|
quick hookup websitesOnce more, these might not look like the most thrilling questions to ask on a 1st date, but they will shed light on the type of person you are face to face with. free party lines in san diego With a tiny self reflection and honesty you can improved realize your past relationships and function towards making your existing connection a lot more productive. You can safely assume they value loyalty and tradition. marzetti spaetzle dumplings If you happen to be struggling with breakouts on your chin and jaw location, study this. free no subscription hookup sitesThese inquiries are worded in a way that sound playful and exciting but the way he answers them will give you a lot of details. dallas back package latinas Dating excellent men and women at our American on the net dating internet site is totally 100% totally free of charge. Unfortunately, at times, that man is in prison. listcrawler pottstown So please don t be gullible when factors seems too excellent to begin with. Home Sign In Search Date Ideas Join Forums Singles Groups - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!
| 12/20/2016 11:05:46 AM |
McCarthy And The EPA Need To Go Away |
|
tileman1814
Kalispell, MT
66, joined Nov. 2007
|
Part 1
First mistake you don't challenge someone and think what you have is absolute especially since the greater portion of the scientific world said that's it's based on unscientific and based on unsubstantiated scientific data just like when alshit Gore tried to cram it down our throats.Nothing is absolute just like her position as head of the EPA she can and should be replaced.
Semper Fi !!!
The chief architect of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies has warned the incoming Trump administration that US law and the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.
With the outlook for global climate action uncertain after the US election, Gina McCarthy, the top US environmental regulator, told the Financial Times that climate change sceptics led by Donald Trump would have limited room for manoeuvre.
“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, outlining why US law would ensure that Mr Trump could not easily abolish climate change regulations.
Mr Trump’s presidential victory delivered a shock to global efforts to tackle climate change. He vowed in his campaign to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate pact and to end US funding for UN climate programmes.
The president-elect has embraced the Republican party’s doubts on global warming, tweeting in 2012 that it was a hoax invented by China. This month he said it was “a big scam for a lot of people to make a lot of money”, but on the scientific evidence declared: “I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows.”
Ms McCarthy said: “I frankly am disappointed that we’re still talking about the science of climate, because that really has been long settled.”
To replace Ms McCarthy, Mr Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt, a politician who has repeatedly excoriated the EPA and made it his mission to try to scupper her signature achievements.
Ms McCarthy said that, just as she had to provide a scientific foundation for her regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions, the Trump administration would be required by the Clean Air Act to show that any attempt to tear up the regulations was scientifically justified.
“If they choose [to] develop a different record then they have a right to do that, but it’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them, because I have no question that what we have done will be solid from a science perspective,” she said.
“They have to figure out why the climate science isn’t overwhelming and go back all the way to the Supreme Court to explain why decisions we’ve already made are no longer correct, and I wouldn’t want to have that burden myself.”
Speaking in her wood-panelled office at the EPA — which is now abutted by Washington’s new Trump International Hotel — Ms McCarthy warned of the dangers of clinging to climate change denial like “a religion or a belief system”. She insisted that climate sceptics remained a “small group” outside mainstream opinion, even though Mr Trump’s victory will put them in positions of power.
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 12/20/2016 11:06:11 AM |
McCarthy And The EPA Need To Go Away |
|
tileman1814
Kalispell, MT
66, joined Nov. 2007
|
Part 2
Semper Fi !!!
As the attorney-general of oil-rich Oklahoma, Mr Pruitt has denounced Ms McCarthy for allegedly violating the law and joined at least eight lawsuits aimed at consigning her work to the scrapheap. Now Mr Trump is offering him a chance to officially dismantle it.
After his nomination was announced this month the green group 350.org called Mr Pruitt a “fossil fuel industry puppet” and one left-leaning news website published a story headlined “The End of the EPA?”
Ms McCarthy, a battle-hardened regulator with a shock of short white hair and a thick Boston accent, thinks not. She predicted that if confirmed by the Senate Mr Pruitt would find the reality of office to be sobering.
“If you look at some of the background of Scott Pruitt and others, they don’t do environmental work,” she said. “So some of their arguments don’t really rest in the kind of record that you need and the kind of authority that we’re given — and responsibility we’re given.”
With an overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing that humans have caused global warming, Ms McCarthy warned that questioning that conclusion jeopardised the US’s credibility as a leader in other science-dependent fields of technology and business.
“People need to remember that you can’t just selectively undermine the science in one area without undermining science everywhere,” she said. “We just have to all keep our eye on that and make sure that, in the interest of making one equation come out the way someone might want it, you don’t undermine the equation for everything that we rely on.”
Noting that most of the rest of the world had pledged to keep cutting fossil fuel pollution despite Mr Trump’s vow to quit the Paris deal, Ms McCarthy said: “We’re going to be in the back. And we’re going to be in a very lonely place. I think it’s only us and Nicaragua that would be there. It’s sort of not the company you want to keep.”
But she argued that regardless of government policy, the US energy market was moving towards cleaner energy simply because the cost of wind and solar power had dropped so much. “If the market is valuing renewables because it’s cheaper energy, then I don’t know why anyone would disrupt that,” she said.
Ms McCarthy met Mr Pruitt at a September court hearing over a lawsuit in which he argues that the EPA exceeded its authority by telling states to cut carbon pollution from power plants. The lawsuit has already frozen the implementation of the power sector regulations, the centrepiece of Mr Obama’s climate policy.
Before the case reaches the Supreme Court, the Trump administration could choose to abandon the legal fightback that Mr Obama began, leaving the rules to die.
In other areas, if the new EPA chief wants to avoid having to justify the repeal of McCarthy regulations, he will have the option of initiating a go-slow on their implementation or denying them funding.
|
| 12/20/2016 2:55:01 PM |
McCarthy And The EPA Need To Go Away |
|
sureshot40
Drumright, OK
48, joined Apr. 2011
|
A lot of people think the EPA just regulates industries mostly energy industries but they now regulate all "navigable water" and Obama epa has determined all water is navigable and they now regulate all water including mud puddles and rain water.
We just got the new natural gas regulations and have 30 days to comply and fill out a mountain of paper work on the most environmentally friendly fuel there is. We have hired engineers and accountants to do it and will most likely have to file for an extension.
The new "carbon emissions" lets them regulate wood stoves.
I hate them and hope Pruitt shuts them down.
|
| 12/20/2016 3:25:27 PM |
McCarthy And The EPA Need To Go Away |
|
tileman1814
Kalispell, MT
66, joined Nov. 2007
|
A lot of people think the EPA just regulates industries mostly energy industries but they now regulate all "navigable water" and Obama epa has determined all water is navigable and they now regulate all water including mud puddles and rain water.
We just got the new natural gas regulations and have 30 days to comply and fill out a mountain of paper work on the most environmentally friendly fuel there is. We have hired engineers and accountants to do it and will most likely have to file for an extension.
The new "carbon emissions" lets them regulate wood stoves.
I hate them and hope Pruitt shuts them down.
The EPA is a obama shit organization designed over the past years to push the bullshit climate change or global warming or whatever the hell they are calling it today.They have overstepped their bounds across the board and just like obama have slithered around congress to advance their agenda.You are right they need to be shut down.The chore of watching out for our envirement should be left soley to the states just like the education of our children.
Semper Fi !!!
|
| 12/20/2016 3:39:13 PM |
McCarthy And The EPA Need To Go Away |
|
tileman1814
Kalispell, MT
66, joined Nov. 2007
|
A few words on the climate change farce.
Semper Fi !!!
By Larry Bell
1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.
Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.
1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2
First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.
During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.
U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.
Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”
2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong
Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”
Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)
As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.
Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.
3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities
So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.
As written in a 2007 journal Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”
Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston
|
|
|