5/23/2010 9:47:56 PM
5/23/2010 10:19:50 PM
tax-and-tax? Really? Where was your bitching and whining about this when Bush proposed it?
5/23/2010 10:30:15 PM
showing your ignorance, again. remind me again where I've ever said that I supported everything Bush has every proposed?[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]
5/23/2010 10:38:31 PM
I am sure the EPA stormtroopers will extract that information when they invade your house. . .
5/23/2010 10:41:50 PM
they'll have to sift through a lot of porn first, lol
5/23/2010 10:53:37 PM
THREAD OVERTIPPER AND AL HAVE SEPARATED
6/1/2010 12:46:38 PM
I knew global warming was fake!
6/1/2010 12:49:23 PM
^^lol.
6/1/2010 1:17:02 PM
Rebel scientists? What is this fucking Star Wars?
6/1/2010 1:19:06 PM
V
6/1/2010 1:28:35 PM
6/8/2010 11:45:09 AM
Law Professor != Climatologist
6/9/2010 8:56:09 AM
your statement's pretty inconsequential.
6/9/2010 9:14:59 AM
Only if you think a Law Professor's opinion of climate science is just as valid as climatologist's opinion.
6/9/2010 9:32:06 AM
It's not an opinion. It's an evaluation of the facts and methods used in studies. Black and white.
6/9/2010 9:47:56 AM
An evaluation made by someone who has no clear expertise in climate science.
6/9/2010 9:51:15 AM
6/9/2010 9:52:02 AM
hehe well that is true. I am sure formally studying the topic your evaluating will "bias" you to some extent. Of course, some people would call that bias "competence" or "understanding".
6/9/2010 9:58:10 AM
I'll change your mind one of these days
6/9/2010 10:11:06 AM
Reminds me of another unbiased UC-Berkeley Law Professor:I mean, who takes natural selection seriously anymore?[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 11:45 PM. Reason : x]
6/10/2010 11:45:27 PM
How far back do you want to go? Remember when people were mocked at for NOT thinking the Earth was flat?
6/11/2010 12:12:11 AM
6/11/2010 12:15:06 AM
^dude, it doesn't matter. if you're not a climatologist you can't understand logic and reason.
6/11/2010 9:23:30 AM
6/14/2010 6:53:30 PM
iiiiiinteresting. from the PDF posted above.
6/14/2010 9:30:24 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/16/rick-perry-to-obama%E2%80%99s-epa-don%E2%80%99t-mess-with-texas/EPA power grab in Texas, even though Texas' own local codes and enforcement have resulted in a dramatic improvement in the air quality of the state. is there any question that the Feds want to use the guise of 'green' to grab power and oversight? even where it is not necessary?
6/16/2010 9:57:21 AM
an EPA power grab? Or could it be the EPA trying to protect citizens by enforcing federal law?Even if Texas air has "improved," it's still one of the top two worse states in air quality (basically a toss up between Texas and California on who is worse).http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/states/texas/21/36 counties get an F for ozone (and thats generous since some of the counties didnt report)http://scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/rank-states-emissions.tclIt ranks first or second (depending on the pollutant) in tons of criteria air pollutants released.http://scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/rank-states-risk.tcl?how_many=100&pollutant=totalWhen adjusted for population it ranks second in total days above the air quality standards.If I lived in Texas, Id be thinking this was necessary.
6/16/2010 10:53:34 AM
Texas has shown dramatic improvement over the past few years with their system. but hey, Uncle Sam always knows better.
6/16/2010 11:59:01 AM
Bullshit. One can drive around in Houston, Dallas, or even a small town and see smog and disgustingly large exhaust plumes from cars. Everyone and their brother has a dualie down here, and they're all belching thick, black exhaust. And the poor air quality from Houston directly affects the air quality in several dozen other counties that are up-wind, including where I live. The only reason why it's "okay" down here because Texas is such a large state.
6/16/2010 12:05:20 PM
you will concede that like LA, Texas was extremely dirty to begin with. logically, it would take longer to clean it up than another place. the Feds should only step in if nothing was being done. further, everyone driving privately owned trucks isnt going to change with the Feds...so whats your point there? they are still going to be "belching" smoke.
6/16/2010 12:13:48 PM
For all its dramatic improvement most of the state still cant meet air quality standards.personally, I believe the permit system the Texas agency uses is designed to allow big companies to pollute more, while on the surface it makes it seems like they are meeting the goals. You don't have to look very far to find TCEQ doing some pretty sketch stuffhttp://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/jun/03/air-wars/
6/16/2010 1:54:43 PM
^The only federal regulation on automobiles is what pollution control devices they are built with. States have all the control that matters, i.e. yearly vehicle inspections.Several states have no emission inspections while others only have emission inspection for newer vehicles. For example North Carolina only performs emission inspections on cars made after 1995. If you ask me that's ass backwards. We already know new(ish) cars are clean, cars greater than 15 years old are more of a source of pollution. hell I don't think SC does emissions testing...ever.Of course, in the meantime I'll thank NC for performing only a visual (catalytic converter check) inspection on my 1992 Acura Integra. $12 inspections FTW.
6/16/2010 3:13:01 PM
Another panel exonerates UEA climate scientists:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points
7/7/2010 4:16:53 PM
yes. clearly there is nothing wrong with asking people to delete data and emails in order to avoid a FOIA request.
7/7/2010 4:30:55 PM
There's no evidence they deleted data, only "some emails" which they have the right to do, even if it looks bad.
7/7/2010 7:28:57 PM
yes. and that is kind of the point. they did shady shit. which is far from "they did no wrong."
7/7/2010 9:31:08 PM
and also far from, unimpeachable neutral scientist with nothing to hide
7/7/2010 9:42:29 PM
How many of you have cracked a stats book since I last asked if anybody knows any stats?
7/8/2010 12:23:45 AM
^ Run the stats on this:
7/8/2010 10:21:05 AM
^
7/8/2010 2:05:49 PM
^ Your point?Rajendra Pachauri, PhD, industrial engineering and economicsChair, IPCCAl Gore, BA, government
7/8/2010 3:39:40 PM
Gotta love how the panel never even asked the scientists in question if they had, in fact, deleted emails and other information.
7/9/2010 11:38:55 AM
^^ yah, but Rajendra Pachauri got his PhD from NCSU so it goes a lot further. But on a serious note, it isn't like Pachauri is writing every word in the IPCC reports. He is just one of many people contributing to them. And since one of IPCC's goal is to provide the world some insight on what the socioeconomic consequences of climate change will be, I think the insights of energy economist are valid. But it isn't like he (or any of the other social scientists at the IPCC) is doing any climate research of his own. He is only working with the results that have been produced by climate scientists. So if you want to evaluate the validity of these results, you go to the climate scientists that produced them.
7/9/2010 3:01:25 PM
7/9/2010 10:35:06 PM
7/10/2010 12:41:35 AM
continue attacking the source, Socks...
7/11/2010 10:44:58 PM
Analyze a dataset for yourself yet? No? lol?
7/12/2010 10:32:00 AM
Global sea ice is still humming along at the 30 year mean...
7/12/2010 11:23:36 AM
^^ wow. i guess I have to analyze a dataset before I can spot shoddy math. wow
7/12/2010 7:25:44 PM