Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The EPA mission

May 9, 2014

Once again on the editorial page of the Sun-Gazette is a piece whining about the federal EPA and its efforts to control green-house gasses, toxic metals and other pollutants spewed from fossil-fuele......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(68)

MonkeyWrench

May-13-14 11:11 AM

When folks like you stop playing "gotcha games" and come up with global game changers instead of diverting, inconsequential, totally useless suggestions about hipster lifestyle choices.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-12-14 8:44 PM

Monkeywrench,

You may not read this but my question is "when are you going to stop polluting and contributing to climate change?"

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-12-14 6:46 AM

Disagree? From your mouth to Mother Nature's ears. I hope you are right. But Mother Nature will not be swayed by our opinions. She will just respond to our actions. That's it for me on this thread.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-11-14 10:25 PM

Nobody ever called me a cockeyed optimist. Good night.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-11-14 10:24 PM

What is the acceptable level? I pray I am wrong and others who think differently are right. But I think we have surpassed the acceptable level already and are inexorably doubling down.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-11-14 10:22 PM

According to the peer reviewed climatological summaries I have seen, , we have gone from 280 parts C)@ concentration levels, past 350 parts to a 400 parts measure last year. That is the highest in millions of years. At these levels, irreparable damage has already been done to the planet If we continue to use fossil fuel at predicted levels over the next 100 years, concentration s will grow to the tipping point at which irreversible irreparable damage will have been done. There are tons of experts who say it is not too late...but I do not think we have the political will and the immense sacrificial spirit we need to meet the challenge.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-11-14 10:15 PM

Let me answer your question this way, Texas. Someone once said the stages of climate denial are:

• "Climate change is a hoax. • Climate change is for real, but humans have nothing to do with it. • Climate change is too expensive to fix, even though humans contribute to it. • Climate change may be much less expensive to fix compared to the future costs of inaction, but what’s the use of trying since China will continue to pollute anyway. • Climate change will someday become an unavoidable reason panic in all nations, but we have already passed the tipping point." Let me share my deepest fear my deepest fear with you. “ While many including our national and world leaders have gone through these stages of denial by rejecting the preponderance of scientific evidence nature has been busily at work. And you know what, I agree with your fifth step. It is too f…… late. Let me explain myself briefly.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-11-14 3:38 PM

"I'm interested in real choices not hypothetical ones. I'm inclined to ask "What now?" about a future within our power to change and not "What if" about choices in the past which I never really had." --Monkeywrench

++

I agree past is past and it is hard to go back in time to have a redo.

But unless you have a target or acceptable range you are trying to get to, how do you know if solutions are going to get you there? How do you measure improvements?

As you continue to fill you car with gasoline, you emit volital organic chemicals, as you drive, you generate CO2, as you heat your dwelling you add more emissions, as you buy clothing and eat food, additional pollution is generated, etc. What is the acceptable level?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Americium

May-11-14 12:16 PM

Firstly, John Christy was also a lead author of Chapter 2 of TAR, the chapter in question, so he is as culpable as any other lead author of its content. 

Secondly, the chapter did not misrepresent the temperature record of the past 1,000 years. At the time, arguably the paper by Mann and colleagues was indeed the "best estimate". In any case, Chapter 2 of the IPCC TAR included references to other reconstructions with citations and charts.

Thirdly, there have been two more IPCC reports since TAR and they present more recent research, which has refined knowledge with new data and multiple new temperature reconstructions, all of which lend support to earlier findings.

Check HotWhopper**** more detail and a view differing from Curry's.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-11-14 9:11 AM

"Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. – John Christy, in April 2011, testifying at the U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy.

John Christy has a unique perspective on how the hockey stick became the icon of the TAR – he served as a Lead Author (along with Michael Mann) on Chapter 2 Observed Climate Variability and Change." —Judith Curry

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-11-14 7:47 AM

Sorry, I'm interested in real choices not hypothetical ones. I'm inclined to ask "What now?" about a future within our power to change and not "What if" about choices in the past which I never really had.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-10-14 6:12 PM

MonkeyWrench, I am not a politician looking at public opinion polls.

I was wondering where in the spectrum of human impact to the earth you thought we should be. One end of the spectrum is living in primitive housing, boiling water with animal dung and average life expectancy of 40-50 yrs or the other is unbridled life of excess with materialism, no regard for the world/environment, maximum wastes of all variety, generate any chemical to enhance comfort and life expectancy, a disposal society, etc.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 3:37 PM

Peace. Tomorrow's Sunday. Please say a prayer for me. I need it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-10-14 3:20 PM

Tim, I wasn't addressing any "final arbitration" with any of my posts. I apologize for my remarks; I know you put thought into your beliefs.

There are many scientists who disagree vehemently with the climate change models and predictions. All I would ask is that we get a decent majority of citizens and legislators on board with new regulations and costs, admit that it will have little effect without China, India, etc on board, and do it through the Congress.

I fear that the administration will say the science is settled, act unilaterally through the EPA, and further cement divisiveness in the public.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 2:54 PM

It should not take a long time to answer that question, but it's Saturday and I can understand you have other things to do...or that you may be checking out the Breitbart of Federalist sites for an answer...but if you would have asked me I would have said the final arbiter is the virtual unanimous consensus of actively published and peer reviewed climatological reserchers and specialists who have concluded that man-made climate change is a reality...you know, those folks who you think have a worldwide conspiracy to liie tous about climate change. But, as you would say, what does "a typical parroting leftist hack" know. you know Ritty, you can always tell when someone is feeling insecure abut their position: They call those who have a different opinionnames. You might want to remember tha.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 2:40 PM

you said this:

"According to Pew, only 30% of those polled think AGW is happening. And Climate Change consistently ranks near the bottom of issues that poll respondents thought were issues that needed addressed. If AGW was so obviously true, you would at least have the support of your brainwashed base."

And this:

"Did the "97 percent" manipulate and cherry-pick data? Yes."

So if I was mistaken inthinking "polls are the final arbiter on climate issues" in your estimation...

What/ who is the final arbiter in your opinion?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-10-14 2:31 PM

"ok...polls are the final arbiter on climate issues"

Did I say that? Or did you? Does posting straw men and knocking them down feed your self-deluded notion of great intellect, especially when others can see that you are a typical parroting leftist hack? You bet it does.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 2:29 PM

Texas, why don't you adapt that last comment of yours and submit it as a print letter to the editor so that you can get a community reaction to your thoughts?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 2:12 PM

AND...each of you will have a n "Poor Victim Me" reason why I get articles published ( I submit them over and over again) and you don't get articles published (you don't submit and re-submit).

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 2:01 PM

I have read everything all of you have had to say about climate change, and I am left with this impression: none of you are capable of articulating and coherently defending ANY side of the argument on man made-climate change in the public forum outside of this protective cocoon of a chat room masquerading as a comment section. And none of you have the self-confidence to submit an article to the Gazette if you think you are up to making a sustained argument on whatever your convictions are on the subject. Please...one f you...prove me wrong.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 1:38 PM

Did the "97 percent" manipulate and cherry-pick data? Yes."

Ok people, trained in climatology who make a living throughout the world studying climate and publish in peer reviewed magazines are all lying to us.

Ok...as you wish. I have no argument against that opinion.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 1:36 PM

ok...polls are the final arbiter on climate issues

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

May-10-14 1:32 PM

According to Pew, only 30% (of folks in the US polled) of those polled think AGW is happening.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-10-14 1:04 PM

Monkeywrench,

Concerning my questions "Do you think that we ought to downsize the number of cows in the world that generate methane?

Should we all go back to primitive dwellings and use animal dung to fuel fires to cook our food?", I ask these questions to see how far you think we should go to decrease CO2 emissions.

The presence of mankind does generate CO2, creates nuclear wastes, has generated toxic chemicals, has polluted water, lead to acid rain, shows that trace amounts of birth control chemicals sterilize some aquatic life near discharges of city sanitary wastes, kills bats/birds with windmills, etc, etc. But we have found direct links in some cases and taken approaches as a society to diminish them.

Where isn't the spectrum should we be? It is not alarmism.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-10-14 12:52 PM

"All good questions. You seem to be a bright, inquisitive person...but in asking me to answer these questions...which I can but won't...you are coming across as a surprisingly dependent person. do your own research". --Monkeywrench

+++

I spent a couple of hour doing research on the questions that I asked in the first two paragraphs. To me they are important because they help valid/invalidate some of the data that ultimately goes into conclusions and analysis that people make.

A dozen years ago when some of the early global warming came out there were questions on the data set; some information at that time said historal temperatures were many time gathered near urban areas. As the cities expanded and more concrete/buildings were constructed and more trees/green were removed, the temperatures in those areas increased. I have looked for that article the last couple of years but could not find it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 68 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web