Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread (Read 438036 times)

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1250 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM »

Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1251 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:52:26 PM »

97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1252 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:55:32 PM »

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM

Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"? Fascinating

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1253 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:04:10 PM »

Is nitrogen pollution?

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1254 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:07:45 PM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 10:52:26 PM

97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water

Republicans want to see the planet burn because they've set up Planet McCain in another solar system.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1255 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:12:52 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 11:07:45 PM

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 10:52:26 PM
97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water

Republicans want to see the planet burn because they've set up Planet McCain in another solar system.

Yep, anarchy and chaos is the republican way. Let the bankers hoard all the money, take shoes away from children give it all to THE MAN.

michigancat · « **Reply #1256 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:54:51 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:30:11 PM

Really dude, I mean you've never read or seen the constant narrative that United States is the biggest polluter etc. etc. Yet, the last time a U.S. City even looked remotely like many Chinese cities was 35 and 40 years ago from an air quality perspective.

no, literally everyone thinks China is the worst polluter and knows all their cities have gross smog and pollution

(although the US does consume much more energy per capita)

Tobias · « **Reply #1257 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:57:00 PM »

it's clear less regulation is needed

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1258 on:** January 29, 2015, 12:30:04 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:55:32 PM

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"? Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 11:04:10 PM

Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1259 on:** January 29, 2015, 06:11:02 AM »

So the stuff that makes plants grow is defined wholly as "pollution"?

Now that's funny. But with a nod to the Clean Air Act which pretty much rolled out a paint brush the size of a football field, yes, it is considered a pollutant.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1260 on:** January 29, 2015, 08:44:58 AM »

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 12:30:04 AM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:55:32 PM
Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"? Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 11:04:10 PM
Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.

You can't be serious

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1261 on:** January 29, 2015, 08:47:55 AM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 08:44:58 AM

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:55:32 PM
Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"? Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 11:04:10 PM
Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.

You can't be serious

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1262 on:** January 29, 2015, 08:49:30 AM »

Good, just wanted to confirm you are full on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1263 on:** January 29, 2015, 08:58:46 AM »

Quote

Excess nitrogen in water can harm people
Too much nitrogen, as nitrate, in drinking water can be harmful to young infants or young livestock. Excessive nitrate can result in restriction of oxygen transport in the bloodstream. Infants under the age of 4 months lack the enzyme necessary to correct this condition ("blue baby syndrome"). In parts of Eastern Europe where groundwater is contaminated with 50-100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of nitrate, pregnant women and children under 1 year of age are supplied with bottled water.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1264 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:06:47 AM »

First, the context of all of this is air pollution, but that's been conflated in the most ignorant of fashions.

Second, when you don't know the difference between nitrogen (a innate gas) and nitrogen compounds used to make fertilizer, you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Just like thinking that CO2 is a pollutant, even though the epa does not list it as a voc. Like 75-80% of the air you breath is nitrogen, you rough ridin' idiot.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1265 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:08:38 AM »

Did you guys know oxygen is a pollutant.

Yep, when one oxygen is combined with one carbon you get carbon monoxide which can kill you. Therefore oxygen is a pollutant, and we need to get rid of it.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1266 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:11:10 AM »

Also, if you take 3 oxygens and 1 nitrogen you get nitrate, which can kill babies. Check my math on this, but that means oxygen is 3 times the pollutant nitrogen is. Scary stuff folks. The only safe place to breath appears to be the vacuum of outer space.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1267 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:13:02 AM »

husserl · « **Reply #1268 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:14:45 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 09:06:13 PM

WSJ: The Myth of the 97% Consensus

It's almost as misleading a statistic as the "women only earn 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" bs.

An op-ed piece from the same folks that debunk the whole "smoking is bad for you" thing. Amazing post.

CNS · « **Reply #1269 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:18:24 AM »

If you take a chemical stance, most anything in the pollution debate can be broken down in to elements that are not harmful in pure form. Doesn't mean they aren't harmful as a compound.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1270 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:22:40 AM »

Quote from: CNS on January 29, 2015, 09:18:24 AM

If you take a chemical stance, most anything in the pollution debate can be broken down in to elements that are not harmful in pure form. Doesn't mean they aren't harmful as a compound.

No crap, sherlock. Certain retards on this board are obviously confused by that.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1271 on:** January 29, 2015, 09:57:38 AM »

Farmers apply nitrogen to the ground. Bacteria on the soils convert it to nitrate, which is good for plants, but bad for humans, and would not be in the water supply if they hadn't applied the nitrogen.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1272 on:** January 29, 2015, 10:20:03 AM »

x 3

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #1273 on:** January 29, 2015, 10:36:39 AM »

Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1274 on:** January 29, 2015, 11:02:07 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2015, 10:36:39 AM

Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?

No, I'd rather not live like the Chinese do.