Eugene. Youth plaintiffs, now age 9 to 21, and their attorneys are now preparing for trial!
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken

In confirming the standing of the plaintiff's and ordering the case to proceed to trial U.S. District Judge Aiken included the following statement.

Quote:
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”

- U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/

Former NASA scientist James Hansen is the grandfather of one of the young plaintiff's in this lawsuit and a co-plaintiff to the lawsuit just released a study he and 14 other scientists completed that just completed the initial scientific peer review phase. This scientific report in addition to all of the other climate change science is highly supportive of the plaintiff's position.

Quote:
Former NASA scientist James Hansen, Kivlehan’s granddad as well as the “grandfather of global warming,”*published a paper*on Tuesday arguing that preventing catastrophic climate change requires far more drastic policy shifts than any government has taken so far.

“There’s a narrative out there that because of the Paris accord and because solar panels are becoming cheap, we’ve turned the corner on dealing with the climate problem,” Hansen said on a call with reporters. “In fact, what we show … is that the growth rate of these greenhouse gases is actually accelerating in the last several years, so not only do they continue to grow, they grow faster and faster.”

The research compared the currently projected warming of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, by the end of the century to the only slightly lower global temperatures during the Eemian, an interglacial period that ran from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that time, sea levels surged six to nine meters, or 19 to 30 feet.

At those levels,*modern coastal cities would easily be submerged.

To avoid such massive coastal flooding, Hansen argues that the current temperature rise needs to be capped at 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.7 degrees Celsius, through aggressive steps such as mass reforestation, widespread use of carbon sequestration technology and radical curtailing of fossil fuel production.

Hansen, who is also a plaintiff in the suit, has a long history of raising the alarm about global warming. He has become a sort of bogeyman among conservative skeptics who dismiss his warnings as “alarmist.”

"We will leave young people in the intractable situation in which climate change is occurring out of their control and costs of trying to maintain a livable planet may become too high to bear." Former NASA scientist James Hansen

But his latest report, which he produced with a team of 14 co-authors whose expertise ranges from paleoclimatology to carbon cycles, was tested by three different peer reviewers before being published by the European Geosciences Union.

“The paper should be judged on its scientific merits,” Hansen said. “This is hard science, and it’s been very severely put through the wringer to make sure everything is well justified and clear.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kids-suin...220330100.html

This lawsuit provides (anti-environmentalist) Scott Pruitt the ideal opportunity to debate the science as the EPA will obviously be the primary source of evidence in the DOJ's defense of the government. The case will not be determined by public opinion or political considerations but instead the decision by the court will be based exclusively upon the scientific evidence presented in court.

I can assure you that the scientific community welcomes this opportunity to debunk the pseudo-science that denies anthropogenic climate change and to provide the scientific evidence of the accuracy of the climate models that predict dire consequences for future generations if we don't do far more now to prevent it.

No politics, just the scientific facts, and yes it "alarmist" because the scientific facts are very alarming.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-19-2017, 01:04 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,068
Thanks: 7,612
Thanked 6,402 Times in 3,887 Posts
Default Re: EPA Head wants to debate C.C. on TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The science is not "left-wing" or "right-wing" and the predictions are based upon the science.

What failed predictions? The constant rise in global warming that's been predicted has been constantly documented. For example there was a so-called hiatus in the tropospheric temperature increases but measurements of increases in the ocean temperatures accounted for the continued increase in the global temperatures that matched the climate models.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the current Trump administration are being provided the ultimate forum for debate in the United States.

Juliana v. U.S.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken

In confirming the standing of the plaintiff's and ordering the case to proceed to trial U.S. District Judge Aiken included the following statement.


https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/

Former NASA scientist James Hansen is the grandfather of one of the young plaintiff's in this lawsuit and a co-plaintiff to the lawsuit just released a study he and 14 other scientists completed that just completed the initial scientific peer review phase. This scientific report in addition to all of the other climate change science is highly supportive of the plaintiff's position.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/kids-suin...220330100.html

This lawsuit provides (anti-environmentalist) Scott Pruitt the ideal opportunity to debate the science as the EPA will obviously be the primary source of evidence in the DOJ's defense of the government. The case will not be determined by public opinion or political considerations but instead the decision by the court will be based exclusively upon the scientific evidence presented in court.

I can assure you that the scientific community welcomes this opportunity to debunk the pseudo-science that denies anthropogenic climate change and to provide the scientific evidence of the accuracy of the climate models that predict dire consequences for future generations if we don't do far more now to prevent it.

No politics, just the scientific facts, and yes it "alarmist" because the scientific facts are very alarming.
The predictions fail. Miami is no more under water today than it was a hundred years ago. We still have ice. I took a breath just seconds ago. Had food for breakfast.

Average temperatures have risen .5 degrees over the past hundred years, .2 since 2000, and the rise over the past 3 years is measured in the hundredths. All well within the margin of error and well within the extremes of the past thousand years.

https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html

Science is not RW or LW, but the money to study it is. Virtually all the public grant money goes to LW pro warming researchers. The little money flowing to the so called deniers comes from private sources, and their research is promptly discounted by the 97% getting government funding as being in the control of evil corporations.

Again the question. If the believers are so sure of the results, why do they fear a public debate?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
debate, epa, head, wants

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0