EPA issues new coal-fired power plant regulations capping carbon emission reductions

[Revmitchell]

None of the links crabby supplied supports his claim

 

[Crabtownboy]

None of the links crabby supplied supports his claim

Maybe you did not read the articles. Each one says that 100,000 asthma attacks would not occur and heart attacks would be reduced by 2100. Rather dishonest of you, but...........................

The EPA projects annual compliance costs of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion by 2030, but since the proposal is expected to reduce air pollution, it says annual public health benefits will total $55 billion to $93 billion by avoiding up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks each year.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/usatoday/article/9877579

He spoke on the 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks caused by pollution,

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politic...ticians-hate-it.html/?a=viewall#ixzz33bMV5OiA

“In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided — and those numbers will go up from there.”

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-nine-things-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-climate-rules/

The administration says its proposal will save more than $90 billion in climate and health benefits and will avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks annually.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...13/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=azyfjjh5o9fu

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe you did not read the articles. Each one says that 100,000 asthma attacks would not occur and heart attacks would be reduced by 2100. Rather dishonest of you, but...........................

There is nothing in those links to support those claims. They make the claims but the news sources are not experts on health nor are have they provided and medical and peer reviewed sources. Liberals have plenty of experience in making all sorts of claims but there is nothing in these articles to substantiate such outrageous claims. Just because your little sources says it does not make it true.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is nothing in those links to support those claims. They make the claims but the news sources are not experts on health nor are have they provided and medical and peer reviewed sources. Liberals have plenty of experience in making all sorts of claims but there is nothing in these articles to substantiate such outrageous claims.

Are you really so obtuse? Of course if the "experts" whoever you think they might be said the same you would simply discount them as telling falsehoods as you do the scientists who you disagree with. You have no credibility with your simply statements .... which you almost never back up with any source.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

None of the links crabby supplied supports his claim

Not a single scientific report is cited. In fact, those numbers are not sourced, at all. Epic fail.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not a single scientific report is cited. In fact, those numbers are not sourced, at all. Epic fail.

Another obtuse fellow. So disprove the projections. I have given sources stating the projections. Show me where any scientific study shows a different projection. If you cannot then the current projections stand. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Show you a scientific study that shows your nonexistent scientific studies aren't true ?

Can't back up yer claim, so you lash out at those who ask. Typical.


Try this, for a rational conversation. Start with FACTS. Y'know ? Stuff that can be proven to be true ?

Your claims stand as claims, not facts.

 

[InTheLight]

Not a single scientific report is cited. In fact, those numbers are not sourced, at all. Epic fail.

Exactly. Read the articles:

"The President said..."
"The EPA said...."
"The administration said..."

These sources are rather lacking in objectivity.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And science.

 

[kyredneck]

EPA issues new coal-fired power plant regulations capping carbon emission reductions

I've been trying to tell you, you won't listen.

You need to be following the lead of Bill Gates.

Just as sure as the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, it's coming, it's going to happen.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is well documented that as air pollution rises the incidence of asthma rises. It only stands to reason that with a reduction of air pollution that asthma attacks would also be reduced.

Air pollution plays a well-documented role in asthma attacks, however, the role air pollution plays in initiating asthma is still under investigation and may involve a very complex set of interactions between indoor and outdoor environmental conditions and genetic susceptibility. The Research Division of the Air Resources Board has been a leader in developing and supporting research to understand the relationship between air pollution and asthma. Most notably, the ARB-funded Children's Health Study at the University of Southern California found that children who participated in several sports and lived in communities with high ozone levels were more likely to develop asthma than the same active children living in areas with less ozone pollution. In another ARB-funded study, researchers at the University of California, Irvine found a positive association between some volatile organic compounds and symptoms in asthmatic children from Huntington Park. Additional ARB studies are underway and many will focus on the role of particulate matter pollution on asthma. In the Central Valley the ARB F.A.C.E.S. project is examining the role of particulate matter pollution in the exacerbation of childhood asthma.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/asthma/asthma.htm

 

[abcgrad94]

The coal industry has exploited the people and raped the land.

Absolutely. That's why unions were formed and regulations put in place. We now have strict rules about mining. But we should recognize the politicians are doing the same thing as the coal barons of yesteryear. They don't care a bit for the earth or the people. . .it's all about money and control.

If the white house really cared, they'd turn out the lights and go off grid. As long as we have the demand for electricity, someone will cash in on that demand. It's how business works.

I don't see the Obamas or other politicians cutting back on airplane use for their many, many "vacations." How much pollution comes from that? I don't see solar panels on the white house, or goats eating the grass on the lawn (instead of gas powered mowers). I also don't see them giving a decent alternative plan to replace coal with another energy source.

By the way, Crabby, my comment about complaints against coal wasn't aimed directly at you, in case it read that way. I get very irritated with the media and those who repeat the media's lies when they don't live or work with coal.

 

[Revmitchell]

Exactly. Read the articles:

"The President said..."
"The EPA said...."
"The administration said..."

These sources are rather lacking in objectivity.

The President and his cronies think that if they say it enough everyone will believe it. Then of course the DNC operatives like crabby come a long and present unfounded statements by the obama admin as if they are facts.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It is well documented that as air pollution rises the incidence of asthma rises. It only stands to reason that with a reduction of air pollution that asthma attacks would also be reduced.

So are you admitting the figures are made up, and unverifiable ?

 

[Matt Black]

There is no "anthropogenic" climate change.

Seriously??!!

So, you're a 'Denier', then? Duly noted.

 

[Matt Black]

The atmosphere is .0039% carbon dioxide. Look carefully at that number. Let it burn into your mind. Realize how little a percentage of the atmosphere that actually is.

Global warming alarmists love to talk about carbon dioxide in terms of the billions of tons of volume weight of it there is in the atmosphere, but the fact remains, it is just less than four thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere's total makeup. But the remarkable thing is, 96.4% of it is put into the atmosphere by plants: trees, shrubs, bushes, flowers, etc., in the natural process of photosynthesis. Another one percent of that occurs from volcanic eruptions and forest fires. That leaves "anthropogenic contribution" of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at just over one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

Remarkably, this minute part of the atmospheric makeup is responsible for 83% of the heat absorption that warms the Earth, and I mean that literally. If not for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, our mean temperature globally would be about -18 degrees Celcius. As it is, our mean temperature is 15 degrees Celcius. On the Fahrenheit scale, that's 0 and 59. So in a very real sense "global warming" is a very, very good thing. We can't live without it.

Scientists say the Earth has warmed about half a degree in 100 years. That's an average, though over the last 20 years, the average temperature has actually declined. The Earth stopped warming in the mid 1990s. Yet they continue to yammer on about "anthropogenic global warming." You can call it climate change if you want. I'll call it "warming" because that's what they claim is happening.

I want you and them to explain to me how the massive volumes of carbon dioxide we pour into the atmosphere every year can, over the last 100 years, continue to represent less than one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the total carbon dioxide volume and manage to raise the temp only a half-degree, and represent "global warming." Don't attempt to blame it on other so-called "greenhouse gases" such as methane and the like, because those are just bold-faced lies. There is so little of those other gases present in the atmosphere that if you stacked man's contribution of carbon dioxide next to them, the comparison would be Denali vs. Bunker Hill. Or smaller.

They do absorb heat at a far greater rate than carbon dioxide, but they are such an infinitesimal amount of total atmospheric volume as to be inconsequential. You can probably find charts and graphs that would appear to show otherwise, but trust me, those charts and graphs are inventions of a political agenda and in no way, shape or form represent actual scientific fact.

So, I'll await your explanation. With bated breath. Not.

Right, well there's so much info here it's hard to know where to start; there's plenty of evidence available online for you to do your own research (if you are genuine about that as opposed to mere point-scoring). Time constraints require me to confine me to one or two examples only.

Let's start with your logical fallacy which underpins your post of 'infinitesimal'=' inconsequential'. Not so. Take the example of Vitamin C - we only need about 85-90mg of it per day in our diet, which is an 'infinitesimal' amount of our daily food intake but only a fool would regard it as 'inconsequential'! So, let's put that fallacy to bed.

As far as research articles go, you might want to start with these:

Health effects

This on the fallacy of there being 'two sides' to the 'debate'

The scientific consensus

You'll have to do the rest of your own homework as I have to go to work but I suggest you quit with the Flat Earth quackery and cod-science as it does your credibility no good.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So are you admitting the figures are made up, and unverifiable ?

Not at all. The chart shows what everyone knows, except for those who refuse to see, that when pollution goes up the incidence of asthma attacks go up and when pollution is reduced the number of attacks goes down. So, it is only rational to realize that if pollution is reduced further that the incidence of asthma attacks will also go down. Additionally the increase in traffic also has increased the incidence of asthma attacks. Well know fact. Do a little research and you will find this information on your own. Maybe you will believe if you do your own research.

 

[Revmitchell]

Seriously??!!

So, you're a 'Denier', then? Duly noted.

I see well....you wish to use extremist language in calling me a "denier". You say you are a conservative but your posts, and especially this one, show otherwise. No one is concerned with what you "duly note" especially me. You can also "duly note" that I believe those who promote this extremist agenda are not honest people.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not at all. The chart shows what everyone knows, except for those who refuse to see, that when pollution goes up the incidence of asthma attacks go up and when pollution is reduced the number of attacks goes down. So, it is only rational to realize that if pollution is reduced further that the incidence of asthma attacks will also go down. Additionally the increase in traffic also has increased the incidence of asthma attacks. Well know fact. Do a little research and you will find this information on your own. Maybe you will believe if you do your own research.

Sorry bub, you repeated specific numbers. And yet you cannot support those specific numbers. When it is shown that you cannot support those specific numbers you pull and Obama and revert to a general claim position and act like you never even brought up and specific numbers all of the sudden. Your original specific numbers cannot be supported and you should be willing to admit it. Failure too do so says more about you than anyone else.


Quite the DNC operative thing to do.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Let's start with your logical fallacy which underpins your post of 'infinitesimal'=' inconsequential'. Not so. Take the example of Vitamin C - we only need about 85-90mg of it per day in our diet, which is an 'infinitesimal' amount of our daily food intake but only a fool would regard it as 'inconsequential'! So, let's put that fallacy to bed.

Vitamin C as a comparison to CO2 emissions? Seriously? :tonofbricks:

That's a completely invalid comparison. Facts are facts. What's proven is that those levels of Vitamin C are sufficient to provide benefits to the human body. What is also proven is the amount of anthropogenic-added CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is insufficient to do anything near what is being claimed. You're ignoring what I said. Plants produce most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By far. Perhaps you'd like to kill off plants instead of returning to the Stone Age in order to bring Earth's mean temperature back down below that "dangerous" half-degree increase over the last 100 years? Yeah, that's a stupid suggestion. So is everything suggested under the "global warming" agenda.

"Global warming" computer modeling is a farce, lies created to "prove" a political agenda. None of the modeling predictions have come anywhere close to actual events. "Warmists" ignore historical context, that the polar caps have been observed alternatingly shrinking and expanding over 100 year periods in the past. "Warmists" ignore the fact that the Sun is getting hotter. But I've actually misspoken. "Warmists" don't ignore these facts, they set out on elaborate misleading and often deliberately false "proofs" as to why those facts are inconsequential and that we must reduce our one-ten-thousandth of one percent contribution to the amount of CO2 in the amtmosphere in order to back off a half-degree mean temperature increase over the last 100 years.

In short, "warmists" are liars. They have no environmental agenda. They have a political agenda by which they hope to turn the economy on its ear and make themselves, the "have-nots," the "haves" by virtue of robbing the people they hate -- i.e., industrialists, corporations, the rich -- of their wealth by essentially bankrupting them and putting them out of business with over-regulation that accomplishes nothing -- nothing, that is, other than their political and economic agenda to put themselves in power and give themselves the riches.

And you ignore the fact they've been caught in those lies, having massive numbers of worldwide emails exposed that proved they were deliberately manipulating the numbers in order to "prove" their junk science. And knowing that, you continue, nonetheless, in your cooperation with them, promoting their lies without even realizing they are lies. And the saddest fact is, you most likely are not going to benefit from any of it, because you aren't truly "one of them." You're some poor schmuck willing to be duped for an agenda that isn't even yours.

As far as research articles go, you might want to start with these: --- [3 URL links] --- You'll have to do the rest of your own homework as I have to go to work but I suggest you quit with the Flat Earth quackery and cod-science as it does your credibility no good.

Yeah, accuse me of being medieval in my concept of science, physics and mathematics. That'll win me over to your side in a heartbeat.

The fact is, brother, if you were unbiased and open-minded in your "research" you would see that these articles are based on quackery. The real science proves "global warming" is a fraud, deliberately designed and fomented for political, not environmental, ends. And you've been duped for their purposes.