The contributions of Religion to sciences

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't seem to find this declaration. Do you know where I can find it?

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

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why in England now do they then call it Climate Change and not Global Warming? Why change the title? Why not mention how it is still rising?

Global warming was too specific- Same in US, after a couple of record breaking snowy winters, few people worry about 'warming'

'climate change' cannot be falsified because every possible observation is predicted by it- even the LACK of change which the iPCC now calls a 'hiatus'

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Where is the declaration?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Global warming was too specific- Same in US, after a couple of record breaking snowy winters, few people worry about 'warming'

'climate change' cannot be falsified because every possible observation is predicted by it- even the LACK of change which the iPCC now calls a 'hiatus'

Nope. Read the links I provided.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where do I find scientifically rigorous, peer reviewed papers on the subject of astrology?

http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/publications/correlation.php

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where is the declaration?

try Googling it if you want more details, it's hardly controversial - they had to declare it as harmful pollution to leverage the clean air act

 

[leibowde84]

Science does not look for the whole truth. Does it?
Regards

Of course science looks for the whole truth. The difference is merely that the scientific method requires verifiable evidence. If this could be supplied for God, the scientific method could be used.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. Read the links I provided

These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was the last period in the Earth's climate history during the last glacial period when ice sheets were at their greatest extension. Growth of the ice sheets reached their maximum positions 26,500 years ago. Deglaciation commenced in the Northern Hemisphere approximately 19,000 years ago, and in Antarctica approximately 14,500 years ago which is consistent with evidence that this was the primary source for an abrupt rise in the sea level 14,500 years ago.[1]

[] we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Darn cavemen and their SUVs!

 

[leibowde84]

try Googling it if you want more details, it's hardly controversial - they had to declare it as harmful pollution to leverage the clean air act

Why would they even need to leverage the clean air act if it isn't needed? Are you claiming that they don't believe that the clean air act is beneficial to the environment?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why would they even need to leverage the clean air act if it isn't needed? Are you claiming that they don't believe that the clean air act is beneficial to the environment?

The political power of the clean air act was sought to help enact taxes, fines, regulations -

 

[SkepticThinker]

try Googling it if you want more details, it's hardly controversial - they had to declare it as harmful pollution to leverage the clean air act

Like I said, I already did that. Can't find it. You made the claim, you back it up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/publications/correlation.php

That looks like a list of editorials.

 

[leibowde84]

try Googling it if you want more details, it's hardly controversial - they had to declare it as harmful pollution to leverage the clean air act

If you make the claim, shouldn't you be willing and able to provide the support?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was the last period in the Earth's climate history during the last glacial period when ice sheets were at their greatest extension. Growth of the ice sheets reached their maximum positions 26,500 years ago. Deglaciation commenced in the Northern Hemisphere approximately 19,000 years ago, and in Antarctica approximately 14,500 years ago which is consistent with evidence that this was the primary source for an abrupt rise in the sea level 14,500 years ago.[1]

[] we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Darn cavemen and their SUVs!

??

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Like I said, I already did that. Can't find it. You made the claim, you back it up.

google EPA CO2 declaration-- first result= http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

not very difficult to find!- no more hand holding- these are basic, research them yourself

 

[McBell]

The political power of the clean air act was sought to help enact taxes, fines, regulations -

of course it was.
Because, you know, there is no way in hell it was to try and curd CO2 emissions....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

??

!!

 

[leibowde84]

google EPA CO2 declaration-- first result= http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

not very difficult to find!- no more hand holding- these are basic, research them yourself

This doesn't support your claim. It merely shows that they declared the increase in CO2 dangerous/problematic. It doesn't say anything about "leveraging the Clean Air Act", which, we can safely assume, you were being asked to substantiate. Thus far, you seem to be basing your claim on speculation.

So, can you support your claim that this was done to "leverage the clean air act" by necessity?

 

[McBell]

google EPA CO2 declaration-- first result= http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

not very difficult to find!- no more hand holding- these are basic, research them yourself

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

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This doesn't support your claim. It merely shows that they declared the increase in CO2 dangerous/problematic. It doesn't say anything about "leveraging the Clean Air Act", which, we can safely assume, you were being asked to substantiate. Thus far, you seem to be basing your claim on speculation.

So, can you support your claim that this was done to "leverage the clean air act" by necessity?

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,