Chatham County Online BBS
March 26, 2017, 06:24:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read what Chatham County bloggers are saying at the Blog Aggregator
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Feds May Have Cooked the Books on Climate Change Report  (Read 1073 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« on: February 08, 2017, 11:35:00 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."

Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
BOFH
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 07, 2017, 04:48:08 PM
Date Registerd:October 03, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Posts: 145


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2017, 02:53:32 PM »

ummm getting climate information from fox news is like........

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records


https://phys.org/news/2017-02-major-global-defended.html

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/02/2017-ushers-in-record-low-extent/

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level-ever-recorded/

http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-winter-extent-2017-1

At this point, the question of Arctic sea ice collapse isn't really an if but a when. The rapid decline this year won't necessarily proceed in a straight line — next winter could have a bit more ice, or much less. But the long term trend is clear. So the second question is: Once all that ice is gone, what comes next?

If there was a pause, we should be smart enough to read the writing on the wall and understand the overall trend it toward a warming planet, pause or not.


“If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money”

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2017, 03:38:38 PM »

At this point, the question of Arctic sea ice collapse isn't really an if but a when. The rapid decline this year won't necessarily proceed in a straight line — next winter could have a bit more ice, or much less. But the long term trend is clear. So the second question is: Once all that ice is gone, what comes next?

If there was a pause, we should be smart enough to read the writing on the wall and understand the overall trend it toward a warming planet, pause or not.

The IPCC said there was a "pause", which is really another way of saying that the models they produced did not correctly predict what happened.

The thing that MMGW alarmists need to understand is that they have made many dire predictions that haven't come true.  Yet...they deny they have any issues with credibility.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2017, 03:41:29 PM »

In related news, the old guard of the GOP is pushing for carbon credits.  As I've said before, this is just another tax scheme that has nothing to do with actually improving the environment.

It was wrong when the Democrats championed it and it's wrong now that the GOPe want it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html?_r=0
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
BOFH
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 07, 2017, 04:48:08 PM
Date Registerd:October 03, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Posts: 145


« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2017, 06:39:24 PM »

At this point, the question of Arctic sea ice collapse isn't really an if but a when. The rapid decline this year won't necessarily proceed in a straight line — next winter could have a bit more ice, or much less. But the long term trend is clear. So the second question is: Once all that ice is gone, what comes next?

If there was a pause, we should be smart enough to read the writing on the wall and understand the overall trend it toward a warming planet, pause or not.

The IPCC said there was a "pause", which is really another way of saying that the models they produced did not correctly predict what happened.

The thing that MMGW alarmists need to understand is that they have made many dire predictions that haven't come true.  Yet...they deny they have any issues with credibility.

But they are coming true - just open your eyes man

Without action, we are facing extinction at unprecedented scale. In many respects, we are already in the sixth mass extinction of Earth's history. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct when temperatures rose by 8 °C (14 °F) during the Permian-Triassic extinction, or the Great Dying, 252 million years ago.

During the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred 55 million years ago, global temperatures rose as rapidly as by 5°C in ~13 years, according to a study by Wright et al. A recent study by researchers led by Zebee concludes that the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. The highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years occurred during the PETM. Yet, while the carbon release rate from anthropogenic sources was ~10 Pg C per year in 2014, the study by Zebee et al. found that the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate was less than 1.1 Pg C per year. The study by Zebee et al. therefore concludes that future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the - by comparison - relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

An earlier study by researchers led by De Vos had already concluded that current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher.

The feedback loops are reinforcing all this along with loss of the albedo effect and
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/warming-could-disrupt-atlantic-ocean-current

once the feedback loops begin to multiply the changes will accelerate - its a grand experiment don't you know - worth gambling with the planet right?

and about this whistleblower:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/house-science-committee-holds-hearing-on-making-epa-great-again/

Awkwardly, Smith did not seem aware that the “whistleblower” from the Mail on Sunday article, John Bates, gave an interview to E&E News in which he disavowed those allegations. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," Bates said. (In a later Associated Press story, Bates clarified that he believed there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 07:04:24 PM by BOFH » Logged
wolfpat
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 07:46:50 PM
Date Registerd:October 12, 2008, 11:13:39 AM
Posts: 605



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2017, 07:12:48 PM »

The Atlantic Ocean is about 5 feet wider now than it was when I was born. How much does that figure into the changing ice situation in the Arctic? If it's in any of the studies, I missed it.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2017, 12:49:51 AM »

But they are coming true - just open your eyes man


No, they are not all coming true.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/#sthash.tLWBdqdw.dpbs

Without action, we are facing extinction at unprecedented scale. In many respects, we are already in the sixth mass extinction of Earth's history. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct when temperatures rose by 8 °C (14 °F) during the Permian-Triassic extinction, or the Great Dying, 252 million years ago.

During the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred 55 million years ago, global temperatures rose as rapidly as by 5°C in ~13 years, according to a study by Wright et al. A recent study by researchers led by Zebee concludes that the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years.


Based on what data?  Do you not understand that taking a swag at temperature based on tree rings and ice cores and then looking at the data since we've been able to record it with modern equipment are two very different things?

Nobody has been able to explain to me why we can make such extrapolations when it is clear that 1) some of the books are cooked 2) the methods we have been using to measure climate change and more specifically temperature, are not consistent (today they rely on data from ice cores, the next buoys in the ocean). 

We keep hearing all these dire predictions such as:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

Look, if you want me to believe what is going on, then please explain why the models of such dire predictions always start at or around 1850 when we started using thermometers.  Observed temperature readings are a lot easier to draw conclusions from than looking at ice cores.

The highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years occurred during the PETM. Yet, while the carbon release rate from anthropogenic sources was ~10 Pg C per year in 2014, the study by Zebee et al. found that the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate was less than 1.1 Pg C per year. The study by Zebee et al. therefore concludes that future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the - by comparison - relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

An earlier study by researchers led by De Vos had already concluded that current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher.

The feedback loops are reinforcing all this along with loss of the albedo effect and once the feedback loops begin to multiply the changes will accelerate - its a grand experiment don't you know - worth gambling with the planet right?


You know, I saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow.  Your reference sounds a bit like that movie plot.  But you're missing the most fundamental and important part of all this.

What is your plan to actually stop or reduce extinctions?  Kill off a bunch of people?  Impose a carbon tax scheme?  Let me guess, it involves developed countries like ours "leading the charge" and implementing all sorts of tax schemes that put us at a disadvantage in the market when competing with third world countries.  Did I get it right?

What is your solution for getting countries like China and India on board?  Or are we supposed to martyr ourselves for some fuzzy headed notion about "doing something" despite the fact that most of these schemes are not really designed to cut emissions.  Rather, they are pathways for companies to produce MORE emissions and pay government fat cats their pound of flesh.

Awkwardly, Smith did not seem aware that the “whistleblower” from the Mail on Sunday article, John Bates, gave an interview to E&E News in which he disavowed those allegations. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," Bates said. (In a later Associated Press story, Bates clarified that he believed there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”)


You need to read what Bates actually said instead of relying on sources that prefer spin.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. I finally decided to document what I had found using the climate data record maturity matrix approach. I did this and sent my concerns to the NCEI Science Council in early February 2016 and asked to be added to the agenda of an upcoming meeting. I was asked to turn my concerns into a more general presentation on requirements for publishing and archiving. Some on the Science Council, particularly the younger scientists, indicated they had not known of the Science requirement to archive data and were not aware of the open data movement. They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.

Read the whole article.  I think you'll find there are issues with Karl's actions.  This is one of the reasons we should all support the Open Government Data Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2852

Tell me what steps you think the U.S. should take and what steps you think we can force the rest of the world to take.  What I see is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and very little in the way of effective solutions.

Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
BOFH
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 07, 2017, 04:48:08 PM
Date Registerd:October 03, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Posts: 145


« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2017, 07:02:56 AM »

Hi Pi,
      As for measuring temperatures from ice cores:(LMGTFY)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

Even if you go back to only 1970, the trend is unmistakable:



If you keep a consistent view between economics and enviroment, since humans are by far the most populous  species of earthling, in capitalist terms, that also makes us the most expendable(least valuable) and the rarest, closest to extinction species the most valuable.  - just saying.

I don't think anyone realizes what the rate of change is going to be since we can't fully predict what the feedback loops will do(chaos theory).

I did read the full article - even with the non standard treatment of this one particular data set - it does not change the direction or magnatude of change by any statistically significant amount.

Personally, I think there should be an apollo like program to replace everything we can with renewables as fast as possible - it's probabnly already too late according to some:
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
the term being used is abrupt climate change and it is definetly within the realm of the possible.

I know you don't agree with any of this, but as each year gets warmer and the artic ice cover eventually disappears permanently, you will think back on this I hope.
And I am aware of the view of the majority of the folks on this board who will want to just blast away at me about this and deny it all is happening - but nature bats last my friends.



Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2017, 11:43:41 AM »

Hi Pi,
      As for measuring temperatures from ice cores:(LMGTFY)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

Even if you go back to only 1970, the trend is unmistakable:



If you're going to talk down to me (LMGTFY), then you might want to make sure that you have something meaningful to say.  First of all, ice cores can only provide an estimated average temperature.  That is NOT the same thing as an observed temperature using equipment like a thermometer.

In other words, it is an estimation.  Also, when you show temps from the 1970's until now, consider that the extrapolations from ice cores are covering tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years, in one core extraction.  

Showing me something from 1970 until now means very little because that's a tiny blip on the radar.  If you picked that a timeframe of 50 years or so, and instead of looking back at 1970 go back to about 66 million years ago, you simply cannot make the same assessment with the same amount of certainty.  That's because you're relying on a completely different means of measuring the data.

If you keep a consistent view between economics and enviroment, since humans are by far the most populous  species of earthling, in capitalist terms, that also makes us the most expendable(least valuable) and the rarest, closest to extinction species the most valuable.  - just saying.

Ah, you're one of those that supports the notion that we should curtail our population.  You know, for the good of the Earth.  Ok.  Why don't you make yourself extinct first and lead by example?

Idiots who espouse that idea never seem to understand that they are on the chopping block.  What test should we have to determine who gets to stick around?  How about IQ?  Achievements?  A spelling contest?

I don't think anyone realizes what the rate of change is going to be since we can't fully predict what the feedback loops will do(chaos theory).

Why shy away from one dire prediction when they've been willing to make others?


I did read the full article - even with the non standard treatment of this one particular data set - it does not change the direction or magnatude of change by any statistically significant amount.

Non-standard treatment?  What a nice way of saying "manipulated".  That DOES have a meaningful "statistical" effect on the conclusions of the research.  

Personally, I think there should be an apollo like program to replace everything we can with renewables as fast as possible - it's probabnly already too late according to some:
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
the term being used is abrupt climate change and it is definetly within the realm of the possible.

What do you mean "renewables"?  You do realize that recycling has actually cause there to be more packaging materials precisely because they claim it can be recycled, right?  Renewables like paper?  For some reason cutting down trees and paper mills don't bring to mind what you guys deem "ecologically sound".  

That's not a plan.  I asked you specifically what you would suggest, and all you can come up with is "more renewables"?

I know you don't agree with any of this, but as each year gets warmer and the artic ice cover eventually disappears permanently, you will think back on this I hope.
And I am aware of the view of the majority of the folks on this board who will want to just blast away at me about this and deny it all is happening - but nature bats last my friends.

Look, I don't deny that climate change is happening.  I also acknowledge that human activity may have an effect on climate.  How much influence we really have is something I'm not certain about.  Whether or not we can actually do anything about it is also debatable.

Remember that there are a lot of politicians and bureaucrats who like nothing better than to use the spectre of MMGW to influence human behavior to support their other goals.  Goals, I might add, that don't have anything to do with the environment.  Those people don't give a damn about the environment.  But they support things like Cap and Trade, and other tax schemes because they want those funds.

I noticed you didn't comment at all on that particular policy.  And it is even more glaring that when I asked how you intend to enforce emission edicts on other countries, you also neglected to reply.

I understand that your concern comes from wanting to do what is best for people in general.  I get that.  But I also believe that many of the predictions have not come true.  Those predictions of death and destruction are meant to spur people to action.  But when they didn't come to fruition, it undermines all the scientific "consensus" that you say is undeniable.  Either the models are right or they are wrong.  I think there is tremendous incentive in the scientific community and in government to keep those fears alive.  It is the "crisis" that keeps on giving when it comes to legislative underpinning.  Which is just another way of them curtailing our rights.

In this county, people have used environmental concerns to keep the county from growing.  To keep people from being able to start businesses.  And to delay other businesses from getting started.  That has next to nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with manipulating the system to retard economic and population growth.

Nature bats last.  You're right about that.  And the Earth will be here even if we manage to destroy ourselves.  What I'd like to see is a reasonable argument for:

1) What specific legislative measures you suggest
2) How they should be implemented
3) How we get the rest of the world to play by the same rules
4) Acknowledgement that our current rules don't always protect the environment and instead serve other interests.

Provide those things and we're getting somewhere.  Ironically, I think I have a better idea of what could be done that you do.  And you're trying to lecture me....lol.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
BOFH
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 07, 2017, 04:48:08 PM
Date Registerd:October 03, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Posts: 145


« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2017, 02:24:27 PM »

Hi Pi,
    The LMGTFY, if you had to ask a stupid question, you get a stupid response.
And no it's not exact but it gets us ballpark estimates from long before we were here.

to address your questions:

1) What specific legislative measures you suggest
In the current global political climate, I hold absolutely no hope for any type of legislative fix, even if laws were passed, I seriously doubt they could be enforced.  I like the thi8nk globally, act locally policy.
Personally, I have greatly reduceded my footprint - telecommute, new roof, better windows, next step buy a chevy bolt, tesla powerwall or 2 and enough cells to charge it all up - if I can do that I no longer need to be connected to the power grid or burn ANY fossil fuels.(doing my part what about you?)

2) How they should be implemented
see number 1

3) How we get the rest of the world to play by the same rules
see number 1

4) Acknowledgement that our current rules don't always protect the environment and instead serve other interests.
I could not agree more - humans are greedy bastards at heart and will take advantage of almost any situation if it suites their own ends.
I agree, the EPA is a bloated bureaucracy, and not the best method but it should be made more efficient, not scuttled completely.

I really don't hold out any hope that we as a species will survive, I'm just living my life and trying to enjoy it while I can.

William Beebe:
The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 02:27:01 PM by BOFH » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2017, 08:46:39 PM »

Hi Pi,
    The LMGTFY, if you had to ask a stupid question, you get a stupid response.
And no it's not exact but it gets us ballpark estimates from long before we were here.

You didn't understand the question. It wasn't a stupid thing to ask. And you just proved my point for me. You just admitted that ice cores are estimates, yet think that extrapolations made from those are as meaningful as actual observed temperature. How the hell can we say something is unprecedented when we are talking about such short periods (50 years) when we have no exact data for the same short period 66 million years ago?  

Stop and think about what I am actually asking you before answering. That way I don't have to reword the question three different times before you understand it. Jeez man. Get it together.

to address your questions
Personally, I have greatly reduceded my footprint - telecommute, new roof, better windows, next step buy a chevy bolt, tesla powerwall or 2 and enough cells to charge it all up - if I can do that I no longer need to be connected to the power grid or burn ANY fossil fuels.(doing my part what about you?)

I pick up a ton of trash every year and donate a hell of a lot of money to conservation efforts. That's saves those critters you were talking about from extinction. I also travel very rarely. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

But you didn't answer the question at all. I asked for legislative things. Why did you dodge the question?

What political climate are you waiting for?  Assume for a moment that you could get anything passed that you want. What does that legislation look like?  Don't cop out on me. Share your ideas.

Hi Pi,
2) How they should be implemented
see number 1

3) How we get the rest of the world to play by the same rules
see number 1

Damn. And here I was hoping you'd have something more to offer than virtue signaling when it came to your choice of automobile.

Hi Pi,
4) Acknowledgement that our current rules don't always protect the environment and instead serve other interests.
I could not agree more - humans are greedy bastards at heart and will take advantage of almost any situation if it suites their own ends.
I agree, the EPA is a bloated bureaucracy, and not the best method but it should be made more efficient, not scuttled completely.

I really don't hold out any hope that we as a species will survive, I'm just living my life and trying to enjoy it while I can.

Oh noes!  It's all hopeless cause we are all a bunch of deniers!  Why is it that I hear so much arrogant posturing from alarmists and damn near NOTHING in the way of solutions?


Pi:
"Eco-fascism sucks"
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 08:49:58 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2017, 09:02:13 PM »

You know, it is a sad state of affairs when the alarmists can't conjure up a single policy recommendation.

Once again I have to hold both sides of the conversation. The closest thing that could come to getting the world on the same page is much like what Trump is doing.

If we were to put emission controls with specific caps and enforce it, it would put us at a disadvantage when competing with other countries. Unless we did the following:

1) Get other developed countries to join with us on the regs.
2) Institute a tax on products that originate from countries not honoring the agreement.

Sure there are problems with that, but it's something. One assumes a Bastard Operator had some schooling.

If you're going to admonish people don't be lazy. Fer cryin' out loud.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Ice Pilot2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 23, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Date Registerd:January 16, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
Posts: 39


« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2017, 09:12:54 AM »



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/kD-AXgYO0lo&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/kD-AXgYO0lo&amp;rel=0</a>
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 09:26:47 AM by Ice Pilot2 » Logged
BOFH
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:March 07, 2017, 04:48:08 PM
Date Registerd:October 03, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Posts: 145


« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2017, 01:56:47 PM »

Disorganized crime - great movie

I don't have time to argue right now, but I know how it goes here, I don't think I'll even waste my breath - have fun yall


« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 01:58:48 PM by BOFH » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:52:39 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,441



« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2017, 02:56:17 PM »

Disorganized crime - great movie

I don't have time to argue right now, but I know how it goes here, I don't think I'll even waste my breath - have fun yall


Why would you be wasting your breath?  I've asked you for some proposals but you won't give me any.

Why is it that people are so afraid of admitting that they don't know?  Just say "I don't know".  There's no shame in not knowing.  There's plenty of shame in scoffing at others and doing your best to look down on them when, in reality, you aren't able to articulate your position any better.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Tags:
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!