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

Excerpt:

Donald Trump has long called climate change a "hoax." Some of his appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency have made clear over the first six months of the president's second term that they feel similarly.

The EPA is reportedly preparing to rescind a landmark 2009 declaration, known as the "endangerment finding," which determined that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to humans. The finding was the legal predicate for regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act, as well as for the government's ability to regulate car emissions and pollution more broadly.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March that the agency would consider rescinding the declaration, asserting that the administration would not "sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas." The New York Times reports that the EPA will make a similar argument in rescinding the declaration, claiming that the real danger to human health is climate regulation - on automakers, for instance - which leads to higher prices for consumers. The Washington Post notes that the draft of the formal rescission of the declaration would formally eliminate federal regulations on auto emissions.

The news of the impending order to trash the "endangerment finding" comes days after the EPA announced it is going to totally eliminate its Office of Research and Development. The EPA's scientific research arm studied the effects of greenhouse gases, chemicals, wildfires, and other hazards, providing analyses that undergirded federal environmental policy.

In view of the fact that other countries produce the bulk of the greenhouse gases, and in view of the fact that regulations are only lip service to a concept. This is probably not a bad thing. The simplistic kneejerk reaction to the greenhouse gas theory is providing no discernable benefit since the greatest offenders are doing nothing. We are doing nothing as well, in reality, because we continue to consume goods which are produced on the other side of the world, without the restrictions we impose upon ourselves, then shipped by oil fueled cargo ships to our shores. Meanwhile, lefties tax the hell out of people here and congratulate themselves on their efforts to fight climate change. They do this while sitting in their air-conditioned offices or their 4000 square foot home. Regards, Bill.

I see your points, Bill.

I read an article or viewed a video recently which explained how the USA used to be the leader in tech and production and innovation, etc. But China has surpassed us in several ways. And the trajectory is expected to continue.

For one reason, their regime isn't as keen about environmental protection and human rights as supposedly we are. Regs and restrictions put us at a disadvantage, supposedly.

I don't know how to cure that, assuming it needs a cure.

One thing I'm sure of is that Trump(ism) isn't a cure or resolution or a path to restore.

IMO, gutting the Endangerment Finding is like shooting oneself in the foot to cure a bunion.

It's just wrong thinking.

We used to be creative. Now we're falling behind in the world for lack of it, substituting hard core ideology for innovation, and leadership.

The only thing Trump is creative about is how to be a demagogue, and the advocates of project 2025 are only interested in and creative about power and keeping it to serve their ideology, rather than the nation.

The scenario and outcomes and projections speaks for itself.

I'd like to see more nuclear plants built. Lots of them.

First off, we have to accept that there is absolutely nothing we do which will not, in some way, impact the earth and those who live on it.
Hydro-electric power is touted as "clean energy". Tell that to the people who are displaced when their farms are flooded, or those who loved the wildlife supported on the bottom land, or the natural fishery. Nothing green about it. Nuclear plants are potentially better, at least in the short term.
Of one thing I'm fairly certain, building bureaucracy is unlikely to be the answer, yet that is all the left has offered. Being openly antagonistic or apathetic toward the environment isn't an answer either, but that's what the right has to offer.
It is all too common for people to automatically oppose actions because of the source. The truth is, the EPA has failed in its mandate. It became simply a barrier to development of any sort and also showed the susceptibility to lobbying which seems to be common in Washington. Maybe it does need to be reined in and restarted. Maybe concentrating on greenhouse gas emissions as the root of all things evil is wrong. Simplistic reasoning is seldom entirely right and that is what the climate change culture is guilty of. Regards, Bill

The Endangerment Finding is solid science.

Some will read that to mean I said settled science.

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

FYI, those who read it as settled science, with the Rightist's negative connotations, are those where the root of the problem lies, IMO.

The only reason Trump regime wants to gut the Endangerment Finding is to remove solid science from policy considerations. Out of sight, out of mind.

Every time a republican regime takes power, they anoint anti-science people in power positions, and chop regs. Why? The answer is obvious.

What part of Jefferson's Social Contract do republicans respect? IMO, mostly republicans think it an archaic concept, perhaps even dishonest, if they know anything about it at all. And they think the role of govt is to create and/or maintain a favorable environment for big-business, more so than for the human population in general, like big-business is the gold at the foot of the rainbow.

Climate science relates directly with the best interest and well being and health and healthy environment. Rightist seem to think that the populace can self-regulate, with the law of zero-sum, in satisfaction of the Social Contract.

So, how does de-regulation relate directly with the health and welfare of the human inhabitants? Who's best interest is at stake? Could it be wealth over health? Whose wealth (financial)? Whose health (physical)?

Maybe we've just emerged from an interstellar dust cloud, and the sun shines brighter, hence warmer weather. Still, why would we do things that make it worse?

They’re going to have to change the name to EDA, for Environmental Desecration Agency.

Their mission statement will read “All Me, All The Time, Fuck The Future!”

The concept that greenhouse gases contribute to increased temperature is solid science. That humans can do anything much about it is much less so. When proponents fail to practice what they preach, it strains credibility.
The idea that regulatory bodies accomplish anything but to offer an impression of pro-environment action is laughable. What they do is, they empire build, just like anyone else.
Climate science is a misnomer. Climate business is more realistic. Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The concept that greenhouse gases contribute to increased temperature is solid science. That humans can do anything much about it is much less so. When proponents fail to practice what they preach, it strains credibility.
The idea that regulatory bodies accomplish anything but to offer an impression of pro-environment action is laughable. What they do is, they empire build, just like anyone else.
Climate science is a misnomer. Climate business is more realistic. Bill

Just to be clear. Atmospheric composition can change solar radiation interactions. CO2 has been claimed to be both a warming and cooling agent. Just look at time and popular science in the 70s. The fear in the 70s was global cooling.

Oh, al gore said all the world's ice would be melted a decade ago

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The concept that greenhouse gases contribute to increased temperature is solid science. That humans can do anything much about it is much less so. When proponents fail to practice what they preach, it strains credibility.
The idea that regulatory bodies accomplish anything but to offer an impression of pro-environment action is laughable. What they do is, they empire build, just like anyone else.
Climate science is a misnomer. Climate business is more realistic. Bill

Just to be clear. Atmospheric composition can change solar radiation interactions. CO2 has been claimed to be both a warming and cooling agent. Just look at time and popular science in the 70s. The fear in the 70s was global cooling.

Oh, al gore said all the world's ice would be melted a decade ago

So how has it worked out, is it cooler or warmer? Or is it just that Jesus likes it this way?

As for the rest of it, like labor unions, it starts out as a cause, becomes a business, devolves into a racket...

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The concept that greenhouse gases contribute to increased temperature is solid science. That humans can do anything much about it is much less so. When proponents fail to practice what they preach, it strains credibility.
The idea that regulatory bodies accomplish anything but to offer an impression of pro-environment action is laughable. What they do is, they empire build, just like anyone else.
Climate science is a misnomer. Climate business is more realistic. Bill

Just to be clear. Atmospheric composition can change solar radiation interactions. CO2 has been claimed to be both a warming and cooling agent. Just look at time and popular science in the 70s. The fear in the 70s was global cooling.

Oh, al gore said all the world's ice would be melted a decade ago

so wrong of 10 years means world ice is not melting ...

You have it right, Tom.
Look at what Trump has done, and yet dont forget what Biden did. Fast tracked green projects past the EPA, before courts could hear the cases brought.
We had Kabob whining about emissions, while driving from georgia to alaska.
A side question for Tom.
With all thats going on, why is the stock market up, and what made you think it was going back up?
Everyone else predicted the end of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
You have it right, Tom.
Look at what Trump has done, and yet dont forget what Biden did. Fast tracked green projects past the EPA, before courts could hear the cases brought.
We had Kabob whining about emissions, while driving from georgia to alaska.
A side question for Tom.
With all thats going on, why is the stock market up, and what made you think it was going back up?
Everyone else predicted the end of the world.

If we are looking for inflation, we need look no further than the price of a retirement stream of income.

The next course of events is out in the fog. It's not clear to me whether corporate assets and the return on those assets justify the stock prices. Price-to-earnings ratios in the thirties used to be an indicator of really high profits or really fast growth (in a 5 percent interest environment). Book value is something to study, in times of rapid change. A friend is sitting on an inventory of used electronic test equipment. Nice stuff, but for last-generation system development. Demand for it is limited.

Asset prices are at a level appropriate to an environment featuring low interest rates and lots of loose money looking for a return, in my humble opinion. Insurance companies and pension funds have to place surplus funds somewhere, and lately the options are limited. Exotic investments exist but require specialized and real-time knowledge that isn't taught in business school.

I could be full of beans, and have been a few times over the last few decades. I was holding stock in a two-way pager company and missed the transition to cellphone texting, as an example. Oops...this one was rough on a self-managed Roth IRA.

And I may be missing the boat with Artificial Intelligence as well. With the entirety of the internet to feed on for training, it may become our external memory assist. Can it be transformed to reason, create new thoughts, speculate as we do, and do inductive reasoning? I dunno, maybe by running out random vectors in Hilbert space like a chess program (but the options for next states are unlimited). And in what form will the return on investment manifest itself? We cannot all become rich from stock market tips, any more than by serving each others' hamburgers. Someone has to provide the cash. Who's the bunny?

https://youtube.com/shorts/SHV...?si=GFUB4DDJ3dE6z1ua

Trump’s EPA is dismantling the office charged with holding polluters accountable

https://youtu.be/c-N4sOwKhjw?si=NOxnY0dV7wNngmw9

Trump administration proposes one of the largest deregulation actions in US history

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

This is part of project 2025

https://youtu.be/OFEkpTorf78?si=SZdpuD_xTCekFWOJ

EPA to revoke landmark basis for greenhouse gas regulation

make acid rain great again

https://youtu.be/1ab5fez6Zlo?si=ZO19U53QjZYQxjO9 2 hours ago

The significance of EPA plan to revoke landmark greenhouse gas finding

https://youtube.com/shorts/VNX...?si=KreARKD2_El7xEgP

Americas SECRET Weapon !!

Here's some irony:

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

People Are Pointing Out This One Dystopian Detail In A Fox News Segment About Climate Change
1h •
1 min read

Orwell would be amazed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...M3w?ocid=socialshare

Trump Yanks Millions of Acres of Ocean Designated for Wind
Story by Ari Natter • 3h • 2 min read

https://youtu.be/yByI9G7Zh8c?si=dMbTIRtWoFbMfLkS

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

EPA Stops Protecting The Environment