Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global warming IS a hoax. That's why they renamed it to "climate change." A safely generic term that is nonetheless a hoax the way it's used. There's no question that the climate periodically changes. The question/argument is how much of that changes is natural environmental cycle and how much of it is human-caused.
That being said, no one is necessarily opposed to protecting the environment. But there are some differing viewpoints on how do to so, and who is best qualified to do so (feds, state, NGOs, etc etc).
I find it interesting that "environmentalists" who live in costal cities and environmentalists that live in ultra-rural areas (where "the environment" actually is) have such wildly differing viewpoints. THe former may want to listen to the latter some more.
Just remember that the Republican party of today is not what it has been in the past.
Neither party is the same as it was in the past. Except for New Mexico, which is a cultural thing, it's easy to see where the money in this nation is located since all the solid blue states are very wealthy states.
Global warming IS a hoax. That's why they renamed it to "climate change." A safely generic term that is nonetheless a hoax the way it's used. There's no question that the climate periodically changes. The question/argument is how much of that changes is natural environmental cycle and how much of it is human-caused.
That being said, no one is necessarily opposed to protecting the environment. But there are some differing viewpoints on how do to so, and who is best qualified to do so (feds, state, NGOs, etc etc).
I find it interesting that "environmentalists" who live in costal cities and environmentalists that live in ultra-rural areas (where "the environment" actually is) have such wildly differing viewpoints. THe former may want to listen to the latter some more.
Al Gore , the inventor of the internet and inventor of global warming , said he had to exaggerate in order to get the people's attention.
How do you keep the part of the EPA that helps fight pollution while also encouraging new environmentally green technology ?
By being logical. Right now it's an all-or-nothing. The left thinks the EPA should be responsible for EVERYTHING, with no regard to logic. Logic says you regulate what truly impacts the environment, while working with companies striving to improve on that. Lower costs, less regulation (which costs soooo much money, but doesn't have an affect, as the toxic mine dumps recently proved) and heavy fines when problems happen. Along with holding the EPA employees responsible if it proves that they had a hand in it. Which, again, is the case with the toxic mine dumps. Did any EPA employee get reprimanded? Fired? Jailed? That's a big no.
When the CA EPA bans cow farts, anyone with half a brain can tell that the environmentalists have gone overboard and need to be dialed back. The left's reaction is always "well, if the right wants changes, it means they want to do away with all of it". Not true.
The EPA regulates interstate pollution controls, so that pollution created in one state doesn't affect another state, and so that products created in one place (either in one state or out of our country) don't pollute in another state or in our country. It's the reason cars are cleaner now than they ever were, and why most cities no longer have bad smog days from automotive pollution. EPA requirements for power plant pollution affect neighboring states in a positive fashion and are why modern power plants are cleaner than they ever were. Dismantling the EPA will get rid of those types of regulations and possibly cause a return to days like this:
is that what you want? Because it sure sounds like it.
Why do lefties always go straight to "well, they want to dismantle it"? That's not the case. But there can be a balance. But the rate we're going, with environmental wackos controlling the narrative, and constantly going to the extreme, they WILL shut down those sources of energy. I guess it will be real clean then.
It was renamed climate change because the simple minded misunderstood it. "Well the winter this year was colder than I ever remember so..." As continues nowadays. But trying to get people to look at thinks in a nuanced, intelligent manner, rather than based on a political preconception --- good luck...
Narcissism leads to the concept that there is a massive coordinated international scientific conspiracy just directed at the US republican party.
Whilst some might consider that an international conspiracy consensus of scientists has already pushed us into la la land - its not that far fetched considering the other specious nonsense we deal with in this country. Like big pharma secretly has the "cure to cancer" (like its one disease...) but make too much money off chemo drugs to reveal it!
Every time science bumps up against political or religious preconceptions it gets a bloody nose. Clearly climate change is occurring - its the extent of the manmade contribution to it that is harder to figure out.
Entomologists, metallurgy scientists and geologists don't have to put up with this braindead crap all the time.
Can you tell me what the exact proper temperature of the earth should be? Thank you in advance.
The effective temperature of the earth is -21 degrees C. The actual average temperature across the entire surface of the planet is +15 C. The effective temperature is a constant value and has nothing to do with climate change, it is calculated from the energy absorbed and energy emitted by the earth. The actual temperature differs from the effective due to the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
Many people would prefer that the greenhouse effect not change; that is the essence of the AGW debate. If it doesn't change, than the "exact proper temperature" of the earth should be +15 C.
What can we do to prevent that ? It is my concern as well. Will they listen to the environmentalist lobbying?
Thankfully No. The EPA is a waste of space.
Environmental regulations have made things exponentially worse for the environment. I could provide a list, but believers of the government regulation and climate religion loathe actual facts.
The only reason our government cares about the environment is because it is profitable for someone to do so....whether its a manufacturer (solyndra), a lobbyist, etc - government intervention in our environment is nothing more than manufactured wealth transfers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
