US Senate voted to block President Obama’s tough new climate change regulations (1 Viewer)

[Rx_]

I was surprised to see a reality check on this unreasonable resolution.
The supporters of this regulations were set to make huge profits.
When anyone with an engineering or scientific background questioned the background research supporting this regulation, the Grand Inquisition comes to mind.

Story:
The US Senate voted on Tuesday to block President Obama’s tough new climate change regulations. This may undermine his negotiating authority before a major international climate summit meeting in Paris this month.

The Senate resolution would scuttle a rule that would significantly cut alleged heat-trapping carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The President's backed Environmental Protection Agency rule, released in August 2015, were the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s efforts to address climate change.
A second resolution, which also passed 52 to 46, would strike (delete) a related Environmental Protection Agency rule intended to freeze construction of future coal-fired power plants.

Three Democrats from states in which coal plays a major role in the economy, Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, helped lead support of the outcome of the resolutions.

My electrical power is in fact Natural Gas running through extremely efficient turbines (95%) and Wind Power (5%). Our state started an effort to close coal power years ago. While there are still coal power plants in the area being replaced, my local power is no longer coal.

What is in your electric Socket?

 

[pbaldy]

FYI, I was able to edit the title.

 

[Rx_]

Thanks.
President Obama used a commencement address at the US Coast Guard Academy May 20th 2015 Wednesday afternoon to make clear that his administration views climate change as the most severe threat to national security.

Just thought the biggest threat to national security might be worth a mention.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Climate change may, indeed, be the most severe threat to long-term national security. It is probably also the most intractable of the threats one can enumerate including but not limited to international terror, trade wars, and immigration issues.

 

[Galaxiom]

While climate change isn't the only problem in the world it will exacerbate others such food and water shortages by changing rainfall patterns and degrading arable land. This will increase conflict as people fight for resources in turn leading to more refugee crises.

It is all going to come undone in a big way sometime unless solutions are reached by intelligent planning. Unfortunately most of the people running the planet are not very intelligent.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Recent evidence shows many civilizations were doomed by RCC rapid climate change. Varna Bulgaria is just one example of a ancient civilization who scrummed to climate change (drought) not ice.

We have no answer for axial tilt or RCC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#History

Earth's axis remains tilted in the same direction with reference to the background stars throughout a year (regardless of where it is in its orbit). This means that one pole (and the associated hemisphere of Earth) will be directed away from the Sun at one side of the orbit, and half an orbit later (half a year later) this pole will be directed towards the Sun. This is the cause of Earth's seasons. Summer occurs in the Northern hemisphere when the north pole is directed toward the Sun. Variations in Earth's axial tilt can influence the seasons and is likely a factor in long-term climate change (also see Milankovitch cycles).

 

[Steve R.]

Recent evidence shows many civilizations were doomed by RCC rapid climate change. Varna Bulgaria is just one example of a ancient civilization who scrummed to climate change (drought) not ice.

We have no answer for axial tilt or RCC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#History

Additionally: How Earth´s Orbital Shift Shaped the Sahara

Besides the Sahara, I have read that the Middle East became less fertile over time through thousands of years of human activity that resulted in deforestation.

 

[Steve R.]

Climate change is a serious issue. We also need appropriate environmental regulations to protect the environment. Nevertheless, I am very sceptical concerning the honesty of this debate. Obama has demonstrated that he is only about the "optics", not about substance.

• Obama was dishonest in "selling" the "Affordable Care Act" to the electorate. Obama lied about keeping your plan and doctor.
• With the sequester Obama at various times claimed it was great and vilified it (almost simultaneously). In the end, he condemned, the very agreement he approved claiming that it would cause an economic disaster which never occurred.
• Obama was dishonest with the agreement to suspend nuclear weapons development in Iran. Obama claimed it would stop the development of Iranian nuclear weapons when it simply delays their development for approximately ten years assuming that Iran upholds the agreement.
• Obama touted a climate change agreement with China. On inspection, it appears that China will be allowed to increase CO2 emission until 2030.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Climate change is a serious issue. We also need appropriate environmental regulations to protect the environment. Nevertheless, I am very sceptical concerning the honesty of this debate. Obama has demonstrated that he is only about the "optics", not about substance.

• Obama was dishonest in "selling" the "Affordable Care Act" to the electorate. Obama lied about keeping your plan and doctor.
• With the sequester Obama at various times claimed it was great and vilified it (almost simultaneously). In the end, he condemned, the very agreement he approved claiming that it would cause an economic disaster which never occurred.
• Obama was dishonest with the agreement to suspend nuclear weapons development in Iran. Obama claimed it would stop the development of Iranian nuclear weapons when it simply delays their development for approximately ten years assuming that Iran upholds the agreement.
• Obama touted a climate change agreement with China. On inspection, it appears that China will be allowed to increase CO2 emission until 2030.

Obama had no say in the plan/doctor issue. The law, as written, had no requirement that you change your plan or doctor, and he fully expected that to be the case. What he didn't expect was for the insurance companies to mess with EVERYTHING, including cancelling plans, cutting doctors, and generally only notifying participants of the absolutely most-expensive options. Personally, I think he was an idiot for not expecting the insurance companies to sabotage the Act, as it was almost certain to cut their profits slightly, but that's a far cry from Fox News' claims that he lied about it.

Regarding the sequester, you're conflating what he said in 2011 - where he agreed with the idea in principle - with what he's saying now - which is to say that the GOP straight-up refused to make any acceptable suggestions or compromise in anyway, resulting in across-the-board cuts that could have been avoided if the GOP's plan since 11/5/2008 weren't specifically enumerated as 'Block Obama in All Things'.

The 'ten years' thing is right-wing propaganda, nothing more. The estimate before the agreement was that Iran was capable of building a nuclear weapon in no longer than 3 months, yet you and yours are not telling anyone about that part, because it goes against the 'OBAMA IS EVIL INCARNATE' agenda. So yes, if Iran abides by the agreement and then refuses to renew it,k then it will take them at least a year after that before they can build it. Beats the hell out of a couple months, though, don't you think? And honestly, that is one of many provisions.

You are also deliberately overlooking the fact that they are to destroy, dispose of, or otherwise get rid of 97% of their enriched uranium and 70% of their centrifuges, not to mention entering a binding agreement to not enrich uranium to weapons-levels for at least 15 years. They are to not refine plutonium under any circumstances, and have agreed to dismantle their plutonium reactor and not build any others. They also signed a permanent agreement to straight-up not build nuclear weapons, and to notify the International Atomic Energy commission if they ever want to build nuclear reactors.

You also skipped over the little fact that should ANY of the stipulations be violated, full trade sanctions will be put back into place.

You also keep trying to blame Obama for this when it was between Iran and all five members of the UN Security Council (the US, the UK, France, Russia, China), plus Germany and the EU as a whole, because, like so many people who let Fox News do their thinking rather than thinking for themselves, you have bought into the whole story that Obama is Evil And Trying To Destroy America, and that literally everything he does must be opposed.

Seriously, Steve, you really should do your research before posting crap like that. You just sound like a Fox News shill.

 

[Steve R.]

Frothingslosh, I will respectively disagree with your mistaken responses.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah, yes, you cannot refute my response because they are all provable facts, so you'll just say I'm wrong, provide no examples, and leave.

Got it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Steve R - it is interesting to me that the article you posted (and thanks for that post, by the way) talks about how the climate changed 6000 years ago. If that was closer to 6300 years ago then we have the event that the Bible mistakenly calls the "Creation" event - a change in the Earth's axial tilt angle!

Of course, those of our members with religious inclination will decline to talk about axial inclination, since it might tend to provide a mundane reason for their "big event." If this starts another brouhaha over creation, perhaps I will merely recline to watch it all play out.

 

[Alc]

Steve R - it is interesting to me that the article you posted (and thanks for that post, by the way) talks about how the climate changed 6000 years ago. If that was closer to 6300 years ago then we have the event that the Bible mistakenly calls the "Creation" event - a change in the Earth's axial tilt angle!

Yes, if only. Because we all know the Bible is nothing if not precise in it's content and attempts to match events recounted therein to actual occurrences have always been done using unbiased, scientific reasoning

 

[Steve R.]

Ah, yes, you cannot refute my response because they are all provable facts, so you'll just say I'm wrong, provide no examples, and leave.

The problem is that no matter how many facts I supply, you will still maintain that they are faulty in some manner since only your so-called facts will count as the truth.

Furthermore: Please explain how you supposedly know that my facts come from Fox News? The sources cited below, as you will note, are not from Fox News.

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester

Obama’s Most Successful Lie!

Obama condemns the very sequester he proposed, complemented, and then signed into law. Also note that the economic collapse Obama predicted, never occurred. Obama speech boils down to mean spirited fear-mongering. U-tube video: Obama Sequester FULL Speech: Republicans Are Putting Economy At Risk To Help The Wealthy

 

[Bladerunner]

Ah, yes, you cannot refute my response because they are all provable facts, so you'll just say I'm wrong, provide no examples, and leave.

Got it.

Those facts depend upon which side of the tracks you are on and you know we are polar opposites.
You're wrong Frothy:

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, if only. Because we all know the Bible is nothing if not precise in it's content and attempts to match events recounted therein to actual occurrences have always been done using unbiased, scientific reasoning

The Bible is far more precise that you think my friend...

 

[Alc]

The Bible is far more precise that you think my friend...

It couldn't be any less.

If it were precise, there would be no wars between different groups, both claiming to follow the bible's teachings.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Well, one can draw SOME interesting historical information from the bibble. After all, they correctly described what happens when someone stands under a bolide explosion.

What? You didn't know? The Chaldean astronomers of about 3200 BC recorded the passage of a flaming meteor / fireball going in the direction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but there is no crater at that site. There is, however, some evidence of a meteoric air-blast that is sometimes referred to as a bolide explosion. (There is a tell-tale deposit of iridium, for example, which is most common after meteoric explosions.)

If Lot's wife stayed outside of the caves where Lot and the rest of the family went for shelter, she would have been pretty much vaporized, leaving only a mound of potassium and sodium salts. Yes, the bibble describes that pillar of salt but doesn't tell you what actually caused it. After all, primitive minds saw meteoric explosions as a sign from some god or another.

There is another case of that... the parting of the Red Sea (actually, probably the "Reed" Sea) due to seismic activity.

Then there are the plagues of Egypt, currently believed to be due to volcanic actions.

There are a few others, but of course the overly zealous members of the forum will merely say that these events were God's way of implementing His judgment. MY response is that there ALWAYS has to be a scientific reason since otherwise you would have proof - and we all know that it has to be a matter of faith, not proof, that will lead you to God. And therein lies the rub. It is ALWAYS a matter of interpretation. I have simply chosen to interpret the events scientifically.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

perhaps I will merely recline to watch it all play out.

Doc, so much for reclining and watching it all play out ;-)

In your defense, you did say 'perhaps', lol.

 

[Bladerunner]

Well, one can draw SOME interesting historical information from the bibble. After all, they correctly described what happens when someone stands under a bolide explosion.

What? You didn't know? The Chaldean astronomers of about 3200 BC recorded the passage of a flaming meteor / fireball going in the direction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but there is no crater at that site. There is, however, some evidence of a meteoric air-blast that is sometimes referred to as a bolide explosion. (There is a tell-tale deposit of iridium, for example, which is most common after meteoric explosions.) .

[/QUOTE]

Doc,,,,there is one thing for sure, I have to study a lot to make sure you are on track and that I have an correct answer for you.

The Chaldean astronomers of about 3200 BC , were actually around 725 to 65BC. You are right in the fact that Babylonian astrology was further back. I got this info from Wiki so It may be right according you some on this thread (you know who).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy see Neo-Babylonian astronomy

I had to go back to the Bible study to find the appropriate dates. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed sometime during the year before Isaac was born. This was around 1550 BC.

A metoric air-blast or a nuclear blast did not do according to archeological findings in the last 100 years. It was Fire and Brimstone or a type of Sulfur (possibly Bitumen). Here is an article concerning Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities in the area. Yes, it is written by Jewish publisher and it compares ARC. findings as late as the 1970's and maybe later with the Torah...They seem to JIVE!.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html

I am going to address this post of yours in at least two different parts. Mainly because that God exist and the Bible is truthful regardless of what people say..

I pray to our father in heaven, everyone has a great Thanksgiving.

Blade