climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[Griever]

http://www.snopes.com/trump-taps-outspoken-climate-denier-to-oversee-epa-transition-team/

if it wasnt so sad it would be laughable

[GMDino]

Really no surprise.

Like I said on Facebook to someone:  If you voted for jobs and the economy you get the whole platform.

[BmorePat87]

Already plans to roll back a ton of regulations put in place to protect the environment. **** the planet.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-10-2016, 06:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Already plans to roll back a ton of regulations put in place to protect the environment. **** the planet.

If you have a badass enough economy, you can go back to pouring money into NASA. Then we can just give this planet the middle finger and go find a new one. Heck, Mars would probably be a lot nicer with some global warming. Lol

[SunsetBengal]

Good, the entire climate change notion is the biggest load of crap ever to be used to extort money from people. Back in the '70s, scientists were claiming the next ice age was coming. Then, it was "Global Warming", now that the warming trend has been in recession, they changed it to the all encompassing "Climate Change". Well, you know what? It's all cyclical, has very little to do with human behavior. Hell, one volcanic explosion emits a colossal amount of greenhouse gasses, much more than the sum total of Global output, many times over. It's been debunked that the hole in the ozone is actually the planet's "thermostat", it fluctuates to keep things in balance. The bit about the Earth flooding if the polar caps should melt, that one is really rich. To those that believe that, I have a small experiment for you. Fill a large glass with ice, next fill all of the remaining space with water, allow all of the ice to melt completely. Did the glass flood?

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Good, the entire climate change notion is the biggest load of crap ever to be used to extort money from people.  Back in the '70s, scientists were claiming the next ice age was coming.  Then, it was "Global Warming", now that the warming trend has been in recession, they changed it to the all encompassing "Climate Change".  Well, you know what?  It's all cyclical, has very little to do with human behavior.  Hell, one volcanic explosion emits a colossal amount of greenhouse gasses, much more than the sum total of Global output, many times over.  It's been debunked that the hole in the ozone is actually the planet's "thermostat", it fluctuates to keep things in balance.  The bit about the Earth flooding if the polar caps should melt, that one is really rich.  To those that believe that, I have a small experiment for you.  Fill a large glass with ice, next fill all of the remaining space with water, allow all of the ice to melt completely.  Did the glass flood?

It's just another swipe from the left and one I would dismiss. Scientists cannot agree on Global Warming, ect...But for some reason if you do not buy into global warming, you want to destroy the planet. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Good, the entire climate change notion is the biggest load of crap ever to be used to extort money from people.  Back in the '70s, scientists were claiming the next ice age was coming.  Then, it was "Global Warming", now that the warming trend has been in recession, they changed it to the all encompassing "Climate Change".  Well, you know what?  It's all cyclical, has very little to do with human behavior.  Hell, one volcanic explosion emits a colossal amount of greenhouse gasses, much more than the sum total of Global output, many times over.  It's been debunked that the hole in the ozone is actually the planet's "thermostat", it fluctuates to keep things in balance.  The bit about the Earth flooding if the polar caps should melt, that one is really rich.  To those that believe that, I have a small experiment for you.  Fill a large glass with ice, next fill all of the remaining space with water, allow all of the ice to melt completely.  Did the glass flood?

I'm not saying global warming is or isn't real, but your experiment is a little flawed. It would account for the ice floating in the ocean, not the ice on dry land. So in addition to what you suggested above, place a Popsicle stick across the top of the glass once it is filled with ice and water. Place more ice cubes on the Popsicle stick. Allow the ice to melt. The additional ice not in the water should cause the glass to overflow.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-10-2016, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's just another swipe from the left and one I would dismiss. Scientists cannot agree on Global Warming, ect...But for some reason if you do not buy into global warming, you want to destroy the planet. 

Well, part of what prompted my curt response was an article that I recently read, where they were attempting to blame rising sea levels in Miami on polar ice melting.

In among the many things I learned about in Surveying School, one of the things that was addressed were Earth's geothermal patterns.  There is this elevation reference that is commonly used in land surveying, called the geoid.  It is updated from time to time, to reflect shrinking and swelling in the Earth's crust.  The land plates on the surface of the Earth not only move horizontally, but they also move inward and outward..  Just seems odd that some of these "Climate Scientists" haven't ran across that bit of common knowledge..

[SunsetBengal]

(11-10-2016, 07:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not saying global warming is or isn't real, but your experiment is a little flawed. It would account for the ice floating in the ocean, not the ice on dry land. So in addition to what you suggested above, place a Popsicle stick across the top of the glass once it is filled with ice and water. Place more ice cubes on the Popsicle stick. Allow the ice to melt. The additional ice not in the water should cause the glass to overflow.

I get what you are saying, and I appreciate your corrective advice.  However, all of the Earth's ice isn't melting at some ultra fast rate, in fact it has been proven that as much ice that melts at one polar cap, that much freezes at the opposite one.  I'm sticking with geothermal shrinking and swelling to account for rising and ebbing mean sea levels.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Good, the entire climate change notion is the biggest load of crap ever to be used to extort money from people.  Back in the '70s, scientists were claiming the next ice age was coming.  Then, it was "Global Warming", now that the warming trend has been in recession, they changed it to the all encompassing "Climate Change".  Well, you know what?  It's all cyclical, has very little to do with human behavior.  Hell, one volcanic explosion emits a colossal amount of greenhouse gasses, much more than the sum total of Global output, many times over.  It's been debunked that the hole in the ozone is actually the planet's "thermostat", it fluctuates to keep things in balance.  The bit about the Earth flooding if the polar caps should melt, that one is really rich.  To those that believe that, I have a small experiment for you.  Fill a large glass with ice, next fill all of the remaining space with water, allow all of the ice to melt completely.  Did the glass flood?

I think humans do have some impact on it all, but it's the level of impact that I have doubts about. Plus yeah, the whole 70s ice age, and them global warming turning into climate change is a pretty funny thing to point at.

The planet naturally changes. 100,000 years ago (not that long in planetary age) the planet was in a legitimate ice age. From like 950-1250, there was what was called the Medieval Warm Period. From the 15th century to the 19th century, there was the Little Ice Age.

On the topic of your ice/glass thing, during the Jurassic Period, there were no ice caps.

I think all-in-all it's 90% BS, 10% something. It's clearly not good for the planet when we abuse it, but it is pretty goofy when people are using a 10, 20, 50, 100 year span as evidence when this planet is what, 4.5 billion years old? That's like me asking someone how they felt each second for 3 seconds and if they felt better or worse each time I asked, deciding that was proof and you needed to change your life and give me all your money so I could fix it.

People treat theories as scientific fact far too often. Remember, it was "scientifically proven" in the 30s that smoking was good for you, in the 70s that we were heading into an ice age, in the 90s that the planet would run out of oil, in 2000 that technology would universally fail, etc etc.

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:  The bit about the Earth flooding if the polar caps should melt, that one is really rich.  To those that believe that, I have a small experiment for you.  Fill a large glass with ice, next fill all of the remaining space with water, allow all of the ice to melt completely.  Did the glass flood?

You do know that ice caps are on land, right? In your "experiment", you're describing sea ice, not ice caps. A more accurate "experiment" would be to take your bowl and then have a bowl with just ice next to it. Once that ice melts, pour the water into the first bowl. Did it flood?

The answer will be yes. 

Edit: Jim got to it before me.

[Beaker]

Common sense escapes those who don't think that humans burning fossil fuels is having an impact on the planet's climate. There is no 'Scientists aren't sure, I know this because they don't all agree". The evidence is overwhelming....as is the common sense. I don't need to re-hash or post the evidence because those in denial will still say it isn't true. It is destined to be an issue in which people will finally realize it's always been true....after we have passed the tipping point.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-10-2016, 08:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: Common sense escapes those who don't think that humans burning fossil fuels is having an impact on the planet's climate. There is no 'Scientists aren't sure, I know this because they don't all agree". The evidence is overwhelming....as is the common sense. I don't need to re-hash or post the evidence because those in denial will still say it isn't true. It is destined to be an issue in which people will finally realize it's always been true....after we have passed the tipping point.

Oh, if you look like a certain animal, then you must also contain it's personality traits. That's Physiognomy.

And everyone knows the Sun rotates around the Earth, and if you sail too far East or West, you'll fall off.

Also 100% of doctors agree that you need to balance the good humors and bad humors in your body through bloodletting.

It's okay if you have a mental health issue, just hook yourself up to these here wires and in a couple short shock therapy sessions, you'll be cured!

Who needs to clean your tools, it's not like there's microscopic things living on them that'll cause your wounds to get infected or anything.

Birth defects are caused by the mother having negative feelings during pregnancy. Maternal Impression.

Everyone is born with a blank slate personality-wise, there's no built-in traits.

The universe is a static size, it doesn't shrink or expand. (That one was Einstein.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

Science is always infallible and people who think otherwise are idiots... until it isn't and they aren't. That's why they call them THEORIES. Climate Change isn't a law. I'm willing to believe there may be some truth to it, but don't you think it'd odd that you're not willing to even consider they are wrong?


Questioning things is the very basis of science. Questioning things where ridiculously huge sums of money are involved is the very basis of common sense.

[hollodero]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Good, the entire climate change notion is the biggest load of crap ever to be used to extort money from people.  Back in the '70s, scientists were claiming the next ice age was coming.  Then, it was "Global Warming", now that the warming trend has been in recession, they changed it to the all encompassing "Climate Change".  Well, you know what?  It's all cyclical, has very little to do with human behavior.  Hell, one volcanic explosion emits a colossal amount of greenhouse gasses, much more than the sum total of Global output, many times over. 

...and it was a republican strategist called Frank Luntz who changed the name. Not the climate conspiracy.

...and the dramatically rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are proven, as is the fact that this increase stems from fossile fuels. Doubt is always a welcome part of the conversation, but not when it's doubting facts. The CO2 levels are not a theory, they are a proven fact that have nothing to do with volcanoes. Volcanoes only amount to around 1% of the CO2 humankind blows into the atmosphere. Not more. 

[CKwi88]

Anyone surprised?

"It's freezing and snowing in New York, we need global warming"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."



"Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!"



"Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!"


Donald J Trump

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-11-2016, 12:41 AM)hollodero Wrote:

...and it was a republican strategist called Frank Luntz who changed the name. Not the climate conspiracy.

...and the dramatically rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are proven, as is the fact that this increase stems from fossile fuels. Doubt is always a welcome part of the conversation, but not when it's doubting facts. The CO2 levels are not a theory, they are a proven fact that have nothing to do with volcanoes. Volcanoes only amount to around 1% of the CO2 humankind blows into the atmosphere. Not more. 

That graph just goes back to my point that it's using a 40 year sample size... for a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. It's like zooming in on 1/10,000th of a single slice of pepperoni to determine how flat an entire pizza is.

40 years is 0.00000089% of Earth's history.  (Provided I did my math right there.)

There just aren't any reliably large enough sample sizes of data to conclude it's anything other than a theory right now. Humans are always stuck on thinking of short term time scales because to a person, 100 years is a long time. To the Earth, 100 years is pretty much nothing.

[NATI BENGALS]

Yea. Hell. Humans dont impact shit. Hunt and fish all you want. Dumb ass math and science that says stuff goes extinct and we little humans have no impact is libtard stuff.

Greenhouse gas is a funny word made up by the elite who dont like my truck. Who cares about the images from space that are time lapsed and show the melting ice. Bunch of hippy astronauts making shit up. Carbonic acid causing a ph rise in the ocean? Liberal hippy shit. Did the bible say it? Yea thats what i thought.

Bunch of ******** thinking "environmental protection" is for the greater good. What a scam. If it werent for humans pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning it, it would be the cows or deer or some other animal doing it. Just because there are billions of us doing it doesnt mean anything.

Im going to go shut my windows and burn some tires to heat my place up (fake ass climate change it was like 60° today freezing in November) and relax with a nice big glass of ohio river water. Dumb ass science trying to tell me what to do. We true patriots know better.

[hollodero]

(11-11-2016, 01:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graph just goes back to my point that it's using a 40 year sample size... for a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. It's like zooming in on 1/10,000th of a single slice of pepperoni to determine how flat an entire pizza is.

40 years is 0.00000089% of Earth's history.  (Provided I did my math right there.)

There just aren't any reliably large enough sample sizes of data to conclude it's anything other than a theory right now. Humans are always stuck on thinking of short term time scales because to a person, 100 years is a long time. To the Earth, 100 years is pretty much nothing.

Well, at some point in the debate facts turn into theories, that is correct. When scientists turn to predictions, there is a grain of salt, as in all honesty they can just talk about probabilities here.
But it's not like they would warn of the danger of invading space dragons. The danger of climate change is not just invented and pulled out of some asses, it has a very real foundation.

There might be a chance that predictions are exaggerated. But after all, you rationally have to admit there is a chance that they are not. After all, these come from people who have a much higher expertise than we do, and our everyday logic like your pizza one might really apply only up to some point. There ARE major changes in our CO2 concentration in a short period, it IS a human-induced one, there IS a global warming trend, there is the melting of glaciers, the sea level rise, there are a lot of real warning signs. And a lot of possible amplifying effects like a melting tundra or a lessened earth albedo. These are not just stupid arguments, but legitime possibilities. And I think it's not wise to ignore all them and take your chances with the probability the models of the scientists are wrong and these things are just natural or coincidental. It's an unjustifiable risk at this point, based on the facts that are there; and the models and predictions that were developed with - and that I believe - an open, scientific mind.

Only a few "believers" are all certain what exactly will happen. It's the doubters who are. They are certain - have to be - that there is no global risk. And I think that is not sustainable.

(And arguments like the volcano one are just bad arguments, refuted a thousand times now.)

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-11-2016, 01:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graph just goes back to my point that it's using a 40 year sample size... for a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. It's like zooming in on 1/10,000th of a single slice of pepperoni to determine how flat an entire pizza is.

40 years is 0.00000089% of Earth's history.  (Provided I did my math right there.)

There just aren't any reliably large enough sample sizes of data to conclude it's anything other than a theory right now. Humans are always stuck on thinking of short term time scales because to a person, 100 years is a long time. To the Earth, 100 years is pretty much nothing.

Wellhellyea jimmybob. Tellem. Them earthquakes that look like they were caused by frakin are all part of a normal sample size. We little tiny baby humans cant have an impact on anything. Back when we were measuring temperatures in the early 900s we saw the same exact pattern at least i think that is what the clay tablets said. No idea why people are freaking out now that we have a better understanding of science.

Its like hell ya know timmybobs house burnt down but just 10 years ago timmybob had a nice house. 10 years aint shit. 10 years aint shit to timmybobs family they will be alright. Just because it burnt down now dont mean it will always be burnt down. Because it was never burnt down before. Bunch of libtards with their science books.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-11-2016, 01:55 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wellhellyea jimmybob. Tellem. Them earthquakes that look like they were caused by frakin are all part of a normal sample size. We little tiny baby humans cant have an impact on anything. Back when we were measuring temperatures in the early 900s we saw the same exact pattern at least i think that is what the clay tablets said. No idea why people are freaking out now that we have a better understanding of science.

Its like hell ya know timmybobs house burnt down but just 10 years ago timmybob had a nice house. 10 years aint shit. 10 years aint shit to timmybobs family they will be alright. Just because it burnt down now dont mean it will always be burnt down. Because it was never burnt down before. Bunch of libtards with their science books.

Sorry , too much whiskey. USMC Bday