Here is your f---in' "well regulated militia"
Jul 12, 2016 14:20:55 #
RobertJerl: The EPA was after refineries to put scrubbers on smoke stacks to reduce pollution by a certain % at each refinery. They were going to be very expensive to put in under the EPA timeline. Some people at one east coast refinery realized that the couplings for the pipes and hoses for pumping product into tanker trucks and ships were the source of about 90% of all pollution put out at their refinery and others. They got some engineers and machinists together and designed a fix that would stop almost all of that pollution, take only a few weeks and be much cheaper than the smoke scrubbers. Their solution would reduce pollution by multiples of the smoke scrubbers and then the scrubbers could be installed over a longer period for much less money. The EPA refused because their regs/laws said reduce the smoke, not the overall pollution.
Nagy: I have not read the book you cite, so I cannot contest the validity of this allegation. When I have chosen to, or had the time to investigate right wing claims, I have almost always found them to be distortions or outright lies. Let us grant the validity of this one based on my refusal to go into every cul de sac into which you point me. That still leaves severe problems with your thinking.
If we take it on face value, the EPA is still an important regulatory instrument, even if its bureaucratic rigidity can be tactically arbitrary, costly, and harmful. All you do is look for those arbitrary, costly, and harmful effects, while lying to yourself about the most basic truth: Without regulations the industry would not mind killing us all for its profits.
Additionally, most regulations are not oppressive, but minimalistic. The plutocracy and its corporations own both major parties. A majority of bills on every level of government are given to politicians in secret ALEC meetings, submitted to the appropriate legislative body verbatim, then passed by politicians bankrolled by industry.
Some regulations have to be in place to keep the public at bay. Others, for whatever reason, are as I said above, tactically, but not strategically oppressive to the industry. The plutocracy screams shrilly about these as it does about the alleged left wing media that is, ironically owned by right wing corporations. You scream along with them. Yes, you are a disgusting right wing corporate shill, Robert.
Nagy: I have not read the book you cite, so I cannot contest the validity of this allegation. When I have chosen to, or had the time to investigate right wing claims, I have almost always found them to be distortions or outright lies. Let us grant the validity of this one based on my refusal to go into every cul de sac into which you point me. That still leaves severe problems with your thinking.
If we take it on face value, the EPA is still an important regulatory instrument, even if its bureaucratic rigidity can be tactically arbitrary, costly, and harmful. All you do is look for those arbitrary, costly, and harmful effects, while lying to yourself about the most basic truth: Without regulations the industry would not mind killing us all for its profits.
Additionally, most regulations are not oppressive, but minimalistic. The plutocracy and its corporations own both major parties. A majority of bills on every level of government are given to politicians in secret ALEC meetings, submitted to the appropriate legislative body verbatim, then passed by politicians bankrolled by industry.
Some regulations have to be in place to keep the public at bay. Others, for whatever reason, are as I said above, tactically, but not strategically oppressive to the industry. The plutocracy screams shrilly about these as it does about the alleged left wing media that is, ironically owned by right wing corporations. You scream along with them. Yes, you are a disgusting right wing corporate shill, Robert.
Jul 12, 2016 14:26:45 #
RobertJerl: A scientist/engineer/pollution expert came up with a plan to reduce the overall pollution put out by cars that was much better than the regs/laws CA had enacted. And it targeted the worst of the pollution from cars, but would increase one of the minor factors the CA regs reduced. Over all the results would have been much better. CA said no because they were already committed to the other way.
Nagy: And what is your conclusion
1. bureaucratic inertia can be very stupid and harmful?
2. the industry itself may have suppressed the invention in order to assure the continued profit level of Big Oil?
3. faults in the regulatory system indicate the industry should be allowed to do whatever it wants?
4. your author might not have distorted the truth about the invention?
Nagy: And what is your conclusion
1. bureaucratic inertia can be very stupid and harmful?
2. the industry itself may have suppressed the invention in order to assure the continued profit level of Big Oil?
3. faults in the regulatory system indicate the industry should be allowed to do whatever it wants?
4. your author might not have distorted the truth about the invention?
Jul 12, 2016 14:28:18 #
PNagy wrote:
Zophman: The CDC has published these findings rega... (show quote)
Your skin must be so thin that if someone shined a flashlight up your ass you could light up Yankee Stadium. I find your smug and caustic personality offensive. You are an ass.
Jul 12, 2016 14:30:47 #
RobertJerl: An older factory had guard rails that were X inches high around some of their dangerous machinery. In several decades not one person had ever fallen over one of those railings. OSHA came up with a reg for standard railing heights for different types of machinery, the old rails were less than 1 inch shorter (remember, decades and no problems with falling over them), OSHA insisted that the factory shut down the production lines with any of those machines at once, tear out the old railings and put in railings less than an inch taller. Factory down for a fairly long period of time, workers on forced vacation and a lot of money spent. Not to mention the rise in prices of the product to customers during the period of scarcity caused by shutting down. They could have maintained production if they had done one machine at a time. All this for a falling problem that had never existed for decades.
Nagy: Gee, you find yet another bureaucratic act that oppressed industry. Have you found any that coddle it, like those that allow it to operate in the US, but ship profits offshore? Those that globalize the license of industry to practice “free market” principles, while preventing labor and markets from doing so?
Nagy: Gee, you find yet another bureaucratic act that oppressed industry. Have you found any that coddle it, like those that allow it to operate in the US, but ship profits offshore? Those that globalize the license of industry to practice “free market” principles, while preventing labor and markets from doing so?
Jul 12, 2016 14:30:58 #
As is your MO Naggy, come in on the tail end and beat a dead horse.
Certainly not worth another look. 
Certainly not worth another look. Jul 12, 2016 14:32:18 #
Keenan wrote:
There is no theory about a coming "mini ice a... (show quote)
I am undecided about the global climate issue. I am also very skeptical about your position especially since our current government is so involved in the matter. The purpose of my post was to offer additional information. Each person needs to decide their own position hopefully without undue influences from political positions as in your case.
Jul 12, 2016 14:35:10 #
RobertJerl: The ones I will pay attention to are the ones who say things like "we think this is true but..." or the famous "For every answer we find we get several new questions."
Nagy: You do a very hypocritical job of pretending to be scientific thinker, while rejecting science. There are some doubts about the effects of Sunspot activity on climate, but none about the effects of spilling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Litmus test for you, Robert: Please list all discoveries of science that do not contest Bronze Age myths, or corporate profits, but which you contest, because you are such an independent thinker.
Nagy: You do a very hypocritical job of pretending to be scientific thinker, while rejecting science. There are some doubts about the effects of Sunspot activity on climate, but none about the effects of spilling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Litmus test for you, Robert: Please list all discoveries of science that do not contest Bronze Age myths, or corporate profits, but which you contest, because you are such an independent thinker.
Jul 12, 2016 14:40:59 #
Nugut wrote: "You can't make a tree out of sawdust. "
But wood waste can make Ikea furniture.
But wood waste can make Ikea furniture.
Jul 12, 2016 14:41:12 #
RobertJerl: And at this time there is a lot of grant money available to only those willing to parrot the current PC Global Warming/Climate Change line. You want money for research (read an income) you toe the line or go get a job somewhere else.
Nagy: What sources can match the billions at the disposal of known climate denier funders, like the Kochs, and Big Oil?
What is the motive of politicians who enact environmental standards that are not needed, when that can only antagonize the oil industry, as well as others whose profits may be diminished by regulation? From where does all that false funding come? What is your proof that all federally funded projects require a global warming scare? You are spewing out world class nonsense.
Nagy: What sources can match the billions at the disposal of known climate denier funders, like the Kochs, and Big Oil?
What is the motive of politicians who enact environmental standards that are not needed, when that can only antagonize the oil industry, as well as others whose profits may be diminished by regulation? From where does all that false funding come? What is your proof that all federally funded projects require a global warming scare? You are spewing out world class nonsense.
Jul 12, 2016 14:46:03 #
RobertJErl: In the past the "vast majority" of scientists have believed a lot of things we now know were not only wrong but in many cases just the opposite of reality.
Nagy: Apparently the honesty of science bothers you. It is a self-correcting process more than a set of dogmas. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is being released into the atmosphere by humans at a very harmful rate. Since you deny the validity of the scientific process, why not also repudiate its gifts that you constantly use, like the computer on which you hammer out your stupid right wing swill?
Nagy: Apparently the honesty of science bothers you. It is a self-correcting process more than a set of dogmas. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is being released into the atmosphere by humans at a very harmful rate. Since you deny the validity of the scientific process, why not also repudiate its gifts that you constantly use, like the computer on which you hammer out your stupid right wing swill?
Jul 12, 2016 15:18:38 #
Jul 12, 2016 15:20:25 #
Blurry: I am attaching a graph Peter, maybe you can help me to understand why it is that the trajectory of the rate of increase between the very early 1900's and 1940 is pretty much the same as the trajectory of the line that would be drawn to describe the rate of increase between the late 1960's and 2000... Surely that so early in our industrial revolution we had not added so much CO2 into our atmosphere.... So if not natural, what was the cause?
Nagy: If we look at the entire graph, instead of just the period abut which you ask, my observations are:
1. From 1880 to 1920 there was no great increase, but a fluctuation of less than .75º C.
2. From 1920 to 1940 a steady increase of .5º C.
3. 1940 to 1980 a holding pattern with a fluctuation of less than .5º C.
4. After 1980 there has been a steep increase of about .7º C.
5. The period you are using to discredit global warming, 1920 to 1940, shows an increase of about .25º C till 1938, and a spike up to .5º C in 1940.
Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, and one of the most powerful ones. It was known before the alleged global warming conspiracy that it was the primary reason why Venus has a surface temperature of 900º F, instead of something that could support life. A small amount of it causes a greater increase in temperature than similar amounts of other greenhouse gases.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have been spewing it into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. There has been an alarming increase in the surface temperature of the earth that coincides with measured increases of carbon dioxide levels that are definitely due to industrial activity, but you and other fervent deniers pretend it could not possibly have anything to do with our activities.
You posted a graph from which the authors actually concluded that there is a consensus about global warming. Your own conclusion contradicts theirs, because you sought and think you have found an inconsistency about the rate at which the temperature increase is taking place. That is based on false assumptions.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not have to have an uninterrupted linear effect on climate for it to be incontrovertibly implicated in global warming. This is like assuming that substances in the body that are toxic in certain proportions must be toxic at any level, and that their toxicity is directly proportion to the amount of the substance present in the body. Some atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary, just as a person must have some iodine for his body to function properly. Both substances become toxic at at some point, although there is no one to one correspondence between their degree of presence and effect.
The inexactitude of their effects is due to other factors that affect climate and health. Some of these can attenuate or exacerbate the presence of iodine, just as substances in the air and other factors can and do affect climate. This includes volcanic activity, the degree to which the planet is covered with plants, possibly Sunspots, etc.
I do not recall stating that there are no other factors involved in the fluctuation of climate. It is severely illogical to use their existence to deny the effect of carbon dioxide, or that it is humans who are increasing it at alarming levels. That is tantamount to claiming that human activity can cause global warming only if there is no other cause of global warming.
The ultimate arbiter of Earth's climate, barring another huge astronomical collision, is the Sun. Eventually, it will at the very least, burn off Earth's atmosphere and boil away its oceans, killing all life here. None of this means that the present global warming is not primarily caused by man.
I have not studied this in the amount of detail to be able to give definitive answers on what factors accelerate anthropogenic global warming and which ones attenuate it during the period you singled out, and neither have you. You are just obliquely looking for what you think are holes in the consensus theory in order to discredit it. This hole, which you announced with mic-dropping confidence, is purely illusory.
Nagy: If we look at the entire graph, instead of just the period abut which you ask, my observations are:
1. From 1880 to 1920 there was no great increase, but a fluctuation of less than .75º C.
2. From 1920 to 1940 a steady increase of .5º C.
3. 1940 to 1980 a holding pattern with a fluctuation of less than .5º C.
4. After 1980 there has been a steep increase of about .7º C.
5. The period you are using to discredit global warming, 1920 to 1940, shows an increase of about .25º C till 1938, and a spike up to .5º C in 1940.
Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, and one of the most powerful ones. It was known before the alleged global warming conspiracy that it was the primary reason why Venus has a surface temperature of 900º F, instead of something that could support life. A small amount of it causes a greater increase in temperature than similar amounts of other greenhouse gases.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have been spewing it into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. There has been an alarming increase in the surface temperature of the earth that coincides with measured increases of carbon dioxide levels that are definitely due to industrial activity, but you and other fervent deniers pretend it could not possibly have anything to do with our activities.
You posted a graph from which the authors actually concluded that there is a consensus about global warming. Your own conclusion contradicts theirs, because you sought and think you have found an inconsistency about the rate at which the temperature increase is taking place. That is based on false assumptions.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not have to have an uninterrupted linear effect on climate for it to be incontrovertibly implicated in global warming. This is like assuming that substances in the body that are toxic in certain proportions must be toxic at any level, and that their toxicity is directly proportion to the amount of the substance present in the body. Some atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary, just as a person must have some iodine for his body to function properly. Both substances become toxic at at some point, although there is no one to one correspondence between their degree of presence and effect.
The inexactitude of their effects is due to other factors that affect climate and health. Some of these can attenuate or exacerbate the presence of iodine, just as substances in the air and other factors can and do affect climate. This includes volcanic activity, the degree to which the planet is covered with plants, possibly Sunspots, etc.
I do not recall stating that there are no other factors involved in the fluctuation of climate. It is severely illogical to use their existence to deny the effect of carbon dioxide, or that it is humans who are increasing it at alarming levels. That is tantamount to claiming that human activity can cause global warming only if there is no other cause of global warming.
The ultimate arbiter of Earth's climate, barring another huge astronomical collision, is the Sun. Eventually, it will at the very least, burn off Earth's atmosphere and boil away its oceans, killing all life here. None of this means that the present global warming is not primarily caused by man.
I have not studied this in the amount of detail to be able to give definitive answers on what factors accelerate anthropogenic global warming and which ones attenuate it during the period you singled out, and neither have you. You are just obliquely looking for what you think are holes in the consensus theory in order to discredit it. This hole, which you announced with mic-dropping confidence, is purely illusory.
Jul 12, 2016 15:31:04 #
Zophman: I am undecided about the global climate issue.
Nagy: Are you also undecided about the heliocentric theory?
Zophman: I am also very skeptical about your position especially since our current government is so involved in the matter. The purpose of my post was to offer additional information. Each person needs to decide their own position hopefully without undue influences from political positions as in your case.
Nagy: If your indecision or global warming denial by another term is due to scientific thinking, rather than political idiocy, please list all the other discoveries of science you deny, except for those that contradict Bronze Age myths, or indicate the need to attenuate corporate behavior.
Nagy: Are you also undecided about the heliocentric theory?
Zophman: I am also very skeptical about your position especially since our current government is so involved in the matter. The purpose of my post was to offer additional information. Each person needs to decide their own position hopefully without undue influences from political positions as in your case.
Nagy: If your indecision or global warming denial by another term is due to scientific thinking, rather than political idiocy, please list all the other discoveries of science you deny, except for those that contradict Bronze Age myths, or indicate the need to attenuate corporate behavior.
Jul 12, 2016 15:32:35 #
SonnyE: Nugut wrote: "You can't make a tree out of sawdust. "
But wood waste can make Ikea furniture.
Nagy: The thought was actually inspired by the existence or people like you, SonnyE.
But wood waste can make Ikea furniture.
Nagy: The thought was actually inspired by the existence or people like you, SonnyE.
Jul 12, 2016 15:36:45 #
Zophman: There is now the premise that we may be entering a "mini ice age" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) So are we going into "global warming" or "ice age"? And I am curious to learn of your qualifications to claim another person's belief in this highly controversial subject, that is contested by credible science, is, as you say, a "crackpot belief?"
Nagy: There is no credible science that is contesting the reality of anthropogenic global warming. If there were, scientific institutions around the world would not nearly unanimously endorse the theory, with not a single one of them dissenting. Yes, Mr. Zophman, you really are one of the crackpots.
Nagy: There is no credible science that is contesting the reality of anthropogenic global warming. If there were, scientific institutions around the world would not nearly unanimously endorse the theory, with not a single one of them dissenting. Yes, Mr. Zophman, you really are one of the crackpots.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.