• 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!

Frontline: War on the EPA

Russell797 said:
To much CO2 is a pollutant because it alters the chemical balance in nature. It acidifies the oceans and warms the planet. Both disruptive processes caused by mankind's activities.

You are not an expert on the subject therefore your opinion is meaningless to me.

To much water is a pollutant in your body. It will kill you.
Click to expand...

When the definition of "pollutant" is so broad then it encompasses all matter. You're making my point.
 
eohrnberger said:
All things with good reason and good measure. The EPA under Obama has clearly stepped far beyond good reason and good measure.
Click to expand...

The EPA does not and has not gone far enough. Not even close.. To be real and effective guardians of the environment we would end all pollution, stop all invasive species, clean up all polluted sites, stop overfishing the oceans and killing of the planet's mega fauna. We can't and we won't, but we should do the best we can, and that is not even close to being the case. Rampant human population growth alone has doomed biodiversity in this world..We pollute and suck the life blood out of the biosphere....We are a force of nature which is altering the very nature of life on this planet....geologists have given our era a new name....the Anthopocene.
 
Jack Hays said:
When the definition of "pollutant" is so broad then it encompasses all matter. You're making my point.
Click to expand...

It's a fact....Anything can be a pollutant....the definition entails anything which disrupts a functioning system. Anything....
 
Russell797 said:
It's a fact....Anything can be a pollutant....the definition entails anything which disrupts a functioning system. Anything....
Click to expand...

What the EPA did was make the definition so broad it is no longer a meaningful distinction, but rather an all-purpose political weapon to attack political adversaries.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Believe as you wish.

It sure would be nice if you could show me exactly what I disagree with from a peer reviewed paper.

I disagree with the pundits who lie about what the papers say. Not most of the scientists. there are only a small handful of scientists who have sold their souls to the lie.
Click to expand...

To some degree you are correct...most scientists are not studying climate....then again most scientists are not nuclear physicists either so only a relatively few scientists out of all scientist comprehensively understand that field. Or genetics, or cosmology, or quantum mechanics, oceanography or any speciality you care to mention.

I couldn't care less what a petroleum geologist thinks about AGW...any more than I care about what you think of it.

I have no idea what specifics you disagree with nor do I care. You don't know what you are talking about. Your only goal is to dispute "the science"....
 
Jack Hays said:
What the EPA did was make the definition so broad it is no longer a meaningful distinction, but rather an all-purpose political weapon to attack political adversaries.
Click to expand...

The EPA does not define what is a pollutant...

This from the American Heritage Dictionary:

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
 
Russell797 said:
The EPA does not define what is a pollutant...

This from the American Heritage Dictionary:

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
Click to expand...

Get it? Even waste heat can be a pollutant.
 
Russell797 said:
The EPA does not define what is a pollutant...

This from the American Heritage Dictionary:

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
Click to expand...

It was the EPA which declared atmospheric CO2 to be a pollutant.
 
Russell797 said:
The EPA does not and has not gone far enough. Not even close.. To be real and effective guardians of the environment we would end all pollution, stop all invasive species, clean up all polluted sites, stop overfishing the oceans and killing of the planet's mega fauna. We can't and we won't, but we should do the best we can, and that is not even close to being the case. Rampant human population growth alone has doomed biodiversity in this world..We pollute and suck the life blood out of the biosphere....We are a force of nature which is altering the very nature of life on this planet....geologists have given our era a new name....the Anthopocene.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Utopia Earth, just without humans. :roll:

By Supreme Court ruling, the EPA has indeed gone too far. I'm far more likely to take their opinion seriously far more so than yours.
 
Russell797 said:
What's this talk of "party" about? I'm talking about science not politics..You have brought politics into the discussion. What or who is the "party of science"....you mean because more Democrats agree with science than do Republicans? Well that's just a fact. The religious right is firmly grounded in conservative politics and it goes without saying that fundamentally religious people have issues with science.
Click to expand...

"Well that's just a fact."

In yours, and people of similar minds, only.
 
joG said:
Pass a law and the rest will be smooth sailing all the way.
Click to expand...

It is the law...it's called the Clean Air Act. The EPA is mandated by law to regulate pollution...that's it's function....CO2 is a pollutant in higher than naturally occurring concentrations.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was the EPA which declared atmospheric CO2 to be a pollutant.
Click to expand...

WRONG.


The Supreme Court found that CO2 qualifies as a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act. That act is the law of the land. Science ultimately defines what is a pollutant. The EPA is mandated to follow the law. Next you people will be going after the Clean Air Act...Mark my words.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I'm not the one trying to shout down an opposing view or deny an emerging new paradigm. The actions of the Obama EPA were consistent with the approach of the orthodox AGW advocates: attempt to end the discussion by fiat.
Click to expand...

You have no opposing scientific view which qualifies as a valid scientific argument. All you have is "I don't believe it". Galactic cosmic rays are not a new paradigm in climate science...an interesting side player if at all.
 
eohrnberger said:
:lamo

Utopia Earth, just without humans. :roll:

By Supreme Court ruling, the EPA has indeed gone too far. I'm far more likely to take their opinion seriously far more so than yours.
Click to expand...

It's not my opinion...The fact is that THE SUPREME COURT mandates the EPA to regulate CO2 since it is deem a pollutant by science according to THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
 
Russell797 said:
It's not my opinion...The fact is that THE SUPREME COURT mandates the EPA to regulate CO2 since it is deem a pollutant by science according to THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
Click to expand...

The EPA seemed to have very much over stepped its proper bounds during the Obama administration.

You can just see it.

  1. Court rules against EPA in case over coal job losses | TheHill

    thehill.com/...court-rules-against-epa-in-case-over-coal-job-losses
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not properly estimated the potential job losses in the coal and other industries affected by its regulations, a federal ...
  2. An Out-Of-Control EPA Loses Yet Another Court Case | …

    https://[B]www.investors.com[/B]/politics/commentary/an-out-of-control...
    When Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson decided to create a stock pond for horses and cattle on his 8-acre property, he did what any conscientious landowner would do.
  3. EPA loses court battle over coal job losses - Hot Air

    https://[B]hotair.com[/B]/archives/2016/10/18/epa-loses-court-battle-coal...
    It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally the Environmental Protection Agency loses a battle in court over the regulatory burden they place on the private sector ...
  4. EPA Loses In Court On Climate Rule | The Daily Caller

    dailycaller.com/2017/08/08/federal-court-rules-climate-change-is...
    Aug 08, 2017 · A federal court ruled against the EPA on Tuesday and struck down an Obama administration rule to reduce chemicals used in refrigerators and air ...
  5. EPA Loses at U.S. High Court on Power-Plant Emissions Rule

    https://[B]www.bloomberg.com[/B]/news/articles/2015-06-29/epa-loses-at-u...
    Jun 29, 2015 · The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration’s effort to limit toxic pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants, leaving the ...
  6. EPA Losses Shed Light on Supreme Court’s Blocking of ...

    https://[B]blogs.wsj.com[/B]/law/2016/02/10/epa-losses-shed-light-on...
    Feb 10, 2016 · Recent Supreme Court rulings against the Environmental Protection Agency may provide some understanding of the …
  7. Trump EPA loses court battle to cut air con pollutants

    www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/10/trump_epa_air_con
    French-owned Arkema and Mexican Mexichem successfully sued to thwart the one Obama-era climate policy Trump stands by
  8. Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution …

    thehill.com/.../246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule
    The court said the EPA did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you can't. But that's not the fault of the facts.
 
eohrnberger said:
The EPA seemed to have very much over stepped its proper bounds during the Obama administration.

You can just see it.



Well, maybe you can't. But that's not the fault of the facts.
Click to expand...

As a scientist it is not my job to consider costs. Science speaks to the physical impact of a substance in the case of a pollutant. If society can not or will not abide, physics couldn't care less. You have been warned, that's all we can do. Be informed by science in your decision making or ignore it. Your choice.

The EPA acts on the science...if you folks and conservative judges don't like it, then rescind the Clean Air Act.
 
Russell797 said:
As a scientist it is not my job to consider costs. Science speaks to the physical impact of a substance in the case of a pollutant. If society can not or will not abide, physics couldn't care less. You have been warned, that's all we can do. Be informed by science in your decision making or ignore it. Your choice.

The EPA acts on the science...if you folks and conservative judges don't like it, then rescind the Clean Air Act.
Click to expand...
Supreme Court would seem to disagree, that the EPA does need to take costs into consideration when making and enforcing public policy.

True. Science itself does not. But when applied to public policy, then yes.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
Supreme Court would seem to disagree, that the EPA does need to take costs into consideration when making and enforcing public policy.

True. Science itself does not. But when applied to public policy, then yes.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It always boils down to monetary consideration over all else doesn't it? That's why the natural world has for centuries been going to hell in a hand basket. That and simple ignorance, but ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Who decides the cost/benefit equation?

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44840.html
 
Russell797 said:
It always boils down to monetary consideration over all else doesn't it? That's why the natural world has for centuries been going to hell in a hand basket. That and simple ignorance, but ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Who decides the cost/benefit equation?

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44840.html
Click to expand...

"It always boils down to monetary consideration over all else"

No, but it needs to be a balance between "monetary consideration"s and environmental protection.

One can hope that there's a reasonable balance struck. During the Obama administration, it's pretty clear that it wasn't a reasonable balance which was struck, hence why so many of the EPA rulings and regulations ended up being struck down in court.
 
Russell797 said:
WRONG.


The Supreme Court found that CO2 qualifies as a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act. That act is the law of the land. Science ultimately defines what is a pollutant. The EPA is mandated to follow the law. Next you people will be going after the Clean Air Act...Mark my words.
Click to expand...

A narrow decision on new cars only. And I certainly hope the CAA will be amended.

US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant. ... But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting.Apr 3, 2007

[h=3]news: US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant - DieselNet[/h]https://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php



 
Russell797 said:
You have no opposing scientific view which qualifies as a valid scientific argument. All you have is "I don't believe it". Galactic cosmic rays are not a new paradigm in climate science...an interesting side player if at all.
Click to expand...

How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for ...

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way


By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015. Email · Share · Tweet. Nir Shaviv .... also advocated by John Bahcall, who for many years was a Faculty member here at the IAS.



 
Russell797 said:
You have no opposing scientific view which qualifies as a valid scientific argument. All you have is "I don't believe it". Galactic cosmic rays are not a new paradigm in climate science...an interesting side player if at all.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Cosmic rays, clouds and climate - Europhysics News[/h]https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2015/02/epn2015462p26.pdf
by H Svensmark - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 5 - ‎Related articles
COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS AND CLIMATE l Henrik Svensmark – hsv@space.dtu.dk – DOI: 10.1051/epn/2015204 l National Space Institute – Technical ...
 
Russell797 said:
WRONG.


The Supreme Court found that CO2 qualifies as a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act. That act is the law of the land. Science ultimately defines what is a pollutant. The EPA is mandated to follow the law. Next you people will be going after the Clean Air Act...Mark my words.
Click to expand...
Only because of a technicality. Lawyers are great finding loopholes in laws and regulations. That was never the intent of the Clean Air Act, and people holding on this way should be ashamed.

So... mankind pollutes the earth with around 37 gigatons of CO2 annually, while nature pollutes herself with about 770 gigatons annually.

OK...

Significance please?
 
Russell797 said:
It's not my opinion...The fact is that THE SUPREME COURT mandates the EPA to regulate CO2 since it is deem a pollutant by science according to THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that in the findings.

Link and quote please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom