• 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!

Big Changes Coming to US Climate & Environment Policy

RetiredUSN said:
Tell that to the EPA and BLM who pollute rivers and cause forest fires.
Click to expand...

Theirs were accidents, what businesses do are often intentional, BIG difference.
 
[h=2]Trump Victory: The Beginning of the End of Global Climate Scare[/h]
[h=3][/h][h=3]It doesn’t get better than this. Trump is one hundred percent skeptic, no pandering.[/h]Say goodbye to the fantasy that CO2 controls the planets thermostat.
Click to enlarge. See PDF for page 2.
​
Finally, a leader says No to refueling the Global Green Gravy Train. It will still take years to slow and unpack, because it is a pagan religion and a 1.5 Trillion Dollar industrial freight machine. But yesterday the gargantuan train split at a junction and the people stuck on Big-Green roller will be able to watch the other train take off as it dumps the dead-weight carbon truck with square wheels.
As Marc Morano says: “Trump is right on climate science and Trump rightly scares the hell out of the warmists.”
No wonder they are in tears. The two main weapons of carbon-believers are the free money from government treasure chests, and coercion through namecalling. Trump has control of the biggest treasure chest in the world and isn’t afraid of being called names.
Trump named Myron Ebell as his new “EPA Dismantler”.
“Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate-change skeptic, was chosen at the end of September to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s transition team…” – Newsweek
Ebell is a complete skeptic. I’ve met him at Heartland Climate Change conferences and he’s a good man. A great choice.
In May Trump offered up the Skeptics Christmas Wish List:
1) Trump pledged to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech -
2) Trump railed against “draconian climate rules” -
3) and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming.
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]InsideClimate News: In Trump, U.S. Puts a Climate Denier in Its Highest Office and All Climate Change Action in Limbo[/h]Guest post by David Middleton This is the best election aftermath I have ever seen… and I’ve been voting since 1977. This even tops 1980… In Trump, U.S. Puts a Climate Denier in Its Highest Office and All Climate Change Action in Limbo His anti-regulatory stances, support of unfettered fossil fuel production, and his threat…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...
What would be interesting is if research would be funded to actually try and validate CO2's climate sensitivity.
Most of the RFPs out they presuppose AGW is both real and will be catastrophic.
While many say the Science is over 100 years old, there is actually very little research on the subject,
of the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect.
 
Casper said:
Theirs were accidents, what businesses do are often intentional, BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Call it an accident if you wish, but it was due to incompetence. It was avoidable, and should have never occurred.
 
Every pro-environment policy has been met with disbelief and hostility from a decent group of people since the beginning of it's existence. Eventually, every time environmentalists inevitably win and gets their policy pushed through with great success, those that challenged it are left looking absolutely stupid and ridiculous for their beliefs and part in history. Trump's policies in regards to climate-change will be no different. It's not a matter of if this happens, it's a matter of when, and it may not happen in the next four years, but it will be soon.
 
thenotorious said:
Every pro-environment policy has been met with disbelief and hostility from a decent group of people since the beginning of it's existence. Eventually, every time environmentalists inevitably win and gets their policy pushed through with great success, those that challenged it are left looking absolutely stupid and ridiculous for their beliefs and part in history. Trump's policies in regards to climate-change will be no different. It's not a matter of if this happens, it's a matter of when, and it may not happen in the next four years, but it will be soon.
Click to expand...
What little I have read of it, it makes perfect sense.

It makes sense not to waste money or throw away jobs over unproven fears.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What little I have read of it, it makes perfect sense.

It makes sense not to waste money or throw away jobs over unproven fears.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of environmentalism, and it's effects is clearly not very good. The statistics don't support your own baseless fears of green policy. Jobs aren't thrown away, money isn't wasted, and climate change is sure as hell is not an unproven fear when 98% of scientists agree that it's real, and 2% agree that it's real and that it just isn't the fossil fuel corporations paying them off that is causing it.
 
thenotorious said:
Your understanding of environmentalism, and it's effects is clearly not very good.
Click to expand...
I undrstand such matter better than the average person. Including you, I would wager.

thenotorious said:
The statistics don't support your own baseless fears of green policy.
Click to expand...
Please show me a paper that says statistics make facts.

thenotorious said:
Jobs aren't thrown away, money isn't wasted, and climate change is sure as hell is not an unproven fear when 98% of scientists agree that it's real, and 2% agree that it's real and that it just isn't the fossil fuel corporations paying them off that is causing it.
Click to expand...
The laughable 97%/98% again.

Yes, 98% of the scientists agree AGW is real. So do I. Now when you assign a level of impact of the greenhouse gasses, or other factors, the 98% drops like a rock.

In a recent thread, I pointed out that the 98% in one study was because they selected papers only written by those publishing in alarmist materials!

More accurately, less than 37% (if I recall correctly) of the climate scientists will say AGW accounts for "most"of the warming we have seen since 1750.
 
thenotorious said:
Your understanding of environmentalism, and it's effects is clearly not very good. The statistics don't support your own baseless fears of green policy. Jobs aren't thrown away, money isn't wasted, and climate change is sure as hell is not an unproven fear when 98% of scientists agree that it's real, and 2% agree that it's real and that it just isn't the fossil fuel corporations paying them off that is causing it.
Click to expand...

Still using the 98% myth?

You are dressing down another poster for a lack of understanding, and by using a myth to prove it?

Classic!
 
Casper said:
Facts, but I know you do not want to acknowledge them.
Click to expand...
Actually your post is the exact accusation you attribute to me. I provided facts, you ignored them. :shrug:

Casper said:
I hope you are correct, and for the average Republican that is probably true, not so much their leaders once the money flows.
Click to expand...
THe money flows for Democrats the same way. Until you can face that "fact", I'm sure I'll be pointing out more partisan spew.
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump's win will turn US climate and environment policy upside down. The US will withdraw from the Paris agreement. Coal will be back in fashion and the EPA will be restrained. All those pipelines will get built. Alternative energy will have to survive on its own in the marketplace. Oil? Drill baby, drill!

Trump, climate and the future of the world

Posted on 09 Nov 16 by SCEPTICUS • 11 Comments
Some thoughts from the Cliscep team on this morning’s news. This post may expand and develop during the day. Paul: So, it’s happened again. The “experts” and the pollsters have got it wrong, just as they did with the UK election of 2015 and the Brexit vote in June. Probably the reasons are … Continue reading →

". . . In case anyone is wondering, no, I didn’t want Trump to win. But there is a certain Schadenfreude in the so-called experts being wrong again and in the over-the-top wailing and ranting that we will inevitably see today from the left. In his speech, Trump called for unity (and said some nice things about Hillary) but this is unlikely to be heeded.The climate policy consequences will be interesting of course. Trump has said he will pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement. . . ."
Click to expand...

Only the right prefers to sink costs with fossil fuels. Some on the left have been advocating for fusion (an energy with a future).
 
thenotorious said:
Every pro-environment policy has been met with disbelief and hostility from a decent group of people since the beginning of it's existence. Eventually, every time environmentalists inevitably win and gets their policy pushed through with great success, those that challenged it are left looking absolutely stupid and ridiculous for their beliefs and part in history. Trump's policies in regards to climate-change will be no different. It's not a matter of if this happens, it's a matter of when, and it may not happen in the next four years, but it will be soon.
Click to expand...

I challenge your claim. Environmental policy pushed by pro-environmentalist groups have more often than not been complete failures born of emotional appeal and void of scientific fact.

They end up harming the economy, lead to lost jobs, and have little impact on the environment.

Environmental Policies in principle can be beneficial to the country, but not those rammed down the throats of society by environmental zealots who run on pure emotionalism.
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump's win will turn US climate and environment policy upside down. The US will withdraw from the Paris agreement. Coal will be back in fashion and the EPA will be restrained. All those pipelines will get built. Alternative energy will have to survive on its own in the marketplace. Oil? Drill baby, drill!

Trump, climate and the future of the world

Posted on 09 Nov 16 by SCEPTICUS • 11 Comments
Some thoughts from the Cliscep team on this morning’s news. This post may expand and develop during the day. Paul: So, it’s happened again. The “experts” and the pollsters have got it wrong, just as they did with the UK election of 2015 and the Brexit vote in June. Probably the reasons are … Continue reading →

". . . In case anyone is wondering, no, I didn’t want Trump to win. But there is a certain Schadenfreude in the so-called experts being wrong again and in the over-the-top wailing and ranting that we will inevitably see today from the left. In his speech, Trump called for unity (and said some nice things about Hillary) but this is unlikely to be heeded.The climate policy consequences will be interesting of course. Trump has said he will pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement. . . ."
Click to expand...
I propose that, if there is a climate disaster in the future, today's Republicans and their descendants pay reparations to the Democrats. Let's put the money of deniers where their beliefs are.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm.

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River - NPR

2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill

I wonder. Did they fines themselves? And if so, as harshly as a business that did the same? I kinda doubt it.
They deserve to lose some of their budget to clean up this mess. Not just spread around bonuses and promotions, which is what government departments typically do for themselves (at the tax payer expense).
Click to expand...

Even better did anyone at the EPA get fired? Demoted? As far as I can tell the answer to both is "no". Yet, if you on your own property, cut down a tree in an area where say a particular frog lives, you would be criminally charged, hauled in front of a judge, fined and threatened by federal prosecutors for destroying a protected species habitat. If the EPA poisons miles worth of a pristine ecosystem, nothing happens. Where are the environmentalists protesting the EPA? Yeah.... that won't be happening.
 
Ockham said:
Even better did anyone at the EPA get fired? Demoted? As far as I can tell the answer to both is "no". Yet, if you on your own property, cut down a tree in an area where say a particular frog lives, you would be criminally charged, hauled in front of a judge, fined and threatened by federal prosecutors for destroying a protected species habitat. If the EPA poisons miles worth of a pristine ecosystem, nothing happens. Where are the environmentalists protesting the EPA? Yeah.... that won't be happening.
Click to expand...

Well, what did you expect from the political elite in the EPA and the rest of this government? Did you expect them to hold the political elites in the EPA accountable? :lamo
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, what did you expect from the political elite in the EPA and the rest of this government? Did you expect them to hold the political elites in the EPA accountable? :lamo
Click to expand...

I know I know... me expecting my own government to have any scrap of scruples or credibility is science fiction.... but it's nice to think that maybe one day. One day...
 
Camer☑n;1066532917 said:
I propose that, if there is a climate disaster in the future, today's Republicans and their descendants pay reparations to the Democrats. Let's put the money of deniers where their beliefs are.
Click to expand...

No problem, if Dems and their descendants agree to pay reparations for lost income and wealth sacrificed to silly policies designed to confront an imaginary danger.
 
Ockham said:
I know I know... me expecting my own government to have any scrap of scruples or credibility is science fiction.... but it's nice to think that maybe one day. One day...
Click to expand...
It'd take a huge, multi-administration effort to make that culture change stick.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
danielpalos said:
Only the right prefers to sink costs with fossil fuels. Some on the left have been advocating for fusion (an energy with a future).
Click to expand...

I once thought fusion would be here by now. Well, 20 years past my expectations for cold fusion, and I no longer believe I will see it in my lifetime.

Fossil fuels are cheaper that greener methods, but have been made far cleaner than the past without being overly expensive.

Looks like we are stuck with fossil fuels for a few decades to come.
 
ocean515 said:
I challenge your claim. Environmental policy pushed by pro-environmentalist groups have more often than not been complete failures born of emotional appeal and void of scientific fact.

They end up harming the economy, lead to lost jobs, and have little impact on the environment.

Environmental Policies in principle can be beneficial to the country, but not those rammed down the throats of society by environmental zealots who run on pure emotionalism.
Click to expand...

Oh so true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom