Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Sept 5, 2014 23:39:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

What sort of "preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention" do you have in mind, exactly?

Moreover, instead of our regulating coal more intensely, why not just lessen the regulations elsewhere, so as to bring everything more in line with each other?

Your comment that "

eople really aren't very good at understanding very large numbers and few can conceptualize what 3.7 million tons of pollution actually is" strikes me as most condescending. You appear to be suggesting that you can understand this "very large number" quite well; but that the typical American is, well, simply without a clue. 

Oh, and your conclusion that there is a "99.999% Certainty [That] Humans Are Contributing To Global Warming" is really a non sequitur; which is to say, the conclusion does not necessarily derive from the set of facts you presented.  Rather, the fact that only one out of about 2,000 authors came to the conclusion that there is currently no global warming, tells us that 99.95 percent of these authors (well. that is almost "99.999%") believe this.

In any case, I think I would be rather reticent to rely upon the appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) in trying to establish a case:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    

So as far as you're concerned "Love Canal" and the poisoning of the residents in Hinkley by PP&G was acceptable and we should eliminate the pollution  regulations against it? Should we also eliminate the pollution regulations that prohibit mining operations from polluting our streams with heavy metals that will kill us as well? What the heck, let's go back to dumping motor oil down the storm drains as well. Why should we care about the water supply or the oceans. Let's start using DDT again as well. Who the hell needs birds flying around pooping on everything anyway.  You can't be serious.

I'm pretty good at abstract thought and even I can't really imagine 3.5 million tons of CO2 pollution. It is so much that it really does boggle the mind and yet some dismiss it as being unimportant. All I know is that it is a really huge amount of pollution and that the coal industry states that almost 1 1/2 million tons of it is competely unnecessary for electrical power production.

Why are we allowing pollution that the coal industry has been saying for at least a decade is unnecessary? Answer me that riddle.

The two articles I provided related to two different topics on AGW and I don't know why you seemed to tie them together as if they represented one study. You also misuse the term "appeal to authority" related to the science behind global warming. The scientific community is not building a foundation upon a single source (i.e. and appeal to authority) but instead has addressed the issue of global warming from a thousand different directions and all of them happen to end up with the same conclusion. Never, to my knowledge, has any scientific issue of investigation had a more diverse approach and what is really mind blowing is that all of the science, no matter from what direction it's approached, ultimately results in the same conclusion. Mankind is responsible for the most rapid increase in the global temperatures in the history of the planet. Natural global warming has occurred but never at the rate we've experienced over the last 100 year. The same temperature rise based upon natural sources required about 1,000 years based upon what we're able to determine from the past.

There is absolutely no doubt scienifically that AGW is very real.

Sept 7, 2014 0:23:18 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You continue to point to an increase in average global temperatures "over the last 100 year." Yet you simply ignore the fact that there has been no such increase in temperatures since the mid-1990s.

And how, exactly, do you suppose that I have "misuse[d]" the term, appeal to authority?  As noted in the Wikipedia article (to which I linked), even genuine experts in any given field "can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink."

And why would you even mention Love Canal?  I have previously stated that no one wishes to drink polluted water or breathe dirty air; and the Hooker Chemical Company did, indeed, pollute that area, by dumping 21,000 tons of toxic waste there. 

As to your "riddle":  If the coal industry wishes to make a change; and if it can do so economically; then I am all for its doing so. What I would not favor, however, is the federal government's forcing it to change, against its will.

Fair enough?    

Why do you strikeout your statements?

The planet continues to absorb solar heat faster than it dissipates it and that is global warming. I provided a study that appears to show that the extra heat since the 1990's is being absorbed by the ocean (N Atlantic) that you casually dismiss without any evidence that this peer reviewed study is flawed.

Below is a link to an animation from NASA on measured global temperatures over the last 60 years. If it doesn't convince you the planet is getting warmer then I don't know what will. These are ACTUAL temperatures being taken and not a scientific model.

You state you want enviromental regulations reduced or eliminated so which ones? The ones that prohibit toxic dumping? In shear amount the amount of poisonous toxic waste dumped into our atmosphere by coal fired powerplants every year is far more than what Hooker Chemical was responsible for at Love Canal.  

The coal industry has stated that up to 40% of the toxic waste it produces can be economically eliminated but that doesn't imply they have any reason to want to stop poisoning the people and the planet with toxic waste. Had it been left to the coal industry there wouldn't be a single tree living on the East Coast or a single fish swimming in the streams because it would not have reduced the amount of acid rain it was producing. The Appalachian Mountains would have looked like the surface of Mars had the government not imposed regulations forcing the coal industry to clean up it's act and the government regulations didn't go far enough because acid rain is still very problematic on the East Coast.

People, especially those that believe in the Austrian School of Economics, seem to believe that enterprise is responsible but it's not. Enterprise is so completely irresponsible that it requires government regulation to keep it from killing everyone on Earth. Enterprise has never demostrated that is responsible for it's actions, ever.

Let me leave you with a thought. Assume that everyone is finally convinced that the CO2 emission really are responsible for global warming and that the global warming is going to result in hundreds of millions of people dying. Assume that. Then wouldn't it be the responsibility of the coal industry to not just stop emitting CO2 but to also clean up the excess CO2 it's previously produced that exists in the atmosphere. In short reverse the damage it's already created. I would suggest that the cost of clean-up would be astronomical and if that cost was passed on to electrical consumers it would increase the cost of electricity about 1000 times what we pay today. You couldn't afford to turn on a single light bulb. 

Sept 7, 2014 23:14:21 GMT pjohns1873 said:

There is absolutely no scientific dispute with what the NASA animation shows as it is actual recorded global temperatures so I don't know how you're heard anything that disputes it or is contrary to it. We also have hundreds of studies that the rapid rate of increase in global temperatures,  a far faster rate than ever experienced due to natural causes in the history of the planet, is being fueled by atmospheric pollution with greenhouse gases and we don't have a single scientific study that contradicts that. There is the rare scientist that says, "Show me more proof" but none that have ever provided evidence that we're not experiencing AGW. These few scientists (less than 1%) often remind my of creationists that demanded the "missing link" but no matter how many missing links science found they always demanded one more.  

You provided an anecdotal case of one person, where the matter was still under litigation, that apparently is being abused by "regulators" and not necessarily by the "regulations" themselves.

I don't really give a damn about "amoral v immoral" as I'm concerned with the fact that billions of tons of unnecessary pollution is being. There is no rational excuse for "unnecessary" pollution especially when the industry causing the pollution is the very industry that claims it is unnecessary.

The coal industry has claimed for at least 10 years they can economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution from using coal and I don't believe giving them 15 more years to only eliminate 30% of it is in any way unreasonable.

Sept 8, 2014 23:18:25 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, there would, indeed, appear to be some "scientific dispute," as I have noted previously. And your assertion that this "global warming" is merely masked by something happening in the Atlantic Ocean really misses the point: If there is no real warming trend, it simply does not matter just why this is the case. 

As for that (ostensible) "rapid rate of increase in global temperatures," it simply has not occurred since the mid-1990s, as I understand it. And again, the "why" is really unimportant.

Of course the case I provided was "anecdotal." How could it have been otherwise?

Here is a link to the incident:  www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/

Note:  In this particular article, it is stated that the fine to be assessed is $75,000 per day--which, although very substantial, is still less than the $187,500 per day listed in John Stossel's expose.  Either way, however, that is a whole lot of money for most of us!

As I have said previously, if the coal industry can "economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution" it is currently creating--which is to say, if its doing so would cost consumers nothing--then it should certainly feel free to do so. 

Global warming is based upon long term changes in global temperatures and not short term temperatures. It is measured over centuries and not based upon decades. By analogy it's like the stock market where daily changes are fundanmentally irrelevant to how the stock market changes from year to year.  

I looked at the case of Andy Johnson and apparently he was aware of the Clean Water Act when he built his dam and pond and believes it should have been exempted under the provisions of the act according to the link you provided. Logic would have dicated he would have contacted the EPA and secured the exemption before building the dam and pond. Generally speaking a "state" government regulatory agencies cannot provide waivers for federal regulations.

I recently addressed that in my own business as we'll be building motorcycle frames and I had to check with both the "state" DOT and the federal "DOT" to determine what regulations affected me. Of note there is a very easy "one-stop" website for the federal government where you can address what you want to do and they will get back to you with the proper people to contact and provide you with the list of regulations you need to review. It's a great resource that allows anyone to know about any federal regulations that might affect them as well as providing them with a person to actually talk to related to those regulations.  

So from what I've read the problems Andy Johnson is facing is due to his failures to address the Clean Water Act because he didn't seek an exemption prior to building the dam from the EPA. Even if he's correct that it should be exempt under the Clean Water Act the exemption must be obtained before building the dam, not after building it.

"Economical" feasible does not imply that there isn't an initial capital outlay or that it would have a zero impact on consumer rates. The consumer rate for electricity is based upon all forms of electrical production and is not based upon solely upon what the coal industry charges so we can't even use that as a criteria. 

The coal industry is objecting solely based upon the initial capital investment that it states it can afford but that it doesn't want to make.

BTW - You don't seriously believe that the coal industry gives a damn about what consumers pay, do you?

Sept 9, 2014 21:06:24 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Of course I do not believe that the coal industry "gives a damn about what consumers pay." But that is entirely irrelevant to my central point, viz.:  If your proposed changeover would have "zero impact on comsumer rates" (as you put it). that changeover would be just fine with me. But if the "initial capital investment" were to result, necessarily, in higher electricity rates, that is another matter entirely.

Your analogy as regarding global warming and the stock market is rather interesting. I do not put much weight on "daily changes" in either.  But to say that the Earth is a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago, while ignoring the facts that (1) it is still not as warm as it has been in some other post-Ice Age eras; and (2) the trend has been arrested for almost the last two decades now, is to be guilty of the logical fallacy known as special pleading.

Your easy dismissal of that Wyoming man's plight--he just did not follow the mother-may-I model closely enough, with regard to an over-intrusive federal government--is remindful of the rape victim's being told that she brought it all upon herself.  

If you can recall the 1960's the forests of the Appalachian Mountains were literally literally dying from the acid rain. The coal companies had the techology at the time to dramatically reduce the NO2 and SO2 emissions that were causing the acid rain but had it not been for federal regulations mandating they use it there woultn't be a single living tree on the Appalachian Mountains today. Did it cause a short term increase in electrical prices? Probably but would you rather pay a few cents more or have an entire mountain range without any trees and no wildlife on the East Coast.

Where did you ever get the idea that the planet has stopped warming over the last two decades? All of the scientific evidence is that's we're still experiencing a net energy increase (i.e. global warming) and the only question that the scientists have now is where is the Earth storing this energy. The energy can be stored in the atmosphere, land masses, or in the oceans or in a combination of more than one. We know that it's hasn't being stored in the atmosphere over the last two decades so science is now looking at the land masses and the oceans. As noted there has been a measureable increase in the temperatures of the N Atlantic but is that where all of it is being stored.  

There are reasons behind the Clean Water Act and it does provide for exceptions but a person has to apply for an exemption. Once again it is not hard for anyone to find out what federal regulations might affect them so the Wyoming man's plight is apparently one of his own making. Sorry but I don't believe people should ignore the laws or regulations and nothing in this case suggests that the Clean Water Act isn't good regulation. All it suggests is that the man failied to follow it by obtaining an exemption up front before he built the pond. Instead of being a jerk-wad why doesn't he just breach the dam to allow the water to flow freely, then file for an exemption, and rebuild the dam once he has the exemption? It's not like it's hard to build the dam and he already has all of the materials for it. A backhoe can do the work in probably an hour or so.

Sept 11, 2014 0:57:38 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, I doubt that it would amount to merely "a few cents more" per bill for electricity.  (Perhaps "a few cents more" per kilowatt hour.)  And there are many Americans who simply cannot afford that extra amount, as they are already living on the edge. 

I got "the idea that the planet has stopped warming" since about the mid-1990s from several reports I have heard on TV. I cannot recall anything more specific than that.  (In fact, you have essentially admitted as much; you just attribute it to some effect in the Atlantic Ocean.  Why that should matter, I have no idea.)

Once again, you are blaming the victim, in the Wyoming case:  Why doesn't the man just jump through some more hoops, in order to satisfy the EPA--even though the state of Wyoming had already issued him a permit?  (Note:  I am a huge believer in the concept of states' rights--notwithstanding their odious application half a century ago, during the civil-rights movement.  Although I am quite familiar with the so-called "Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution--Article Six, Claues 2--I thoroughly believe that the authority of the state government should supersede the authority of the federal government in all cases.)    

Let's look at those "living on the edge" when it comes to the costs of electrical energy. These are the same people living in poverty that you seem to argue don't deserve a "collective" response to address but, in fact, we do provide a "collective" response to their plight. In every location I've lived there have always been programs to subsidize the energy needs of the poor. If "doing the right thing" on a national level causes an unaffordable economic burden on a percentage of the population then we need to mitigate that by providing subsidies for them just like we're already doing.

As I've also noted we have a serious problem with our economic model which is creating more and more poverty. If we address the greater issue of correcting the problems with our economic model then we wouldn't have poverty at the same level that it exists today and the people could afford any slight increase in their monthly electrical bills. It's simply a matter of connecting the dots once again. Increasing poverty is the real culprit and you merely evade the problem by claiming to worry about a poor person being able to afford their electric bill going up perhaps $5 or $15 a month.

To toss another wrench into the works you don't seem to have a problem with the same poor person having to come up with $45 or perhaps as much as $75 dollars to purchase a certified copy of their birth certificate so they can obtain a "free voter ID card" and exercise their Right to Vote. Seems you're very selective when it comes to what you think to the poor should be forced to spend their money on.   

You "got the idea" that the planet stopped warming because the rise in the atmospheric temperatures stopped increasing for the last two decades but, as I noted, 99% of the climate scientists disagree with that idea. They continue to believe that the planet is still warming based upon emperical evidence of solar heat absorption and dissipation that shows there remains an imbalance. We're absorbing more solar energy than we're dissipating which means the planet is getting warmer. They simply understand that if the additional energy is not being absorbed by the atmosphere then it's being absorbed by the land masses or the oceans but that energy is still being absorbed and that is global warming. Yes, some scientists have documented that the N Atlantic has been absorbing some of this extra energy but for other scientists the study doesn't address all of the extra energy that planet is absorbing. They continue to look for other places that are also absorbing this extra energy. The N Atlantic simply doesn't account for all of the extra energy the scientists know the planet is absorbing and the climate scientists are looking for where else the energy is being absorbed.

As noted though 99% of the climate scientists still agree that global warming is continuing based upon emperical evidence.

Final note: You've stated that the States should have greater control than the federal government when it comes to environmental laws so why doesn't Wyoming have stricter laws than the Clean Water Act that addresses our national water supply with the minimum regulations deemed necessary to protect it? Federal standards establish the minimum protections and not the necessary protections which is something many on the "right" seem to ignore. Any state can impose greater regulations than the federal government as the federal government only provides the minimum regulations deemed necessary on a national standard.

Sept 11, 2014 23:39:35 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Why would you imagine that I want poor people (or anyone else, for that matter) to pay $45-$75 for a free ID card?  (Please refer to the operative word here:  free.)

Moreover, your "solution"--which is entirely predicated upon what you believe to be "doing the right thing"--is merely to accept the price increase, unflinchingly, and redistribute the cost through government subsidies. Higher costs, bigger government.

Again, if "atmospheric temperatures" have "stopped increasing"--as you admit--why, then, should it really matter just why this is?  I do not really underatand just why my automobile runs--I have no clue as regarding automotive mechanics, even on the most rudimentary level--but just as long as it does run, that is really all that matters to me. 

And why, exactly, should states need to have "stricter laws than the Clean Water Act"? If the several states were entirely to follow their own lights, and completely ignore the federal government's edicts on all levels, I think the US would be a vastly improved place,

You've previously stated that you support the "voter ID laws" even if they require a person to purchase a certified copy of their birth certificate. You did add the caveat that they should be provided with the birth certificate for free but that is not the case and you refused to oppose the current voter ID laws that do impose this financial burden on the poor if they want to exercise their right to vote. I don't oppose voter ID laws where there is no necessity for the person to purchase anything but oppose all voter ID laws where a de facto poll tax is imposed because they have to purchase documents to obtain the voter ID card currently. Based upon what I've understood you to say you apparently don't have a problem with a poor person today having to purchase a copy of their birth certificate that can easily cost $45-$75 just so they can get a "free ID" so they can vote. Am I wrong or do you oppose the laws that create this expediture for the poor so they can vote?

The scientist does care about where the heat is being trapped because heat trapped in the oceans today will, at some point, be transferred into the atmosphere and the land as well. If it's in the oceans, as the study on the N Atlantic revealed, then it will eventually spread and melt the snow and ice that will increase the ocean level flooding low-lying coastal areas that are often major food producing and industry supporting lands. You may not care about the effects of global warming that are not reflected by just atmospheric temperature increases but in truth it's the heating of the land and oceans that are equally of concern when it comes to the catastophic projections of the effects of global warming.

When it comes to the coal industry we need to address it from a simply common basis. First of all there is no "Right to Pollute" by anyone and pollution is a violation of the rights of all persons by any that pollute. There are, however, pragmatic reasons to allow limited pollution predominately based upon the economic benefits of allowing the pollution that violates the rights of the person(s) in society. The economic benefits can out-weigh the rights of the person as the "people' benefit" more from allowing the pollution and would suffer economically if the pollution is not allowed.

Your argument is that the "economic" benefits of "dirty coal" outweigh the "rights of the person" when it comes to allowing pollution but the coal industry that the coal industry has argued is "unnecessary" pollution. The coal industry has stated for more than a decade that they can economically reduce the pollution from coal by up to 40% and you're agument is that they can't do that. My argument is that the coal industry has said it can economically reduce the emissions by up to 40% so let's give them 15 more years to just reduce it by 30%. They said they can do it so let's require them to do it and give them plenty of time in which to accomplish it.

So both of us are in agreement that there is an economic benefit to allowing the burning of coal even though the pollution is violating our rights as a person. Our differences are really based upon you insisting that the coal industry cannot do what it says it can do while I argue that the coal industry can do what it says it can do.