quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
In my mind, the landmark finding was a vast overreach of regulation… but I’m not a lawyer.

Yes, atmospheric composition will affect climate.

I actually do think humans are affecting things, just not by the mechanisms proposed.

The buffering systems, the interlocked self regulation of the planet, and how biological systems work all tell me that CO2 emissions are not really the cause. The biggest contribution to the carbon cycle is the oceans, and our pollution of the oceans and widespread use of them to feed our excessive population is what is causing the problem in my mind.

So increasing protection of water quality and regulation of fishing/fish farming is needed… but it needs to be addressed by laws made by legislation rather than having regulations modified past any original legislative intent.

The endangered species act was supposed to protect from excessive human exploitation of wildlife, not an end run around topics that could not establish a legislative decision.

Well, Doc, when you say "in my mind" I understand that to mean in your opinion. I don't understand why you didn't just say so.

Climate scientists say the atmospheric composition of increased CO2 and methane, greenhouse gasses, are warming agents, and that's the main human contribution affecting things.

The other stuff in your mind are arguable mostly not by just stating alternate opinion, but with facts.

Whatever regulations exist are within legislative intent.

The problem with your pipe dream of laws made by legislation is that the legislature is dysfunctional in this regard, among other dysfunction. And enforcement is delegated too.

Your comments are simply naive. You don't know how it works.

That's why they delegate the writing of regulations to achieve their legislated goals, and they approve that. The problem is that when Dems legislate something good re climate change mitigation or the environment in general, Repugs nix it all to the best they can when in power.

Repugs attacked the clean water act. And as I recall they attacked the endangered species act too. And the reason for the act is not what you say. It is literally to protect endangered species, often through habitat protections, and regs which run counter to Rightist attitudes.

Legislatures are simply not capable of regulating the details of the act's intent and enforcement. So, they delegate and empower. Yet the uninformed, like you, call the regulators and the enforcement deep state.

It's just like the IRS. Legislators pass laws in general re intent, and the IRS is delegated the authority to make regulations consistent with the legislative intent, and enforcement. The only argument is when a reg is out of intent, not the delegated authority.

The whole problem with Repugs wanting to nix the Endangerment Finding is clearly to dismiss the science findings, bury it, so the climate science denialism can run amuck with no pesky science to impede the ideology.

Here's a good one, sorta related to climate. This is as good as any thread to post it.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Hm9...?si=evMClQhXMMPur9vx

Let me tell you about the #NWS news you missed amid the chaos

Verified:

https://www.google.com/search?...IB1U&sclient=gws-wiz

You realize there is a difference between a toxicologist, a climate scientist, and a marine ecologist?

We have noted significant issues with biomass damage and the ocean ecology folks have been calling out on it for decades.

Your climate research folks are fixated on their area of research, of course they maximize their area’s impact.

Note that vulcanism puts a lot more pollution in the air than man does when we have significant eruptions.

As to my naivety, at least I have a postgraduate degree in a scientific field. Remind me of your qualifications over mine to claim you know more than I do about a scientific system of research and how it works? We both can cherry pick articles that support any specific position.

quote:

Note that vulcanism puts a lot more pollution in the air than man does when we have significant eruptions.

Interesting comment. How can humans act to curtail vulcanism? We can't.

How can humans reduce their own emissions? We can.

Your analogy fails.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Note that vulcanism puts a lot more pollution in the air than man does when we have significant eruptions.

Interesting comment. How can humans act to curtail vulcanism? We can't.

How can humans reduce their own emissions? We can.

Your analogy fails.

ahh, the democratic fallacy

well, it's apparent you've never done a risk assessment with NUMBERS -- it would have cost you nothing to keep quiet about a subject matter you SNUB .. Skensince{sic} vs liberal arts ..

you ever play frogger, sonny? well, hop

tell us the truth, you require an AI to solve 5.9=x+5.11 , right?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You realize there is a difference between a toxicologist, a climate scientist, and a marine ecologist?

We have noted significant issues with biomass damage and the ocean ecology folks have been calling out on it for decades.

Your climate research folks are fixated on their area of research, of course they maximize their area’s impact.

Note that vulcanism puts a lot more pollution in the air than man does when we have significant eruptions.

As to my naivety, at least I have a postgraduate degree in a scientific field. Remind me of your qualifications over mine to claim you know more than I do about a scientific system of research and how it works? We both can cherry pick articles that support any specific position.

Yes, I realize the difference. So?

I didn't argue "significant issues with biomass damage and the ocean ecology".

How do you know "Your climate research folks are fixated on their area of research, of course they maximize their area’s impact". Are you an expert in knowing such? You say "your" like they are mine. And using the phrase "they maximize" says more about your attitude than the fact of the matter. They focus on their particular area of study and reports, which includes physics and science from other fields too.

"vulcanism puts a lot more pollution in the air than man does"... That's ONE of the points of denialism.

https://www.google.com/search?...gHXA&sclient=gws-wiz


..."at least I have a postgraduate degree in a scientific field. Remind me of your qualifications over mine to claim you know more than I do about a scientific system of research and how it works?"

There is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

https://www.google.com/search?...IBxU&sclient=gws-wiz

I didn't claim that I know more than you about scientific systems of research. I claimed that you didn't know what you were talking about the relationship between legislation of laws and the regulations and enforcement. If you had known, you wouldn't have written your claims the way you did. That may also fall into the Dunning Kruger trap.

It should be clear that regarding science, the methods and conclusions, I appeal to authority, like someone or some group who knows what they are talking about. I recommend that you do that as well. I deeply resent the claim that I should be educated in some field of science before any opinion I have on any aspect of science study or conclusion can be valid. That's just horseshit. Such claim actually reinforces my notion that you don't know what you are talking about. Are you aware that real scientists don't just make shit up?

Being able to cherry pick articles is practically irrelevant regarding what I do for information.

However, cherry picking or just plain contrary science, pseudo science, is clearly used by deniers, and in particular the Trump admin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...gzI?ocid=socialshare

Scientists launch coordinated response to Trump’s attempt to wipe credible climate research off the record
Story by Ella Nilsen, Andrew Freedman, CNN • 10h •
5 min read

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08...l-feeds_iluminar_msn

The Trump admin just hired 3 outspoken climate contrarians. Scientists are worried what comes next
By
Andrew Freedman, Ella Nilsen

Note: Neither of the two articles are opinion.

You are stating that these folks are right without actually reading any of the reports and the base science and understanding the statistics and inferences.

I am not claiming that the climatology folks have no rational or scientific basis, but rather that there claims are incomplete and are rather easily found to have ignored rather significant questions.

If you attend a peer review meeting, most of the time they will pointedly agree there are holes in their arguments and state that would require another study and a paper on that to determine things.

When you base your conclusions on modeling, which is pretty much all of climate science (and a lot of their data is modeling as well) you are limiting your findings to other's potential conclusions being correct. They have been so far proven incorrect in that their findings are always requiring correction when the predictions don't meet evidence found later.

Your information is invariably filtered through the researching scientist, then through the editorial board of a journal, then through a symposia coordinator, then through someone usually with no scientific training (journalist) and then you, who has a rather strong world view.

You are either cherry picking someone else's cherry picking or just posting what you feel someone else has claimed as a preponderance of the evidence. You don't even know enough to realize that.

I am not claiming I have some sort of greater knowledge than any climate scientist. I am claiming that they are by necessity making claims based on incomplete knowledge.

Your resentment that I am saying your opinion is an uninformed one and that you are making claims that you think someone's studies are stronger than others because they in effect have more letters after their name and you for some reason agree with their conclusions... not because you have any real knowledge of the subject matter. How can you say, in the absence of knowing how to actually evaluate scientific literature and knowing statistics that you are not just picking things you agree with?

I have asked you in your own words to state something and all you resort to doing is cut and pasting quotes you say that you agree with.

You state that you cannot say what you believe as well as someone else.

So are you a parrot (or an AI bot) or actually know something of the subject?

As an example, there is no such thing as "contrary science". There is science that is supported by facts and is reproducible by others, and there is opinion.

The dunning/kruger effect is a psychological theory that is trying to explain some experimental findings... it does not explain "why" or for that matter is at all predictive of who is actually correct. Your continual pulling it out actually shows how little you actually know about the scientific basis of it. It is actually relatively easy to disprove items, even on relatively weak knowledge; to state that something is factually true is much harder.

You are taking the point that someone who really doesn't know everything about what they are talking about (and they will freely admit it) and is making a guess as to what is going on that they think the evidence supports their claim (theory) is right. The Dunning/Kruger theory is actually saying you are the problem.

I am not making a claim that I have absolute proof or "know the answer"... I am just saying that there are too many issues that are ignored to say these folks are the right answer with the evidence presented.

Your final comment that note neither of the two articles are opinion is sort of correct.

If the point is that these folks are trying to launch a coordinated response is what you call the fact, yes, that is so.

If the point is the headlines are an accurate factual finding, then no. credible is a relative term, and off the record has many meanings. Climate contrarians is a opinion. Scientists are worried what comes next is an absolute statement- accurately, it is some scientists are worried about the implications.

As to your statement about not knowing how the regulation was done and how the regulations are used, I beg to differ. I know very well how they used it, and the assumptions that were made to do so. I do know that it has been something that has been tested in the courts and so far has been allowed to stand. I just feel that those findings are erroneous and that the proper way to deal with it would have been to send the switch to how much of a naturally occurring item should be dealt with how to the legislative body to have the people say what they feel the proper way to proceed through our representatives. Proper way and understanding how it was done (and if it follows the current precedent of law) are very different things.

In effect if we go on as we have we will have a conflict of rights- the right to live and have children as we want vs the limits of the environment to tolerate this behavior. Deciding that we are going to slowly strangle ourselves by overpopulation or restrict behaviors is a governmental decision left to the people, not a few bureaucrats.

The above post is rather long, which makes it difficult to breakdown. I'll try.

You have provided several points to rebut or argue. I'll try to not get off on a tangent, like some herein do.

First - to cover several points at once - you say "there is no such thing as "contrary science". When I used that term, I further defined what I was talking about as pseudo science. And there definitely is such a thing and it has a definition, factually and objectively. In part the Trump admin is using a combination of pseudo science and contrarian scientists who produce contrarian science, not for the purpose of science itself but to defeat science, for the sake of ideology. IOW the outcome is predetermined.

Re climate science, there is consensus, then there are contrarians. There is also "solid" science vs "settled" science. The consensus is based on "solid" science. I don't know what "settled" science is for sure, but if I were to guess an example might be that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the definition and effect of greenhouse gas too, and the fact that other dynamics are in play too.

One more clue that it's a denier arguing is the claim uncertainty, however small, warrants no action.

And contrarian Scientist has a definite definition, and it's not opinion: https://www.google.com/search?...yAcy&sclient=gws-wiz
====================================================================

You say:

"When you base your conclusions on modeling, which is pretty much all of climate science (and a lot of their data is modeling as well) you are limiting your findings to other's potential conclusions being correct. They have been so far proven incorrect in that their findings are always requiring correction when the predictions don't meet evidence found later".

IMO, that's one of the typical points of argument re climate science denialism. It's squirrelly logic and not the way it all works.

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

You say:

"The dunning/kruger effect is a psychological theory that is trying to explain some experimental findings... it does not explain "why" or for that matter is at all predictive of who is actually correct. Your continual pulling it out actually shows how little you actually know about the scientific basis of it. It is actually relatively easy to disprove items, even on relatively weak knowledge; to state that something is factually true is much harder.

You are taking the point that someone who really doesn't know everything about what they are talking about (and they will freely admit it) and is making a guess as to what is going on that they think the evidence supports their claim (theory) is right. The Dunning/Kruger theory is actually saying you are the problem."

===============

Off hand, I can't think of ANY topic where I know everything about it. I suspect that's true of everyone herein, especially you. In looking for an explanation for your claims, and the implied claim that you know more than most and thus that makes you more correct or likely correct than most, when IMO you are justifying belief not factually based, the best fit seems to be the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's further definition:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

"Yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect can apply to individuals with high ability, though it manifests differently than in those with low ability. While the effect typically describes people with low competence overestimating their abilities, it also includes the tendency for highly competent individuals to underestimate their own skills and knowledge. This underestimation can lead them to inaccurately assess their abilities in comparison to others and potentially undervalue their contributions, according to Psychology Today."

"Yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a theory."

Note: I highlighted in bold the word "underestimated", and that's not you.

So, this "theory" has a flip side definition:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

AI summary: (when I attribute the D K Effect re you, this is what I mean)

"The psychological condition where people of high competence overestimate their ability or knowledge is often referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This cognitive bias leads individuals to believe they possess greater expertise or skill than they actually do, particularly in areas where they are relatively knowledgeable. Essentially, those who are good at something may mistakenly assume they are even better than they are."

That also explains why you are worth arguing with. This "discussion" would be far different, if at all, if I thought you were a dumbass.

==============================================

Obviously I'm no expert or authority at any of this, and never claimed to be.

You otoh have implied that you are. There has to be an explanation of why you are so wrong.

=============================================

You say:

"I am not making a claim that I have absolute proof or "know the answer"... I am just saying that there are too many issues that are ignored to say these folks are the right answer with the evidence presented."

In your way, that IS declaring an answer.

As explained, there is consensus as matters of fact, both the consensus itself and its basis, and there is contrarian as a matter of fact. Logically, to a layman, the consensus facts and conclusions are stronger, more probably correct, than the contrarians who hinge on lame science, unscientifically, and often if not mostly anecdotal, like opening a window to see what the weather is.

You say:

"As to your statement about not knowing how the regulation was done and how the regulations are used, I beg to differ. I know very well how they used it, and the assumptions that were made to do so. I do know that it has been something that has been tested in the courts and so far has been allowed to stand. I just feel that those findings are erroneous and that the proper way to deal with it would have been to send the switch to how much of a naturally occurring item should be dealt with how to the legislative body to have the people say what they feel the proper way to proceed through our representatives. Proper way and understanding how it was done (and if it follows the current precedent of law) are very different things."

That's too convoluted to breakdown, piece by piece, concisely. One key word is "feel". Something significant you didn't say, but implied, is that people are filled to the brim with ideology, fomenting "feel" and distrust fed by the Rightist propaganda machine. There is no way legislature can regulate science. They can only deny or affirm it, or muddy it. But the people and the legislature can appreciate science and "feel" accordingly. Instead, it is what it is.

You say:

"In effect if we go on as we have we will have a conflict of rights"...

We have always had a conflict of rights and conflicting ideology or worldviews. And it will continue. The Founders offered a solution through the rule of law, three branches, the social contract, etc.

Are we doomed to fuck it up? It depends on "attitude" which is feeling. This "feeling" thing is not science, except maybe psychology, and it applies broad scale, not just to climate science. After all, it was mostly feeling that got us where we are with Trump. In political science, it's called demagoguery.

No amount of "science" can fix the human condition. It can help us understand it. I can understand the climate scientist's frustration, those within the consensus. And I can understand the contrarians too. I can understand where each is coming from, their motives too.

This nixing the Endangerment Findings is a social engineering thing, and Trump is the point man. How fucking scary is that?

And another thing, if regs, for the sake of the social contract, can't fix anything, because of the ideological resistance, then natural consequences will find a remedy.

That's the path exactly what Rightists are knowingly pushing. Plot the trajectory.

Within your field of expertise, something you may understand is how did we get RFK jr influencing health and meds? Science? Nah. Feelings? Bingo.

How did we get RFK Jr.?

The science based folks overstated their case to make their power base larger. Fauci stated initially there was no scientific basis for masking with a virus like Covid.

He also took political sides.

He then switched ship for whatever reason and was wrong. He and the CDC oversold the vaccine and claimed “science.” Now they have egg all over their face because they didn’t follow science and admit “we don’t know.”

These scientists in their hubris damaged public trust in our scientific institutions.

Just like the climate guys have by claiming exaggerated effects for decades. Maybe they are right this time, but I wouldn’t bet on it based on the record.

As to feel as quoted- I feel that the use of regulation in the manner done is an overreach of the law and how it was intended at the time of writing it.

I don’t feel there is any science or fact basis as to how we regulate ourselves. It’s a legal system that uses philosophical logic, not facts as its basis.

Sure Doc. Nothing has changed with good science. Acid rain? New technology fixed that....but the scientist were wrong, the trees didn't die. Smog in LA? Nothing like it was 40 years ago but the scientists were wrong. Out of control fires in the western US year after year? Must not be climate change, damn scientist got it all wrong.

I am shocked than a man in the medical community feels that science is not used to regulate ourselves.

Care for another glass of Kool-Aid?

quote:

legal system that uses philosophical logic

I consider that very interesting. I didn't think of it that way. But it's true.

https://www.google.com/search?...IByU&sclient=gws-wiz

The US legal system, rooted in the English common law system, utilizes principles that draw upon philosophical logic, particularly concerning the use of precedent.

(there's a lot more in the link)

I learned something.

I always knew that the legal system, constitution, etc. was based in secular philosophy, but I didn't figure in the logic part, although it's logical.

I also asked the question: is science based in philosophical logic

Answer: https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

AI Overview:
While science utilizes logic, it is not solely based on philosophical logic; it also relies on empirical evidence and experimentation. Philosophy provides the framework for understanding scientific methods, assumptions, and the nature of knowledge , but science itself is driven by observation and experimentation to discover and explain the natural world.

(Note: I highlighted the key phrase)

Here's a more detailed explanation:

1. Logic as a Tool in Science:
Logic is essential for scientific reasoning, helping scientists to formulate hypotheses, design experiments, analyze data, and construct theories.

There's a lot more in the link.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Sure Doc. Nothing has changed with good science. Acid rain? New technology fixed that....but the scientist were wrong, the trees didn't die. Smog in LA? Nothing like it was 40 years ago but the scientists were wrong. Out of control fires in the western US year after year? Must not be climate change, damn scientist got it all wrong.

I am shocked than a man in the medical community feels that science is not used to regulate ourselves.

Care for another glass of Kool-Aid?

Accepting that climate change has an effect on our world is one thing, accepting that the EPA truly has any effect on climate change is quite another. Cleaning up smog in LA certainly has an effect on local atmospheric conditions and it is a good thing. The thing is, building social infrastructure which minimizes the use of fossil fuels would have been much more effective than creating a massive bureaucracy to regulate the burning of such fuels. Building bureaucracy is part of the lefty playbook; long range planning is not. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Sure Doc. Nothing has changed with good science. Acid rain? New technology fixed that....but the scientist were wrong, the trees didn't die. Smog in LA? Nothing like it was 40 years ago but the scientists were wrong. Out of control fires in the western US year after year? Must not be climate change, damn scientist got it all wrong.

I am shocked than a man in the medical community feels that science is not used to regulate ourselves.

Care for another glass of Kool-Aid?

I'm wondering how Doc feels about Trump overstepping his authority with tariffs, when it's the legislature where that responsibility and authority is, best I know?

If Trump oversteps his authority in one arena, what's holding him back overall?

Maybe some of that philosophical logic judiciary is the guardrail.

Some, if not most, if not all, his appointments to fed judge, like Aileen Cannon and recently Emil Bove are not just loyalist but true fascist enablers.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Sure Doc. Nothing has changed with good science. Acid rain? New technology fixed that....but the scientist were wrong, the trees didn't die. Smog in LA? Nothing like it was 40 years ago but the scientists were wrong. Out of control fires in the western US year after year? Must not be climate change, damn scientist got it all wrong.

I am shocked than a man in the medical community feels that science is not used to regulate ourselves.

Care for another glass of Kool-Aid?

Accepting that climate change has an effect on our world is one thing, accepting that the EPA truly has any effect on climate change is quite another. Cleaning up smog in LA certainly has an effect on local atmospheric conditions and it is a good thing. The thing is, building social infrastructure which minimizes the use of fossil fuels would have been much more effective than creating a massive bureaucracy to regulate the burning of such fuels. Building bureaucracy is part of the lefty playbook; long range planning is not. Regards, Bill

Simple question Bill, what is the right wing plan to deal with environmental issues? Drill baby, drill? Is that the social structure you speak of?

I'm not sure what Bill means by "social infrastructure" in the context he used the term.

The term is distinguishable from physical infrastructure, for one thing.

Perhaps he means laws and regs are within the social.

Let's just consider laws and regs in the legal infrastructure with social implications, like taking up the slack when voluntary abidance of the social contract isn't gonna happen.

But "social infrastructure" has definition, tangible and intangible:

https://equitablegrowth.org/wh...n-the-united-states/

What is social infrastructure, and how does it support economic growth in the United States?

Also:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...e+meaning&FORM=R5FD3

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

===========================================

We all know, or should know, what the Trump admin and GOPers have done to the social infrastructure built over a long time, and GOPers want to do more damage. So, I don't need to give details of something so obvious. Or do I? You tell me.

===========================================

Previous admins have provided the legislative basis in support of the physical infrastructure, such as renewable energy and EVs, and more. Trump admin and GOPers have actively crashed that too.

===========================================

In fact, the plan to eliminate the Endangerment Findings is an attack on at least the three infrastructures mentioned, legal, social and physical, all wrapped up in scientific findings.

In fact, Trumpism/GOPerism is a multi-faceted attack on all aspects of Americanism's infrastructure from cultural, international relations, economics, plus +++.

https://open.substack.com/pub/...=post&utm_medium=web

The Permanent Stain
Trump's first year has been a triumph for autocracy in America. And it will last.
Andrew Sullivan
Aug 08, 2025

==================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...h6B?ocid=socialshare

Trump cracks down on renewable energy
Story by Rachel Frazin • 5h • 4 min read

I agree with you that he’s overstepped the executive by using tariffs that should be initiated in the legislature.

Unfortunately, the legislature had written some broad allowances for the executive to initiate some tariffs and the courts have not stopped Trump from doing it because of that. The legislature should reclaim its authority there.

As to acid rain, as I recall there was legislation passed to regulate nitrogen emissions.

Smog was handled by local rules. It was more an effect of the chronic atmospheric inversion layer over the LA metroplex… too many people in too small a place. Yes, local pollution regulations substantially improved the situation.

Out of control fires? Hardly new, and not caused by CO2. It’s very multi factorial.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Sure Doc. Nothing has changed with good science. Acid rain? New technology fixed that....but the scientist were wrong, the trees didn't die. Smog in LA? Nothing like it was 40 years ago but the scientists were wrong. Out of control fires in the western US year after year? Must not be climate change, damn scientist got it all wrong.

I am shocked than a man in the medical community feels that science is not used to regulate ourselves.

Care for another glass of Kool-Aid?

I'm wondering how Doc feels about Trump overstepping his authority with tariffs, when it's the legislature where that responsibility and authority is, best I know?

If Trump oversteps his authority in one arena, what's holding him back overall?

Maybe some of that philosophical logic judiciary is the guardrail.

Some, if not most, if not all, his appointments to fed judge, like Aileen Cannon and recently Emil Bove are not just loyalist but true fascist enablers.

Your second sentence is not accurate.

The courts who have ruled on the issue has struck down Trump’s tariffs.

Likewise, in oral argument before the Fed Ct., the Court was clear legislation did not authorize these tariffs.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The leftist actions are simplistic and are knee-jerk. While some science is embraced, a vast amount is ignored. Lefties advocate taxing western populations while cheerfully making billions from polluters in the east. They confuse climate change with weather fluctuations. They ignore fossil records when findings might not agree with their pet theory.
Does the climate change? You bet it does. Do greenhouse gases play a part? They absolutely do. Does the imposition of a carbon tax have any positive effect? Hell, no. How about mandating electric vehicles? Give me a break. The truth is, the lefties boil climate change down to the simplest terms, then create equally simplistic solutions, while carefully avoiding any personal inconvenience. Turn up the AC in the Greenie headquarters and jump in the jet to carry the message around the world. Phooey!
In the early years, the EPA did some real good. There are rivers which came back to life, thanks to the EPA. In the last fifty years though, the agency has strangled on its own bureaucracy. It has become destructive rather than protective. It sees its role as being to stifle economic advances, whether they are environmentally beneficial or detrimental. It is simply a vehicle which, when funded by leftist idealism, allows a segment of the population to sit back and congratulate themselves on their advocacy, while turning a blind eye to the third-world calamity they help to support.
There are a whole bunch of those "green initiative" assholes who can talk the talk, but not many who really walk the walk. When it comes right down to it, they like their luxury, and even a little conspicuous consumption.
Anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with their parade is branded a "rightist climate denier" or something of the sort.
By the way, I am pro-park, pro wilderness, anti ATV, pro-hiking trail, anti-road, pro conservation, anti-waste. Don't label me, just because I don't necessarily believe everything the lefties spout. Regards, Bill

Excellent post sir!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Your second sentence is not accurate.

The courts who have ruled on the issue has struck down Trump’s tariffs.

Likewise, in oral argument before the Fed Ct., the Court was clear legislation did not authorize these tariffs.

except they didn't "strike down" did they? You are the prince of process, what's the next step of the case? goodness, you could aim for a GOOD form of consistency --

quote:

Unfortunately, the legislature had written some broad allowances for the executive to initiate some tariffs

Even if that was true, in essence the GOPer legislature has abdicated their authority to a monster, precisely because he's a monster, and they don't have the fortitude to take it back.

It's the same scenario with the Endangerment Findings. GOPer legislatures know their place with Trump in charge.

Saying the legislature should do this or that is like pissing into the wind. It's too late for that. You missed your opportunity to stop it. GOPers are complicit in all of it.

Now what are you going to do to help the rest of us to stop it? Make more excuses?

Go ahead, prove me wrong, make my day, redeem yourselves.

And regarding the tariffs, as I understand it, Trump declared some sort of national emergency by E. O., kicking in a provision that's wrong for the occasion, except for his authoritarian motives. This is unprecedented and un-president-ed.

Vote in the primaries (again.)

Frankly, there is only so much an individual can do.

The left started a lot of this by the games they've played over the years. The GOP is now playing games and will pay the price eventually.

Screeching and putting stupid snarky comments on every post has done SOOO well...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Unfortunately, the legislature had written some broad allowances for the executive to initiate some tariffs

Even if that was true, in essence the GOPer legislature has abdicated their authority to a monster, precisely because he's a monster, and they don't have the fortitude to take it back.

It's the same scenario with the Endangerment Findings. GOPer legislatures know their place with Trump in charge.

Saying the legislature should do this or that is like pissing into the wind. It's too late for that. You missed your opportunity to stop it. GOPers are complicit in all of it.

Now what are you going to do to help the rest of us to stop it? Make more excuses?

Go ahead, prove me wrong, make my day, redeem yourselves.

And regarding the tariffs, as I understand it, Trump declared some sort of national emergency by E. O., kicking in a provision that's wrong for the occasion, except for his authoritarian motives. This is unprecedented and un-president-ed.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Vote in the primaries (again.)

Frankly, there is only so much an individual can do.

The left started a lot of this by the games they've played over the years. The GOP is now playing games and will pay the price eventually.

Screeching and putting stupid snarky comments on every post has done SOOO well...

Blame the Left. SOP. The Left started it? With what games?

Re the "games", for lack of a better word, played by Rightists, I could name several, but I have already. Electing a compulsive liar and criminal for starters.

IMO, mostly what the Right calls Leftist games are ideological differences, and what the Left has been doing is building and maintaining Social Infrastructure and supporting institutions (see my above post for definitions). The Right has been fixated on destroying or stonewalling the left and building a house of cards.

The Right voted for Trump specifically because he promised to tear the Left's progressivism all down, a disrupter. What did he/they have plans for building? See Project 2025. I don't see any "building" in there, just destruction. That's unless you consider such plan is/was to build an authoritarian regime, self-perpetuating.

I didn't notice the screeching, but the snarky comments "feel" sooo satisfying. "Feel" is something you are familiar with.

Introspective is difficult. It's easier to see from the outside looking in the windows you offer, such as the steadfast justifications, and blame shifting.

That deviant Trump!
He made Obo give millions to Solyndra, who went bankrupt. And given the OK to bury all the cadmium filled panels on site, because they had no plan to get rid of them. The EPA was bypassed on that.
He made Biden fast track and bypass the EPA on green projects. The native americans never even got to go before a judge, on transmission lines going through sacred lands. Poof, all standards bypassed.
trump is a crafty rascal getting the progressives to do his bidding.

quote:

Obo give millions to Solyndra

Well, credit where credit is due.

That's the first time I've seen, in my recollection, where criticism of Obama is based in something solid.

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

===========================================

There is less certainty in this claim:

quote:

And given the OK to bury all the cadmium filled panels on site, because they had no plan to get rid of them. The EPA was bypassed on that.

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

===================================================

Just like a good conspiracy theory, build a series of claims off one fact. The further away from the starting point/fact the theory gets the less the dots connect and the more unhinged, and the more lies fill in the blank spaces.

"Biden fast track and bypass the EPA on green projects."

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

(Note: there is a lot of good and relevant info in this search, and it supports my premise in previous posts)

==================================================

"The native americans never even got to go before a judge, on transmission lines going through sacred lands."

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Excerpt:

While a lower court initially dismissed the case, a federal appeals court revived the lawsuit in May 2025, finding that the lower court erred and ordered the case to be reconsidered. This appellate court decision means that the tribes will have an opportunity to present their concerns in court, including arguments that the government agency may not have fulfilled its obligations to protect culturally significant sites and to properly consult with the tribes.

Maggie, the former CPA, is trying to argue "science" with an actual doctor. The jokes write (about) themselves

Dunning Kruger Effect:
A cognitive bias:

where people with low ability at a task overestimate their competence.

Conversely, those with high ability tend to underestimate their own skills.

Even people with high competence or skills in their field are susceptible to overestimation elsewhere.

This happens because individuals with limited knowledge lack the metacognitive skills to accurately assess their performance.

Doctors, (perhaps vets too) as a group, although highly skilled and usually highly competent, tend to be arrogant and overestimate.

Texans, in general, especially the dumbasses, full of hubris, overestimate.

CPA's however, are immune to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
CPA's however, are immune to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Yeah, we are aware

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
CPA's however, are immune to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Yeah, we are aware

Who's "we". Ya got a mouse in your pocket?

"Aware" is a concept that IMO isn't your thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
CPA's however, are immune to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Yeah, we are aware

Who's "we". Ya got a mouse in your pocket?

"Aware" is a concept that IMO isn't your thing.

No, I live in The real world, my mouse is on my desk.

You making a comment about being aware? YOU?

Yes, the jokes keep writing (about) themselves


Maggie posting about being "aware" ... thanks for the chuckle

Landfill waste is regulated. Various waste has to have liners, and effluent containment etc. All EPA regs.
There were none in place for solar waste when solyndra smashed up the panels because they couldt get rid of them, nor recycle. They were simply bulldozed under, regardless of what they were made of.
Read
IER
solar waste: a looming problem.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Landfill waste is regulated. Various waste has to have liners, and effluent containment etc. All EPA regs.
There were none in place for solar waste when solyndra smashed up the panels because they couldt get rid of them, nor recycle. They were simply bulldozed under, regardless of what they were made of.
Read
IER
solar waste: a looming problem.

burn through 500m is a loser product, this is what you get --

say, did, oh, solarcity ever do anything like this? Of course not, they are a going concern, not a porkbarrel propped up project

Battery waste and the mining of rare-earth minerals is also an impending environmental problem.