• 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!

Fox: Global Warming Shrinking Glaciers

Glitch said:
The Supreme Court further held that the EPA may not regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act unless they could demonstrate that these greenhouse gases "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Click to expand...

Which it does. Someone didn't bother to read the actual ruling....

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent … , including any physical, chemical, … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance.” Ibid. EPA’s reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants....

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Massachusetts v. EPA :: 549 U.S. 497 (2007) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

By the way: What you quoted there was the Clean Air Act, not the conclusion of the court. You do know that, right?


The EPA was unable to provide any evidence that greenhouse gases poses any danger to humanity, until Obama got elected President.
Click to expand...
:roll:

The SCOTUS ruling did find that GHGs not only posed a threat to specific states (like Massachusetts, thus giving those states standing), it also found that regulation of GHGs did fall under the aegis of the EPA.

There was no massive shift in conclusions about the harms of AGW that suddenly arose in 2009. In fact, by that point we'd had around 30 years of warnings from scientists that AGW was a serious issue, and the IPCC had already issued AR4 by that point.

In fact, when the challenges to the new CAFE standards made it to the SCOTUS, they refused to review the question of whether GHGs should be regulated by the EPA. E.g. in one case, they only examined whether the EPA's authority extended to small structures like malls, schools and apartment buildings.

Thanks, but no thanks, for yet more inaccurate claims. Better luck next time.
 
Glitch said:
What you gave me was left-wing Marxist propaganda that had absolutely nothing to do with science. You've been completely indoctrinated. It isn't any of those sources where I derive my information. I'm actually old enough to remember the entire history of this "Anthropogenic Climate Change" scam from day one. You may be able to bamboozle some teenager who is utterly clueless, but I'm 65 and I know better because I have experienced it first hand from the beginning.

Global Cooling, Global Warming, and/or Climate Change, are all nothing more than a very obvious leftist scam to massively expand the size and scope of government and to redistribute wealth. Why do you think only leftists are pushing this scam? If it was real, why is it only the extreme left can see it?

Dismissing information because it doesn't fit with your indoctrinated views is an excellent way to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

NASA is left wing Marxists propaganda? Skeptical Science? The Union of Concerned Scientists?

NASA - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH"

Skeptical Science - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH"

Union of Concerned Scientists - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: HIGH"

I gave you the skinny on the right wing echo chamber sources you linked to. If that isn't where you get your news, why did you link to them? And what about the authors of those pseudo science reports? Right wing oil company hacks, the lot of them.

And you come back with more pure bull****. Well, go ahead, stay stubbornly ignorant. Life's too short to argue with the likes of you. Have a nice fact-free life, dude.
 
Idiometer said:
NASA is left wing Marxists propaganda? Skeptical Science? The Union of Concerned Scientists?

NASA - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH"

Skeptical Science - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH"

Union of Concerned Scientists - Media Bias/Fact Check

"Factual Reporting: HIGH"

I gave you the skinny on the right wing echo chamber sources you linked to. If that isn't where you get your news, why did you link to them? And what about the authors of those pseudo science reports? Right wing oil company hacks, the lot of them.

And you come back with more pure bull****. Well, go ahead, stay stubbornly ignorant. Life's too short to argue with the likes of you. Have a nice fact-free life, dude.
Click to expand...

SS and UCS are strident advocacy sites.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][2][/SUP]


 
Visbek said:
The SCOTUS ruling did find that GHGs not only posed a threat to specific states (like Massachusetts, thus giving those states standing), it also found that regulation of GHGs did fall under the aegis of the EPA.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Supreme Court didn't find any threat whatsoever. Nor were they looking for one. The EPA could only regulate greenhouse gases if the EPA could demonstrate that these gases somehow posed a threat to humanity. Which the EPA could not do for almost two years, until after Obama was elected. Then the EPA committed its massive fraud and deliberately lied in order to assume control over something they should have absolutely no authority.

Visbek said:
There was no massive shift in conclusions about the harms of AGW that suddenly arose in 2009. In fact, by that point we'd had around 30 years of warnings from scientists that AGW was a serious issue, and the IPCC had already issued AR4 by that point.
Click to expand...
Actually, there was. Climate models based upon completely fictitious data began popping up. There were already numerous bad climate models, but Obama's EPA added even more in order to perpetrate their fraud. Not a single model of the 34 used by the EPA comes anywhere close to matching actual observations. They are all predicated on a deliberate lie, just like the anti-American left.
 
Idiometer said:
NASA is left wing Marxists propaganda?
Click to expand...
Since Obama was President, absolutely. I have proof that both NASA and NOAA altered their historical data (data that existed prior to 2009) after Obama was elected. Which means nothing coming out of government can be considered credible.

You are aware that your "media bias" site is an extremely biased anti-American leftist site, right? Why am I not surprised that you only cite anti-Americans? Don't look now, but your indoctrination is showing.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, the Supreme Court didn't find any threat whatsoever. Nor were they looking for one. The EPA could only regulate greenhouse gases if the EPA could demonstrate that these gases somehow posed a threat to humanity. Which the EPA could not do for almost two years, until after Obama was elected....
Click to expand...
Again: You are deeply and utterly wrong, and obviously haven't even skimmed the majority opinion.

• The 2007 ruling explicitly stated that the EPA had a legal obligation, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate carbon emissions. Seriously dude, I even quoted directly from the SCOTUS ruling. Again!

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent … , including any physical, chemical, … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance.”...

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
(emphasis added)
https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi.../supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/

Reading is fundamental. Yeesh.


• Guess what else the 2007 ruling said?

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. Indeed, the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years … .” NRC Report 16.

Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a “strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶15, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶28, at 218–219. He also observes that rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id., ¶¶23–25, at 216–217.
(emphasis added)

So first of all, you fundamentally fail to understand the dynamic of the 2007 case. The EPA, under Bush 43, refused to regulate tailpipe emissions. Numerous states sued to force the EPA to regulate. The SCOTUS accepted not the EPA's argument, but the states' argument and claims by scientific experts that climate change was serious, that GHGs should be regulated, that the EPA should regulate them.

Further, there was no court-mandated hold on the EPA between 2007 and 2009. No, what happened is that during that time, Bush 43 was in office, and did not want to tighten emissions standards. That didn't happen until Obama was sworn in, and a few months later he announced new CAFE standards. That sparked a second round of lawsuits -- which again, did NOT REVISIT THE ISSUE OF THE EPA'S LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GHGS AND TAILPIPE EMISSIONS.

In other words: Your understanding of the case, of the EPA's role, of Bush 43's role, of Obama's role, is absolutely and completely wrong.


• And for good measure, again: There were no major dramatic changes in climate science between 2007 and 2009.


Actually, there was. Climate models based upon completely fictitious data began popping up.
Click to expand...
Bull.

Prove your claim. Provide the following:
1) The models that suddenly appeared between 2007 and 2009 that showed a massive change in the predictions.
2) Explain exactly who produced the model, and based on what data.
3) Why no one in the climate science world noticed this, since the changes between say AR3 and AR5 predictions are not that big
4) The actual briefing where the EPA submitted those climate models to the SCOTUS

Or better yet: Stop lying about these cases, Obama and the EPA.
 
Glitch said:
Since Obama was President, absolutely. I have proof that both NASA and NOAA altered their historical data (data that existed prior to 2009) after Obama was elected.
Click to expand...
OK then. Show us the proof.
 
Visbek said:
OK then. Show us the proof.
Click to expand...

I already did. I can't help it if you can't read. Scroll back. I provided one of the actual climate models used by the EPA in 2009, and then demonstrated its deliberate fraud. You've also provided proof, with the graphs you've shown with NASA's and NOAA's "adjusted" surface temperature data prior to 2009.

When ideologues, like Obama, get involved then everything becomes questionable. NASA and NOAA these days are nothing more than propaganda tools of the anti-American left. Nothing they have published since 2009 can even be remotely considered credible. They have stopped pushing science and have started pushing anti-American leftist propaganda instead.
 
Glitch said:
I already did.
Click to expand...
Uh, dude? We're over 450 posts in this thread, and I didn't see it. Just point to the post.


You've also provided proof, with the graphs you've shown with NASA's and NOAA's "adjusted" surface temperature data prior to 2009.
Click to expand...
LOL

The graph I showed you (https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...ing-shrinking-glaciers-45.html#post1069991969) was NOT "2007 vs 2009 numbers." NOAA has applied those kinds of adjustments for years. What the graph showed is "raw data vs adjusted numbers." Since you completely whiffed on it, it shows almost no adjustments applied after 1940.

And again, almost all of the adjustments revised EARLIER TEMPERATURES UP, which means IT SHOWS **LESS** WARMING OVER TIME. Again, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want to do if you want to make global warming look worse than it really is.

Anyway, spare us the ideological nonsense. The facts are clear, and have been clear long before 2009. Climate is changing, global temperatures are rising, almost all of the increase since 1880 is due to human influences, and no amount of your inaccurate bloviation changes those facts.
 
Surface Detail said:
So your definition of a Marxist seems to be "anyone whose opinions I disagree with". Er, right.
Click to expand...

Anybody who's goal is to "destroy civil society in order to... well, we don't really care it's the destroy bit that we focus on."

Those sort. Traitors to humanity rather than Marxist might be a better set of words.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Anybody who's goal is to "destroy civil society in order to... well, we don't really care it's the destroy bit that we focus on."

Those sort. Traitors to humanity rather than Marxist might be a better set of words.
Click to expand...

Which of the board members are you quoting?
 
Surface Detail said:
Which of the board members are you quoting?
Click to expand...

I’ll just remind you that you’re arguing with a guy who thinks that his grasp of middle school arithmetic and ability to use Google Earth allows him to know more than most of the worlds expert glaciologists.
 
Threegoofs said:
I’ll just remind you that you’re arguing with a guy who thinks that his grasp of middle school arithmetic and ability to use Google Earth allows him to know more than most of the worlds expert glaciologists.
Click to expand...

I do not know more.

I do know they are lying. Just as you would if you were to think about it.
 
Visbek said:
Uh, dude? We're over 450 posts in this thread, and I didn't see it. Just point to the post.
Click to expand...
Since you like to insult people on a regular basis, you scroll back. I have absolutely no interest in helping you in any way.

The graph I showed you (https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...ing-shrinking-glaciers-45.html#post1069991969) was NOT "2007 vs 2009 numbers." NOAA has applied those kinds of adjustments for years. What the graph showed is "raw data vs adjusted numbers." Since you completely whiffed on it, it shows almost no adjustments applied after 1940.
Click to expand...
Yes, NOAA has been "adjusting" historical data for years. Since at least 2009. In accounting circles this is called "cooking the books," and it is illegal in the private sector, in government it is simply fraud. You cannot go back and change the data. If the recorded high temperature was 82°F on July 15, 1940 in Miami, FL, then it would be fraud to claim it was some other temperature on that day in that place.

Visbek said:
And again, almost all of the adjustments revised EARLIER TEMPERATURES UP, which means IT SHOWS **LESS** WARMING OVER TIME. Again, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want to do if you want to make global warming look worse than it really is.
Click to expand...
Any adjustment to historical data is fraud, and as you just acknowledged both NASA and NOAA are rife with fraud since Obama became President and had them manipulate the data to suit his Marxist anti-American agenda.

Visbek said:
Anyway, spare us the ideological nonsense. The facts are clear, and have been clear long before 2009. Climate is changing, global temperatures are rising...
Click to expand...
You were correct up to this point. Everything else was just pure anti-American leftist BS, as usual.
 
Glitch said:
Since you like to insult people on a regular basis, you scroll back. I have absolutely no interest in helping you in any way.

Yes, NOAA has been "adjusting" historical data for years. Since at least 2009. In accounting circles this is called "cooking the books," and it is illegal in the private sector, in government it is simply fraud. You cannot go back and change the data. If the recorded high temperature was 82°F on July 15, 1940 in Miami, FL, then it would be fraud to claim it was some other temperature on that day in that place.

Any adjustment to historical data is fraud, and as you just acknowledged both NASA and NOAA are rife with fraud since Obama became President and had them manipulate the data to suit his Marxist anti-American agenda.

You were correct up to this point. Everything else was just pure anti-American leftist BS, as usual.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the evil NOAA, with their worldwide temperature monitoring devices. They are nothing but part of the Conspiracy :roll:
 
Surface Detail said:
Don't be silly :roll: I obviously meant a link to the text you quoted: "destroy civil society in order to... well, we don't really care it's the destroy bit that we focus on." Or was that a "quote" that you simply made up?
Click to expand...

Given it was never, never presented as such, a quote but my take on the motivation of those who become Communists or Anarchists or now pretend to be concerned about the environment whilst all they propose is to destroy human society and gain power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom