• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The contributions of Religion to sciences

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
no more hand holding?
You still have not presented where Lisa P. Jackson declared carbon dioxide a pollutant and you declare "no more hand holding"?

And you wonder why you have zero credibility?
Wow.
Just...
Wow
This ^^^

Thanks. I can't find it because it doesn't seem to exist.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Yes it does, read it

Are you seriously saying the EPA did NOT want to leverage the clean air act with this ruling on CO2?

That's something you could argue with them about,
I've read it twice now. Nothing in there claiming that the findings were announced to "leverage the Clean Air Act". I am assuming that you are reading between the lines here, so can you specify where this "leveraging" is explicitly mentioned?

And, no, I am not "seriously" saying that the EPA did not want to leverage the clean air act. I am saying that your claim (below) is not supported by the link you provided. You are speculating quite a bit.

" ... they had to claim it as harmful polutant to leverage the Clean Air Act."
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
It was about declaring it a pollutant, but re. leveraging the clean air act

Yes it does, read it

Are you seriously saying the EPA did NOT want to leverage the clean air act with this ruling on CO2?

That's something you could argue with them about,
What the EPA "wanted" to do is not at issue, and cannot really be supported either way, unless they explicitly claimed it. I am pointing out that what you claim to be stated in the link you provided in actuality is not. Thus, I am requesting that you cite the specific lines you are referring to.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
What the EPA "wanted" to do is not at issue, and cannot really be supported either way, unless they explicitly claimed it. I am pointing out that what you claim to be stated in the link you provided in actuality is not. Thus, I am requesting that you cite the specific lines you are referring to.



Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles

doesn't get much clearer than that does it?

If you still don't believe them I'd suggest you take it up with them, I can't really help you any more than this
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
It was about declaring it a pollutant, but re. leveraging the clean air act

Yes it does, read it

Are you seriously saying the EPA did NOT want to leverage the clean air act with this ruling on CO2?

That's something you could argue with them about,
He is flat out saying you have not supported your claim.
At all.

Your blatant distraction tactic is not helping your credibility any.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles

doesn't get much clearer than that does it?

If you still don't believe them I'd suggest you take it up with them, I can't really help you any more than this
where was carbon dioxide declared a pollutant/
You made the claim.
You have tried, but failed, to support that claim.

So far, the only one I have seen declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant is you, in your bold empty, completely failed at supporting, claim.

Care to try again?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
If I were to venture a guess: What is said is that it can be pollutant when in high concentrations distributed throughout the atmosphere, not that it's always a pollutant.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles

doesn't get much clearer than that does it?

If you still don't believe them I'd suggest you take it up with them, I can't really help you any more than this
That doesn't mean that was their reasoning for finding what they did. It was a necessary step so that the clean air act could be considered in congress. It doesn't indicate any kind of dishonesty or malicious intent.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
It was a necessary step so that the clean air act could be considered in congress.

but you also say

I am saying that your claim (below) is not supported by the link you provided
" ... they had to claim it as harmful polutant to leverage the Clean Air Act."


I'm confused as to why you think my claim was not supported by the link, when you agree that according to the link, the step was taken specifically to utilize the clean air act in congress!

If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were conceding the point!

can you be more specific as to why my original claim" they had to claim it as harmful polutant to leverage the Clean Air Act"

was wrong?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
but you also say




I'm confused as to why you think my claim was not supported by the link, when you agree that according to the link, the step was taken specifically to utilize the clean air act in congress!

If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were conceding the point!

can you be more specific as to why my original claim" they had to claim it as harmful polutant to leverage the Clean Air Act"

was wrong?
They had to perform the research, yes. They had to come up with some kind of consensus as to whether CO2 was a major contributing factor, yes. But, you claimed that they "had to claim it as a harmful polutant", which is not the case. They found that CO2 was harmful. But, to claim that their decision was influenced by anything other than the evidence is nothing more than speculation.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles

doesn't get much clearer than that does it?

If you still don't believe them I'd suggest you take it up with them, I can't really help you any more than this
You said this:


The EPA formally declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant! The very thing that makes Earth green”


And this:


"EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jacksonwas the first federal official to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant. On Dec. 7 2009,"


and this:


"they had to declare it as harmful pollution to leverage the clean air act"




Then when I ask where I can read this, you link me to a site that doesn’t say that.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
can you be more specific as to why my original claim" they had to claim it as harmful polutant to leverage the Clean Air Act"

was wrong?

Because you have not shown that it was ever declared a pollutant?
You have made the claim ad nauseum, but you have not shown said claim has any truth behind it.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
If I were to venture a guess: What is said is that it can be pollutant when in high concentrations distributed throughout the atmosphere, not that it's always a pollutant.

By that rationale, most life appeared and thrived on Earth with far higher atmospheric 'pollution' than today.

the Ordovician ice age had 10 x todays 'atmospheric pollution'

plants thrive on increased 'harmful atmospheric pollution'.


They had to perform the research, yes. They had to come up with some kind of consensus as to whether CO2 was a major contributing factor, yes. But, you claimed that they "had to claim it as a harmful polutant", which is not the case. They found that CO2 was harmful. But, to claim that their decision was influenced by anything other than the evidence is nothing more than speculation.

Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles

by their own admission, the motivation for the producing that finding was being able to leverage the clean air act, that's beyond dispute

whether or not they really believe a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air is harmful- is another matter, environmentalists are not exactly known for their scientific literacy so I think it's possible some of them actually believe it yes.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
The real question should be: "How often has religion contributed to knowledge through the falsification of scientific knowledge?"

I'd suggest that the correct answer is: "never."
 
Top