Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Wikipedia reply but its quite thoroughly documented with references.

But yea, to counter your Fox news/Brietbart/Alex Jones talking point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I can play the wiki game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

And literaly from that article

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[4]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[5]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[6] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[7]
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;[8] the consensus has strengthened over time[9][10] and is now virtually unanimous.[11] The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[12]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[13] the Oregon Petition,[14] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[15] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[16][17][18]

For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report's three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Few of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature; most are from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

Saying there is no "Law" dictating the EPA do anything regarding climate change is disingenuous, as climate is part of and affects the "Environment"

The name is meaningless... Executive department still needs statutory laws that empowers them to regulate.

AFAIK, they aren't regulating it, but researching it, which is their job IIRC (to alert congress of changes that need to be made).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.

I'm not making you go through anything...

The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.

So, policy makers are pushing for changes out of that poisoned well... which is fething stupid. That's not science... that's hackery.

There's still a huge aspect of Climate Change that still needs research and modeling are constantly being revised.

 whembly wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Wikipedia reply but its quite thoroughly documented with references.

But yea, to counter your Fox news/Brietbart/Alex Jones talking point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I can play the wiki game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

from your article:

As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint.

Look at that, you just help to prove that the majority of the scientific community agrees that climate change is man made.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
TFW the two people on this forum with the strongest track record of being uninterested in an honest debate get mad that no one will engage them in an honest debate. LOL, no.

TFW when Climate Alarmist goes into a tizzy when challenged on their premise as if it's heretical... lol.

"Climate Alarmist"...cute term. I guess this is like a fireman observing a house ablaze and yelling "fire" then being labelled a "Pyro Alarmist"?

Trying to talk to some people about climate change is like trying to talk to them about Benghazi. They simply say "feth the facts, I got feelings to obey".

Don't waste your time, that's why I asked why I would bother trying to talk about climate change with people who don't know what the feth they are talking about.

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Please provide an example of climate being limited to state lines to warrant the countrys enforcement of procedures to combat it not being the purview of the federal government.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
TFW the two people on this forum with the strongest track record of being uninterested in an honest debate get mad that no one will engage them in an honest debate. LOL, no.

TFW when Climate Alarmist goes into a tizzy when challenged on their premise as if it's heretical... lol.

"Climate Alarmist"...cute term. I guess this is like a fireman observing a house ablaze and yelling "fire" then being labelled a "Pyro Alarmist"?

I prefer "exothermic reaction disenabler."

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Wikipedia reply but its quite thoroughly documented with references.

But yea, to counter your Fox news/Brietbart/Alex Jones talking point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I can play the wiki game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

from your article:

As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint.

Look at that, you just help to prove that the majority of the scientific community agrees that climate change is man made.

But 97% isn't a majority! /sarcasm

Seriously, anyone who at this point believes climate change isn't real/a legitimate concern must have their head buried in the sand.

 Zywus wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Unless, of course, the Democrats find themselves unable to mobilise voters due to having left local parties without sufficient funding

What does "local parties" mean in this context? Do you mean local branches of the Democrat party or various local third parties?

You've mentioned this several times in the thread but what does it refer to? Did the Dem's recently restructure their internal party financing system or something?

I mean the local branches of the Democratic Party. I just say "local parties" because it's what my American friends do. Specifically I am referring to how the Clinton campaign used local branches to funnel money into the presidential campaign so that donation limits could be circumvented. That this then maxed out the local branches' donation limits and generally left them without the funds to campaign themselves was an immediate and obvious problem at the time but was ignored. It's a bit of a gamble even if you win the presidency but since Clinton managed to lose to Donald Trump and we now have President of the United States Donald J. Trump, the Republicans are are worryingly close to having the power needed to change the constitution. The Democrats, at the very best, have a bit of an uphill battle.

The fact that nonsense buzzwords like Climate Alarmist are being parroted in here means no constructive discussion can be had.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Please provide an example of climate being limited to state lines to warrant the countrys enforcement of procedures to combat it not being the purview of the federal government.

Just because something crosses state lines doesn't make it the purview of a federal government agency. Wherever did you get that idea?
The government agency fist has to have legal authority from a Constitutionally enacted and valid law to regulate/control something.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.

I'm not making you go through anything...

The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.

So, policy makers are pushing for changes out of that poisoned well... which is fething stupid. That's not science... that's hackery.

There's still a huge aspect of Climate Change that still needs research and modeling are constantly being revised.

No, there really isn't. There's only partisan muppet-speak driven by special interest-funded groups working to obfuscate the truth arrived at by scientific means, by scientific bodies. You know, these guys...


List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3.Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4.Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9.Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10.Académie des Sciences, France
11.Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12.Academy of Athens
13.Academy of Science of Mozambique
14.Academy of Science of South Africa
15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24.African Academy of Sciences
25.Albanian Academy of Sciences
26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27.American Academy of Pediatrics
28.American Anthropological Association
29.American Association for the Advancement of Science
30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32.American Astronomical Society
33.American Chemical Society
34.American College of Preventive Medicine
35.American Fisheries Society
36.American Geophysical Union
37.American Institute of Biological Sciences
38.American Institute of Physics
39.American Meteorological Society
40.American Physical Society
41.American Public Health Association
42.American Quaternary Association
43.American Society for Microbiology
44.American Society of Agronomy
45.American Society of Civil Engineers
46.American Society of Plant Biologists
47.American Statistical Association
48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49.Australian Academy of Science
50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51.Australian Coral Reef Society
52.Australian Institute of Marine Science
53.Australian Institute of Physics
54.Australian Marine Sciences Association
55.Australian Medical Association
56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58.Botanical Society of America
59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60.British Antarctic Survey
61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62.California Academy of Sciences
63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64.Canadian Association of Physicists
65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66.Canadian Geophysical Union
67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68.Canadian Society of Soil Science
69.Canadian Society of Zoologists
70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71.Center for International Forestry Research
72.Chinese Academy of Sciences
73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77.Crop Science Society of America
78.Cuban Academy of Sciences
79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80.Ecological Society of America
81.Ecological Society of Australia
82.Environmental Protection Agency
83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84.European Federation of Geologists
85.European Geosciences Union
86.European Physical Society
87.European Science Foundation
88.Federation of American Scientists
89.French Academy of Sciences
90.Geological Society of America
91.Geological Society of Australia
92.Geological Society of London
93.Georgian Academy of Sciences
94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96.Indian National Science Academy
97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102.InterAcademy Council
103.International Alliance of Research Universities
104.International Arctic Science Committee
105.International Association for Great Lakes Research
106.International Council for Science
107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109.International Union for Quaternary Research
110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117.l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118.Latin American Academy of Sciences
119.Latvian Academy of Sciences
120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131.National Association of State Foresters
132.National Center for Atmospheric Research
133.National Council of Engineers Australia
134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136.National Research Council
137.National Science Foundation
138.Natural England
139.Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140.Natural Science Collections Alliance
141.Network of African Science Academies
142.New York Academy of Sciences
143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147.Organization of Biological Field Stations
148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151.Polish Academy of Sciences
152.Romanian Academy
153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155.Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157.Royal Irish Academy
158.Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162.Royal Society of Canada
163.Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166.Russian Academy of Sciences
167.Science and Technology, Australia
168.Science Council of Japan
169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173.Slovak Academy of Sciences
174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175.Society for Ecological Restoration International
176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177.Society of American Foresters
178.Society of Biology (UK)
179.Society of Systematic Biologists
180.Soil Science Society of America
181.Sudan Academy of Sciences
182.Sudanese National Academy of Science
183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184.The Wildlife Society (international)
185.Turkish Academy of Sciences
186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191.Woods Hole Research Center
192.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
193.World Federation of Public Health Associations
194.World Forestry Congress
195.World Health Organization
196.World Meteorological Organization
197.Zambia Academy of Sciences
198.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Your statement's only bit of truth is that the science modeling is constantly being revised and unfortunately, the revisions are echoing the same thing and that is that there appears to be an acceleration to the changes and their impact versus previous model's projections.

Wait Zimbabwe has an academy of sciences? So does Sudan?

My review of how that page doesn't prove anything, I can do the other sections if intersted.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
So these people simply disagree with the accuracy, which isn't saying there is no climate change

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22] Not a climate scientist
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24] Close to a climate scientist, but no actually one
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]So not a climate scientist
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]Could be one, not nessisarily though
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]Could be one, don't know his area of study
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33] a physicist not a climate scientist
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]another physacist
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]possible a climate scientist
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]not a climate scientist
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48] an econmoist
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]Not a climate scientist (also, it's fething greenpeace, they're nuts)
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]not a climate scientist
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]possible a climate scientist
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]related but doesn't appear to be and actual climate scientist
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]lol
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]not a climate scientist
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]not a climate scientist
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]not a climate scientist
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]not a climate scientist
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]possibly a climate scientist not clear
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]who knows
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]not a climate scientist

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Please provide an example of climate being limited to state lines to warrant the countrys enforcement of procedures to combat it not being the purview of the federal government.

Just because something crosses state lines doesn't make it the purview of a federal government agency. Wherever did you get that idea?
The government agency fist has to have legal authority from a Constitutionally enacted and valid law to regulate/control something.

and here it is:

EPA Order 1110.2 (December 4, 1970) - initial organization of EPA

you do realize the constitution is a living document and always growing and evolving right? There are amendments after the 2nd.

Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

Fake news all of the climate change stuff, god wouldn't let that happen to us so drill baby drill and burn them dinosaur juices

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

The interaction of a Texan and science...now that's adorable.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Please provide an example of climate being limited to state lines to warrant the countrys enforcement of procedures to combat it not being the purview of the federal government.

Just because something crosses state lines doesn't make it the purview of a federal government agency. Wherever did you get that idea?
The government agency fist has to have legal authority from a Constitutionally enacted and valid law to regulate/control something.

and here it is:

EPA Order 1110.2 (December 4, 1970) - initial organization of EPA

you do realize the constitution is a living document and always growing and evolving right? There are amendments after the 2nd.

Thats the law organizing the structure of the EPA. It literally has nothing to do with the discussion. Dude, seriously, if you are going to discuss actual US law cite the right law.

Have any those 198 Organizations quantified HOW MUCH humans have contributed to Climate Change? Or is all they are saying is that we have contributed. If course we have. HOW MUCH is the most important question, is it not?

What do they attribute all the Climate Changes that happened before the industrial revolution to?

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Please provide an example of climate being limited to state lines to warrant the countrys enforcement of procedures to combat it not being the purview of the federal government.

Just because something crosses state lines doesn't make it the purview of a federal government agency. Wherever did you get that idea?
The government agency fist has to have legal authority from a Constitutionally enacted and valid law to regulate/control something.

and here it is:

EPA Order 1110.2 (December 4, 1970) - initial organization of EPA

you do realize the constitution is a living document and always growing and evolving right? There are amendments after the 2nd.

Thats the law organizing the structure of the EPA. It literally has nothing to do with the discussion. Dude, seriously, if you are going to discuss actual US law cite the right law.

OK, here you go:

On February 18, 1969, responding to the then-increased public concern about the potential impact of human activity on the environment, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.) introduced S. 1075, which eventual became known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Following passage in the then-Democrat Party-controlled Senate and House of Representatives, Republican President Richard Nixon signed NEPA into law on January 1, 1970. Under NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was created within the Executive Office of the President (EOP).

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.

I'm not making you go through anything...

Well, you're parroting repeatedly disproven spin, so yes you are.

The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.

Really? What was this again?

So, policy makers are pushing for changes out of that poisoned well... which is fething stupid. That's not science... that's hackery.

So I guess 90% of climate research and scientific organizations are "poisoned" are they?

There's still a huge aspect of Climate Change that still needs research and modeling are constantly being revised.

Sure it needs more research (which the republican party is wholly oppose to, but whatever), but we also have information that we can act on now, and should before it gets worse.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

The interaction of a Texan and science...now that's adorable.

Johnson space center We WENT TO THE MOON WHAT THE feth DID YOU DO
MD Anderson
UT

Wait Zimbabwe has an academy of sciences

http://www.natartszim.org.zw/index.php/about-us/overview

and a federal arts presence too.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

The interaction of a Texan and science...now that's adorable.

Johnson space center We WENT TO THE MOON WHAT THE feth DID YOU DO
MD Anderson
UT

Nuclear bomb to name one

Now you're getting somewhere. Read it again though. Its about government requirement enviro impact statements.

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

The interaction of a Texan and science...now that's adorable.

Johnson space center We WENT TO THE MOON WHAT THE feth DID YOU DO
MD Anderson
UT

A scientific program, financed and supported by a leadership that believed in science and the findings of scientists...it's come a long way since then, baby!

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're getting somewhere. Read it again though. Its about government requirement enviro impact statements.

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.

they already have the clean air act, reducing the carbon being dumped into the air would clearly fall into that authority.

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're getting somewhere. Read it again though. Its about government requirement enviro impact statements.

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.

What law gives the CDC authority to oversee measles?


Edit: also, literaly in your link.

Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy. This policy requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.

Climate change is definitely an issue that sits under that.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

The interaction of a Texan and science...now that's adorable.

Johnson space center We WENT TO THE MOON WHAT THE feth DID YOU DO
MD Anderson
UT

A scientific program, financed by a leadership that believed in science and the findings of scientists...it's come a long way since then, baby!

UT was the school the found how the ZIKA virus actually works.

MD Anderson is the center for cancer research on the planet.

Houston is home to companies that put vessels into environments that would crush anything on the planet, even Aquaman (especially if he's making sandwiches for the rest of the JL)

Bulgaria is a far distant #2 in manned flight to the moon. Come on Bulgaria, keep up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're getting somewhere. Read it again though. Its about government requirement enviro impact statements.

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.

they already have the clean air act, reducing the carbon being dumped into the air would clearly fall into that authority.

Again you're getting better. Welcome to a larger world where govenrments are limited and laws must be enacted before they can trample your rights.

Clean Air Act is for particulates however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're getting somewhere. Read it again though. Its about government requirement enviro impact statements.

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.

What law gives the CDC authority to oversee measles?
Now this is TB but here is an example
https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/laws/menu/statutes.htm
also intere4sting kick on CDC wishing to expand its powers related to Measles
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/09/13/cdc-to-amend-public-health-service-act.aspx

Edit: also, literaly in your link.

Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy. This policy requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.

Climate change is definitely an issue that sits under that.

Productive harmony is not enabling legislation. As the earlier poster noted something like the Clean Water Act is needed. Can you cite where the courts have determined there is appropriate enabling legislation?