Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules (Page 7): I am shocked that you have even heard of Thomas Paine. He was an English born convert to American...

son of witless

Barracuda2020 wrote:

To you also...
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”-Thomas Paine

I am shocked that you have even heard of Thomas Paine. He was an English born convert to American Independence around the time of the American Revolution. I do not agree with everything he ever wrote, but a lot of it was very good. I am shocked further still that you would quote him. He was not a big government type, which I believe you are.

Here is one of his quotes that I agree with. " Government, even in it's best state is but a necessary evil, in it's worst state an intolerable one. "

American Vet

Barracuda2020 wrote:

Bullcrap, talking to you is pointless, anyone with a lick of sense stops arguing with an i***t who lacks all reasoning ability.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”-Thomas Paine

So you have nothing but insults.

Thank you

newbear Loc: New York City

American Vet wrote:

So you have nothing but insults.

Thank you

American Vet,

what did you expect?

I read the whole thread just to enjoy myself, so predictable. But I would not dream of ever joining it because of my lack of a cosmic view.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

Barracuda2020 wrote:

Your IQ us below reason. This will be my last attempt with you on this, as you've proven it to be pointless.
No one on the left has EVER said we don't need C02, because of course, we do any i***t knows that, it is our thermal blanket to the outer space. But there has to maintain a certain Balance to support life on earth for us as we know it, and not for example dinosaurs that lived in a much different environment. Their oxygen levels hovered between 10 and 15 percent -- far below today's 21 percent, we ould not function well or for long with half the amount of oxygen we are getting now, and O2 has already decreased.

It's called atmospheric mixing alone with the different layers of the atmospheres creating changes in molecular structures.

Atmospheric mixing is really rather effective, so the relative concentrations of carbon dioxide changes relatively slowly with altitude.

However, carbon dioxide near ground level is at a temperature that is very similar to that of the ground beneath it. The consequence is that carbon dioxide near that ground emits a similar amount of infra-red to the infra-red that it absorbs. Indeed, I would expect it to emit more infra-red radiation than it absorbs, as it radiates in all directions but it does not receive a proportional amount from above. I’m not an expert, but on a purely physics basis I would expect that ground-level CO2 would tend to cause (very modest) cooling.

However, gases that are at higher altitudes are cooler, and carbon-dioxide absorbs and emits best at slightly shorter wavelengths than the emission peak of the ground. The peak wavelength for emission increases with temperature, and the emission rates reduce rapidly beyond this peak.
Clearly, the colder carbon-dioxide at higher altitudes will give out much less radiant heat than the CO2 that is nearer the ground. It will, however, absorb almost the same amount. Some of the radiant heat that would otherwise be lost to space is absorbed before it leaves the atmosphere; this heats up the carbon dioxide. Over time the high altitude CO2 will t***sfer some of this additional heat to the ground* via a mix of thermal conduction and convection.
CO2 that is high in the atmosphere, therefore, causes g****l w*****g**.
The description as a “layer” is purely because of the localization of the temperature and thus the effect, not the localization of the CO2. This loose usage can, as you have demonstrated, confuse those who are not close enough to the immediate topic.

Ok Got it. That's it for you and me Mr Brawny, AKA musclehead.

Your IQ us below reason. This will be my last atte... (show quote)

Did you find that in Al Gores manifesto? lol
You failed to see that every time it rains 90% of the CO2 is washed out of the air and ends up in the sea
where it turns into hydro methane down on the sea bed.
You are way below my IQ mac.

Cuda2020

Capt-jack wrote:

Did you find that in Al Gores manifesto? lol
You failed to see that every time it rains 90% of the CO2 is washed out of the air and ends up in the sea
where it turns into hydro methane down on the sea bed.
You are way below my IQ mac.

HAhahah now that is funny Capt musclehead. Yes, let's see if you can grasp this, it does go into the sea, which it then escapes through evaporation and is released back into the air, and when it goes up into the upper outer atmospheres it causes a greenhouse effect. It's not only about Co2, it's also about the other toxins being spewed along with Co2. I guess you'd be happy where we're all living in a polluted bubble like china wearing masks 24/7. Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by 30 percent, while average global temperatures have climbed about 0.5°C.

At the same time ironically there is a dual-action involved. You see has the world heats up more evaporation occurs, from everywhere, including plant life, this evaporation can increase cloud coverage, blocking the sun's rays, and helps keep the planet cool...temporarily. The earth has an indelible way of trying to keep in balance, and we, are screwing it up, no if's and or but's. It comes down to us being responsible for what we do, don't you think it's time to stop kicking the can down the road to our children and children's children, like we've had handed to us?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Barack Obama had other goals for NASA, such as studying the so-called problem of man made g****l w*****g.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/nasa/

https://humanevents.com/2011/07/26/nasas-new-mission-boost-the-muslim-worlds-selfesteem/

Liberals like former President Obama did not want astronauts reaching for the stars, they wanted rocket scientists to place their focus on Planet Earth, studying global temperatures and producing research that would support their g***n e****y initiatives.

There is no way to know how many of the NASA appointments made during Obama's eight years in office are now functioning in "deep state" positions still pushing biased research on the supposed dangers of CO2.

Incredibly, President Obama’s other primary mission for NASA was to reach out to the Muslim world. In 2010, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told Al Jazeera television that President Obama gave him three primary tasks:
1) encourage children to learn about math and science,
2) improve relations with foreign nations
and “perhaps foremost, he wanted him to find a way to
3) reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”

To be fair, science is Not a consensus activity and many scientists do not agree with the statements by NASA that are quoted and requoted nine times out of ten on internet reports concerning CO2.

The once-majestic U.S. enterprise that put the first man on the moon, was reduced to g****l w*****g study and international outreach on behave of Islam, under the Presidency of Barack Obama, a deplorable fall from grace.

As a government entity, NASA is a politically-influenced organization. This is not a knock on the quality of their science per se. However, their statements go far beyond what has been conclusively proven or even knowable.

Claims that go beyond science or fail to admit to the many uncertainties are not scientific, unfortunately, climate science has become the most politicized area of science.

In fact, many scientists more honestly say that while CO2 and average global temperatures have been observed to be rising in recent decades, the degree to which this is due to activities of man versus natural variations are NOT known with the certainty that such absolute statements attempt to imply.

Even less certain is the correlation, IF any, with storms, droughts, floods and fires becoming more or less severe. NASA's claims are predictions based on models, and are NOT proven facts.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour at 95% and human emissions of CO2 are imperceptible as only 0.117% of total alleged greenhouse effect.

Not only is CO2 only a trace gas measured in ppm, it is also not spread evenly around the earth’s atmosphere. The evidence of patchy distribution illustrates the impossibility of greenhouse trapping heat. CO2 is not evenly distributed.

It is an impossibility that such a minute gas as CO2 could be a big factor in the climate. CO2 is not causing g****l w*****g because there is simply too little gas to play such a major role.

Barracuda2020 wrote:

HAhahah now that is funny Capt musclehead. Yes, le... (show quote)

Airforceone

American Vet wrote:

He was elected by what he promised he would do - and he's doing it.

And how many of the EPA rules are really needed? Remember the EPA rule that declared some intermittent streams are 'protected waterways'?

He was not elected by the majority he won the e*******l college. 3.5 million more people in this country v**ed against him. So the majority of Americans did not want him in office.

Cuda2020

Zemirah wrote:

Barack Obama had other goals for NASA, such as stu... (show quote)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, go back to your archaic book, you're better off there living in the past. The changes the earth has undergone are steadfast facts, not models, that provides us with a estimated projectory of an outcome. What is coming... will come, it is just a matter of time, that is a guesstimate as there are variables that change every year, but not to stop the course we are set on if we
don't make changes now.

Co2 a minute gas, LOL, this picture illustrates the different size and impact of volcanic emissions compared to f****l f**l emissions, it takes one hundred million to make one billion. This shows volcanic emissions range from 65-319 million tonnes of co2 Now f****l f**l is 29 Billion, so that's one hundred million 29 times over.
I am hoping you can actually fathom the impact of amount of tonnes on the planet. Of course, Co2 makes a huge difference and of course people pumping Co2 with f****l f**ls makes a dramatic difference in our environment.

We need to be responsible for what we do, in your bible it states we are the stewards of the planet earth, as I see it, k*****g the planet is not being a very good steward, talk about shooting yourself in the head.

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

Barracuda2020 wrote:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking ab... (show quote)

We're in a 'Solar-Minimum' that creates volcanic activity...Volcanic ash creates global-cooling and Co2 is needed
for all to live including plant life

If you don't want to drive, cook, have utilities or a manufacturing base, please keep espousing your hippy gaia
fiction not fact, propaganda

son of witless

Airforceone wrote:

He was not elected by the majority he won the e*******l college. 3.5 million more people in this country v**ed against him. So the majority of Americans did not want him in office.

I think if you deported the people in this country who are not supposed to be here, Donald j. Trump wins the popular v**e in a landslide.

Cuda2020

Crayons wrote:

We're in a 'Solar-Minimum' that creates volcanic activity...Volcanic ash creates global-cooling and Co2 is needed
for all to live including plant life

If you don't want to drive, cook, have utilities or a manufacturing base, please keep espousing your hippy gaia
fiction not fact, propaganda

Please don't give me that completely ignorant rebuttal that we need Co2, no kidding Sherlock, NO ONE on the left has e EVER said we don't need Co2, that is the equivalent to saying we don't need O2. My God stop reading the right-wing propaganda talking heads with their i***t commentaries like that. I can cook without f****l f**l, and we can drive in almost 100% pollution-free vehicles. There are already countries far ahead of us with very low carbon footprints, it can be done. Wake up and pull your head up out of your arse.

The right are the ones believing in the propaganda hype promoted by the fuel industry so they can continue on their profiteering track.

According to shrinkthatfootprint.com, in 2010, human activity caused 50 Gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions with 76% carbon dioxide (CO2), 16% methane (CH4), 8% nitrous oxide (N20) and 2% F-gases. The big terrestrial emitters were China (23%), the USA (14%), Europe (10%), India (5%) and Russia (5%)

Cuda2020

son of witless wrote:

I am shocked that you have even heard of Thomas Pa... (show quote)

You are only shocked because of your preconceived notions you have of me, yes I know who he was, there were founders who believed in a strong government, unfortunately you don't realize the error of your ways. No one that I know of wants an overbearing government, a government that is under a democratic governorship has its sovereignty from the people, whereas a country that is controlled by oligarchs has lost all its control and has surrendered all of its power to them. This is where we've been headed under Trump and the republican corporate party.

American Vet

Airforceone wrote:

He was not elected by the majority he won the e*******l college. 3.5 million more people in this country v**ed against him. So the majority of Americans did not want him in office.

Still crying about that......Want to throw in some excuses? My favorite is Russia!!! Russia!!! Russia!!!!

American Vet

Barracuda2020 wrote:

. No one that I know of wants an overbearing government, .

Do you mean one, for example, that created a regulation that was so far reaching that "puddle" had to be defined?

"In 2015, the Obama administration put forward a WOTUS definition that expanded Washington’s influence over the landscape, including categorical jurisdiction over ephemeral tributaries and potential jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and ponds three-quarters of a mile from a remote tributary. The definition was so far-reaching that they needed to clarify in regulatory text that puddles were excluded. The Iowa Farm Bureau, for example, estimated that waters and wetlands within 97% of the land mass in Iowa could fall under federal purview according to the 2015 definition."

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/des-monies-register-epa-army-finalize-repeal-controversial-waters-us-rule

Cuda2020

American Vet wrote:

Do you mean one, for example, that created a regul... (show quote)

Also, anything printed under this faux EPA is completely uncredible and only there to fit the Trump-Republican agenda, it's as crooked as the River Raisin. FYI we all eat from the wetlands, that's where shrimp and crayfish come from, not to mention flounder and other fish. You want to unknowingly eat toxic shrimp or fish.

Water to not be toxic should certainly be all-inclusive and a right of ours, how many people swim and fish in backwater streams, rivers and ponds, groundwater most definitely should be safe to drink, and not turned into a for-profit commodity which they're already doing, lets all pay for bottled water instead of having just good tap water.
I can remember when they first started to sell bottled water and my initial thought was, "how ridiculous".