• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly 50 House Republicans offer bill to block EPA climate rules

Deuce said:
Legislation and regulation are not the same thing, in this case or any other. Similar in nature, yes, but they are two different things.
Click to expand...

In the legal world they can both send you to prison. So I would have to say that they are the same for all intents and purposes as the end result is exactly the same.

Deuce said:
As far as the three things you've listed, you haven't proven yourself right, it's not up to us to prove you wrong. You made some assumptions about the peer-review process that you've yet to support. You don't know why something might be granted a waiver, you just assumed they do it on spurious grounds. Potential incentive to possibly maybe be biased on peer-review does not mean biased peer review occurred. After all, you have a direct financial incentive to cheat on your taxes, but that could hardly be considered evidence that you've actually done it, right?
Click to expand...

So you see absolutely nothing wrong with them? That a government agency doesn't enforce proper peer review standards on things that they use to affect things on a national level?

That a government agency can waive though a paper that has not been peer reviewed without peer reviewing it? Only reason for such a policy that I can think is that they don't want people to know the proper facts. Which means that they will/can waive something through the process in order to further their own ends no matter what. Can you think of another logical proper reason?

That a government agency peer reviews it's own papers..in direct contradiction to what a peer review is suppose to be?

If I have to explain to you why those are wrong then I'm afraid you just would not understand. Perhaps Catawba can give it a try?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
So you see absolutely nothing wrong with them? That a government agency doesn't enforce proper peer review standards on things that they use to affect things on a national level?
Click to expand...
You have no idea whether or not the standards are proper.

That a government agency can waive though a paper that has not been peer reviewed without peer reviewing it? Only reason for such a policy that I can think is that they don't want people to know the proper facts. Which means that they will/can waive something through the process in order to further their own ends no matter what. Can you think of another logical proper reason?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the circumstances are and assuming those circumstances are suspect is something you've fabricated entirely without evidence.

Can I think of a reason? Of course.
1) The paper has already been peer reviewed.
2) The paper has already been peer reviewed by another journal and is merely being co-published by the EPA.
3) The paper is an update to a previous, already-peer-reviewed paper with already-established methodology.
4) The paper itself is a review of other papers.
5) The paper is an opinion/response/rebuttal and does not have anything to review.
 
 
Catawba said:
Are you trying to say that industry has voluntarily always put what's best for public health above bottom line profit? In this case in particular, the climate changes won't become readily apparent to everyone until after the current CEOs are dead, so they're off the hook. It will be our grandkids and great-grandkids that may suffer from our short-term gain funnel vision over conservation for the future.
Click to expand...

Maybe this will ease your mind a bit. It doesn't look like everyone believes that we are doomed if we don't pass a cap and trade bill.


EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
In the press release today, the EPA stated, “Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,” and that “GHGs are the primary driver of climate change.” When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.
 
Catawba said:
Nice of you to stop by, do you have some point you would like to make?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. Is this a private party? You should have put a do not disturb sign on the door.
 
Barbbtx said:
Maybe this will ease your mind a bit. It doesn't look like everyone believes that we are doomed if we don't pass a cap and trade bill.


EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
In the press release today, the EPA stated, “Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,” and that “GHGs are the primary driver of climate change.” When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.
Click to expand...

The heritage foundation is correct that Barack Obama's emision reductions for the future are not just difficult, but impossible.

However, the EPA does not determine its pollution limits based on presidental speachs, there is the whole rulemaking proscess for that. The correct limits on SO2 emisions will be determined during that time, and its anyone's guess what the SO2 emisions in that will be. But I am pretty sure that those limits will be a sane level that will not be as damaging for the economy.

Additionally, if members of congress accept this ruling and want to make it as efficent as possible, Republicans and Democrats should also get on board and pass a cap and trade bill that will take the place of any inneficent command and control tequniches that the EPA would do on their own.

Even if you or anyone else is skeptical of global warming (I only give global warming around a 6 out of 10 chance of being true or being as damaging as Al Gore says) simillar to the damamges of an atomic bomb going off in NYC it is essential that there is some precautiouns in case a more damaging scenario turns out to be true.

If the SO2 emisions limits are low to start with, and they are done with cap and trade, then that is the best way to minimize the risks and damages of global warming.
 
Barbbtx said:
Oh, I'm sorry. Is this a private party? You should have put a do not disturb sign on the door.
Click to expand...

I welcomed you when I said, nice of you to stop by, then I asked if you had something to add to the discussion. My question remains unanswered.
 
Deuce said:
You have no idea whether or not the standards are proper.
Click to expand...

Do you understand exactly what a "peer review" is? I'll give you a small hint....a peer review is NOT conducted by the person/group making the claim.

Deuce said:
You have no idea what the circumstances are and assuming those circumstances are suspect is something you've fabricated entirely without evidence.

Can I think of a reason? Of course.
1) The paper has already been peer reviewed.
2) The paper has already been peer reviewed by another journal and is merely being co-published by the EPA.
3) The paper is an update to a previous, already-peer-reviewed paper with already-established methodology.
4) The paper itself is a review of other papers.
5) The paper is an opinion/response/rebuttal and does not have anything to review.
Click to expand...

1: It was addressed seperately in the handbook. Why have a specific area talking specifically about waivers if such an aspect was already covered?

2: Read above.

3: If it is an update then it should also be peer reviewed. Mistakes happen, even when following an already existing format.

4: Depends on the type of review you are talking about. If it is a rebuttle type of review then refer to number 5 below. If it is just a shortened copy of what is in an already peer reviewed paper then it doesn't need a waiver as it is essentially just a summary.

5: If it is an opinion then the handbook does not apply. If it is a response, the handbook does not apply unless the response is a rebuttle in which case.... A rebuttle should be peer reviewed because the person doing the rebuttle can be wrong also. Part of any scientific process requires rebuttles and debate. Each side peer reviewing the other side until a concensus is made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom