Mitt's Right: Some of us feel entitled

[huskerXman]

Since you said you know a bit about it tell us your background.

What background?

 

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this stuff? Why would my background be relevant to knowledge of the Clean Air Act? Aren't you the guy citing a webpage from a fake attorney about why certain constitutional amendments aren't valid? Or is your requirement of credentials conditional on whether you agree with the viewpoint?

 

Wait a minute, did you or did you not say you know something about the clean air act? If so, then what is your background in that area?

[sd'sker]

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

 

what about a former denier who not only changed his tune, but believes it is almost entirely humans' fault for climate change?

 

Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real

The prominent physicist said we should reduce greenhouse gases

One of the most prominent global warming skeptics is changing is his tune.

Richard Muller, a physicist who spent two years trying to see if mainstream climate scientists were wrong about the earth's climate changes, determined that they were right, the Associated Press reported.

His findings showed the temperature had risen about 1.6 degrees since the 1950s.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller told the AP. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

 

Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change

"Humans are almost entirely the cause" of climate change, according to a scientistwho once doubted that global warming even existed.

[carlfense]

Since you said you know a bit about it tell us your background.

What background?

 

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this stuff? Why would my background be relevant to knowledge of the Clean Air Act? Aren't you the guy citing a webpage from a fake attorney about why certain constitutional amendments aren't valid? Or is your requirement of credentials conditional on whether you agree with the viewpoint?

 

Wait a minute, did you or did you not say you know something about the clean air act? If so, then what is your background in that area?

You don't have to have a background in a certain area to know something about the Clean Air Act.

 

That said . . . if you think the CAA is designed primarily to combat "man made global warming" . . . well I'd venture a guess that you don't know much about the legislation.

[strigori]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

I know some things because of people I know who are in charge of systems that are subject to the Clean Air Act. There is a provision that when tech can increase the pollution reduction by 2% they must upgrade. Encouraging companies who make the 'scrubbers' to trickle out new equipment at 2% intervals instead of doing the best the they can and boost by 5% or more in one jump.

 

You really need acid rain and smog explained to you?

[carlfense]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

I know some things because of people I know who are in charge of systems that are subject to the Clean Air Act. There is a provision that when tech can increase the pollution reduction by 2% they must upgrade. Encouraging companies who make the 'scrubbers' to trickle out new equipment at 2% intervals instead of doing the best the they can and boost by 5% or more in one jump.

 

You really need acid rain and smog explained to you?

Is this in reply to huskerXman?

[strigori]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

I know some things because of people I know who are in charge of systems that are subject to the Clean Air Act. There is a provision that when tech can increase the pollution reduction by 2% they must upgrade. Encouraging companies who make the 'scrubbers' to trickle out new equipment at 2% intervals instead of doing the best the they can and boost by 5% or more in one jump.

 

You really need acid rain and smog explained to you?

Is this in reply to huskerXman?

Yes, appears I didn't get all the quote boxes in the right spots.

[huskerXman]

Since you said you know a bit about it tell us your background.

What background?

 

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this stuff? Why would my background be relevant to knowledge of the Clean Air Act? Aren't you the guy citing a webpage from a fake attorney about why certain constitutional amendments aren't valid? Or is your requirement of credentials conditional on whether you agree with the viewpoint?

 

Wait a minute, did you or did you not say you know something about the clean air act? If so, then what is your background in that area?

You don't have to have a background in a certain area to know something about the Clean Air Act.

 

That said . . . if you think the CAA is designed primarily to combat "man made global warming" . . . well I'd venture a guess that you don't know much about the legislation.

 

 

Who said it was designed primarily to combat man made global warming in the first place? I know I didn't, but I will point out the protection of the ozone was one of the reasons it was created in the first place. So it kind of was a major reason... and isn't clean air just a tab bit part of the whole issue behind man made global warming? Oh I guess i need to insert a smiley here..

 

From the EPA site.

The Clean Air Act is the law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer. The last major change in the law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was enacted by Congress in 1990. Legislation passed since then has made several minor changes.

 

now to your background.. so I guess you don't really know that much about it after all?

[huskerXman]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

I know some things because of people I know who are in charge of systems that are subject to the Clean Air Act. There is a provision that when tech can increase the pollution reduction by 2% they must upgrade. Encouraging companies who make the 'scrubbers' to trickle out new equipment at 2% intervals instead of doing the best the they can and boost by 5% or more in one jump.

 

You really need acid rain and smog explained to you?

 

So then you know about hidden regulations because you were told by a friend? So, then you really don't know much more than what you have been told?

 

Can you explain how you know what he is wanting to do?

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple.

[huskerXman]

about the acid rain scam..

 

http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/the-acid-rain-scam/

 

The Acid Rain Scam

 

Acid rain became an “issue” in 1980 when Congress passed the Acid Deposition Act. After a ten year study, National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program reported that there wasn’t much of a problem with acid rain. The first report was rejected and Congress went ahead and amended the Clean Air Act to mandate SO2 and NOx emissions. These emissions have been substantially reduced at a cost of several billion dollars per year. Chump change relative to the potential costs of Kyoto/Copenhagen schemes.

[carlfense]

Who said it was designed primarily to combat man made global warming in the first place? I know I didn't . . .

The first time global warming was mentioned in this thread:

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

This was your reply to a comment about the Clean Air Act. Do multiple people have access to your account? Or have you forgotten what you posted?

 

. . . but I will point out the protection of the ozone was one of the reasons it was created in the first place.

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 and that predates the regulation of ozone depleting CFCs by about 15 years.

 

Put simply, your statement is factually incorrect.

 

now to your background.. so I guess you don't really know that much about it after all?

Again with the background? I guess you need to find something to focus on since you haven’t been too good with the facts so far.

[zoogs]

about the acid rain scam..

I guess that's why this guy is writing brief blog posts with some images, summed up with sweeping conclusions that he seems to have already drawn - as opposed to publishing his findings in literature.

 

And yet under ten paragraphs is all it took for you to adopt the fairly strong term "Acid Rain Scam" and run with it. Thank goodness real science has more rigorous standards for drawing conclusions.

[carlfense]

I guess that's why this guy is writing brief blog posts with some images, summed up with sweeping conclusions that he seems to have already drawn - as opposed to publishing his findings in literature.

You can't trust academia.

 

. . . check out this chain email that I just received.

[huskerXman]

Again with the background? I guess you need to find something to focus on since you haven’t been too good with the facts so far.

 

again with the duck dodge and deflect? you made the claim of knowledge..

 

We can plan semantics games all night but the cold hard facts are the current clean air act does involve global warming.

 

From the epa site..

 

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

 

The Clean Air Act is the law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer.

[huskerXman]

about the acid rain scam..

I guess that's why this guy is writing brief blog posts with some images, summed up with sweeping conclusions that he seems to have already drawn - as opposed to publishing his findings in literature.

 

And yet under ten paragraphs is all it took for you to adopt the fairly strong term "Acid Rain Scam" and run with it. Thank goodness real science has more rigorous standards for drawing conclusions.

 

hey, if you want to believe everything you are told go right ahead. I don't.. "real science" has tried to tell me humans evolved from apes but that hasn't worked out so well for them.

[huskerXman]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson297.html

 

 

 

Actually not, and I think I know, given that I had a major article in Reason about this whole affair and also wrote part of my doctoral dissertation on the subject, and published another paper in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology about it. I can say what the NYT says in that editorial is categorically untrue, all the way to Moynihan's becoming "a believer." If there is an Orwellian Memory Hole, it definitely lives at the "Newspaper of Record."

This goes back to the origins of the Acid Rain scare, which, like Global Warming (or "Climate Change") did not even need Al Gore to hype it. I wrote in my article in Reason:

(In the late 1970s) scientists in the United States, Canada, and Scandinavia became alarmed at what they believed was massive environmental degradation caused by sulfur dioxide-laced rain that came from coal-fired power plants. The media followed with hundreds of apocalyptic stories, such as "Scourge from the Skies" (

Reader's Digest

), "Now, Even the Rain is Dangerous" (

International Wildlife

), "Acid from the Skies" (

Time

), and "Rain of Terror" (

Field and Stream

).

In 1980, the EPA declared that acid rain had acidified lakes in the northeastern United States a hundredfold since 1940, and the National Academy of Sciences predicted an "aquatic silent spring" by 1990, declaring in 1981 that the nation's number of acid-dead lakes would more than double by 1990.

In response to these concerns, Congress in 1980 commissioned an interagency governmental study — NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project) — to document the damage acid rain was causing to lakes, rivers and streams, aquatic life, forests, crops, and buildings.

However, as scientists took measurements and assessed the streams, lakes and forests that supposedly were being ravaged by acid rain, they found out a number of things. First, lake and stream acidity had very little relationship to the pH factor of local rainfall. Instead, the acidity of the vegetation in the watersheds of these aquatic bodies was the significant factor, with the science firmly established by the time that Edward Krug and Charles Frink published a paper in a 1983 edition of Science. (More on that later.)

Second, as is the case with most environmental scares, so-called acid rain was not having much of an effect on anything, from what scientists could say. Unfortunately, Congress, the George H.W. Bush White House, and most of the mainstream media were not thrilled with the fact that the End Of The World As We Know It and let it be known that anything less than Apocalypse Now was unacceptable.