It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s NOAA Pick Gets Climate Change, But Could Still Weaken Key Science Agency

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

As opposed to you, of course.


If either of us had any power or influence we wouldn’t need to spend our time arguing minutia and acting like self-righteous cock wombles on ATS.


Trump does exactly this, though.




posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

No they don't.


Oh, sorry, it was the budget of the Federal mine inspectors that was paid by the fines, not the EPA. My cousin worked for them.

Most of the money from the FDA does come from fines and charges of Pharma companies though, I actually saw the figures on that one time.

I read the specs on the mine here and they had the part of paying the big penalty because of their emissions from their stacks. It was a big fine that they pay every year, that info is correct. They do not have to fix the emissions, just pay the fine. I was researching how much problematic stuff there was in their exhaust from the furnaces and melting process. It's not good, but at least the amount of people effected by the participate is not excessive, the wind mostly blows in a direction that is not that well inhabited and the particles settle within about ten miles.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Most of the money from the FDA does come from fines and charges of Pharma companies though, I actually saw the figures on that one time.

Government agencies are funded each year by the federal budget for the next year. So, no.


They do not have to fix the emissions, just pay the fine.
Criminal penalties.
www.epa.gov...

edit on 12/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
More liberal B.S. top scientists are saying that climate change is normal no global warming for the last 23 years, however no one talks about the effects of chemtrails being used by the globalists to alter the weather..a reply to: jrod



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: gimcrackery

That is an ignorant opinion. What you wrote is false.

The warming trend is undeniable as is the CO2 trend.

The CEO of Accuweather understands climate change from human activity is real.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: gimcrackery

That is an ignorant opinion. What you wrote is false.

The warming trend is undeniable as is the CO2 trend.

The CEO of Accuweather understands climate change from human activity is real.


Yeah hopefully it doesn't go up like it did back when there were no cars.




edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: corr

edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Awww, you present a chart from a denialist website to back up you claim.

CO2science.org is not a reputable site.



Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late–19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
This is about recognizing a problem that is there. The step tobsoving a problem is recognizing there is one.

Our CO2 emmisions are causing a large increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This no doubt is a problem. Pollution and biodiversity are also problems that need to be addressed but not so much in this thread.

Alsi this is not about money or taxes, it is about science, observation/data.



There is a problem that needs a different approach than those futile ridiculous expensive climate polluting, so called "we care for the environment" climate conferences.


If it is not about money or taxes, what has observation taught us than? What have we accomplished in the fight against global warming, have we won something yet?
According to the scare community every year is getting worse, seems like we are losing no? So where has all the money gone?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


So where has all the money gone?

To heat Al Gore's house.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I'm going to withhold judgement on this choice until I see where he takes it. Studying Global Warming is not an issue; all bonafide scientific research gives us information. My only concern is the rabid, paranoid assumptions that we see pop out of the carbon dioxide every week or two.

On the other hand, privatization can be good or bad, depending on how it is implemented. Private companies typically care more about profit than agendas, so they both can tend to give more realistic results and skew the resource funding to more profitable ventures.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join