Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Ray]

Read your own quotation. They didn't call it a pollutant, you did.

Ah! I must have tricked you by failing to mention it wasn't my quote. Sorry! 

You asked me the question: "Who calls CO2 a pollutant?", and I just typed in the question to Google Search, and the first answer that come up was an 'AI Overview'. I quoted just the first paragraph.

I've typed in the same question again, just now, to show you the full quote, which is below.

"According to current scientific consensus and legal rulings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant, with the agency's administrator formally declaring it as such in 2009, allowing them to regulate greenhouse gases like CO2 under the Clean Air Act;.

Key points about CO2 being considered a pollutant:

Scientific basis:
The primary reason CO2 is classified as a pollutant is due to its role as a greenhouse gas, contributing to climate change when emitted in large quantities, which can have significant negative impacts on human health and the environment.

Legal standing:
The EPA's "endangerment finding" in 2009 established CO2 as a pollutant that poses a threat to human health and welfare, giving the agency the authority to regulate its emissions.

International recognition:
Even international bodies like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have recognized CO2 as an ocean pollutant, highlighting its global impact."

What I find interesting here, is that the name of the person who made this designation, the EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, is no longer mentioned in the AI quote. 

[Ray]

What is your science degree, and where did you get it, Ray?

Ah! An appeal to Authority. If you are not a Climatologist, don't question anything they claim. Don't think for yourself. Do as you're told. 

I'm not a practicing scientist with a degree, but I've always been interested in scientific issues, and have read many books on the history of science and the methodology of science, and understand that there are many uncertainties when the issues under study are very complex and chaotic, which makes it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to verify a theory through repeated and controlled experiments, taking all the variables into consideration.

[digitaldog]

Ah! An appeal to Authority.

Why yes! At such a time you can provide an iota of evidence and expert data to support your strong opinion, I’ll be happy to examine it.

[digitaldog]

Ah! I must have tricked you by failing to mention it wasn't my quote. Sorry! 

You asked me the question: "Who calls CO2 a pollutant?", and I just typed in the question to Google Search, and the first…

Let me help you with a specific answer to the question:

Who calls CO2 a pollutant?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/12/27/epa-administrator-resigns-declared-carbon-dioxide-a-pollutant/

[Ray]

Why yes! At such a time you can provide an iota of evidence and expert data to support your strong opinion, I’ll be happy to examine it.

An iota of evidence? Everything I know about climate is from experts and scientists working in the many different disciplines involved in climatology. I gather such information from research papers and reports available on the internet, which, as you probably know, was originally created so scientists could share their research and avoid unnecessary duplication.

I don't have the time or resources to conduct my own experiments to confirm if everything I read about a scientific claim is true. All I can do is use my capacity for rational thought to determine what makes the most sense.

The following comment from a famous scientist in the field of climatology, Dr Stephen Schneider, who is now deceased, makes a lot of sense to me. It explains why there is so much unscientific propaganda in the media, causing so much alarm about the catastrophic effects of climate change.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

However, what Schneider didn't mention is that, in addition to wanting to see the world a better place, which surely we all do, many scientists would also like a better salary and a secure job, so they can support their family and pay off their mortgage, and so on, because they are 'human beings as well'. This surely adds to the bias, because most funding for climate change research is based upon a claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a serious threat. A scientists can't expect to keep his job if he expresses an honest opinion that CO2 emissions are not a threat.

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.
"According to current scientific consensus and legal rulings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant, with the agency's administrator formally declaring it as such in 2009, allowing them to regulate greenhouse gases like CO2 under the Clean Air Act;.
.
.
.

Thanks for clearing that up, although I'm not sure what you mean by "trick". There's no need to elaborate further on that though, I'm not interested.

Making CO2 fit into some pre-existing legal framework seems like a silly reason to classify it as a pollutant. Muddies the meaning of "pollutant", or at least its commonly understood meaning. Seems like there should be a better way to handle this, and for all I know they have found one. It's a bit of a semantic side show though, isn't it?

In any case these issues have been discussed before on these pages, several years ago now. You made the exact same arguments then, including that of suspecting/accusing scientists of toeing the line to obtain research grants. I found and find that to be a silly argument, every scientist on earth gets paid by someone, is all knowledge suspect or just the bits you don't like? You also seem to have a problem with specialized knowledge in general, dismissing it as credentialism. It is true that it's evidence that carries weight, not personality, but long study in a field is a pretty good proxy for having knowledge and insight that others do not. The notion of a scientific contrarian that sees something that everyone else missed is a romantic idea, and it has a Hollywood allure to be sure. But as I said, this ground has been covered on these pages and I won't be participating in a repeat performance.

Your reference to "frightening children" from your first post in this recent sequence is a bit precious. All the kids on my street laugh, scream and get into mischief, much like all children everywhere. If schools teach them to have some respect for their natural surroundings, that's probably a good thing.

The "Not Built for This" series of podcasts from 99% Invisible may interest you, https://99percentinvisible.org/nbft/. The series is not a polemic, it is rather a description of actual real-world responses to changes in climate that a few communities have undertaken with mixed success.

[digitaldog]

An iota of evidence? Everything I know about climate is from experts and scientists working in the many different disciplines involved in climatology.

Again; no evidence 🤥.
“Though everyone has an equal right to speak,not all have earned an equal right to be taken seriously”.
Hubert H. Humphrey

[Robert Roaldi]

If you'd like to get a glimpse into Trump's relationship with the crypto world, here's a 35 min podcast from NPR's Fresh Air, https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/g-s1-44341/trumps-entry-into-crypto-opens-new-doors-for-those-seeking-political-influence. The interviewee points out some of the not-so-squeaky-clean crypto bros with whom he has had dealings along with his easing of government regulations pertaining to that world. He gives brief but ultimately not very clear descriptions of the differences between meme coins and "normal" crypto coins and they talk about NFTs a little (remember those?). It would be interesting to know if that dark web Silk Road guy that Trump pardoned is involved in crypto these days. Might be right up his alley.

I see that Musk now has access to Treasury data and that he believes that USAID is a criminal enterprise. I'm waiting for him to launch a conflict-of-interest investigation of himself, given how large a government contractor he is. Self-policing works so well.

When the boys in the band have finished destroying various government bureaucracies, it will be interesting to see which private companies will emerge to provide those services for a fee. They will have the names and addresses of who to target, so that will save them some time.

There are rumours of using bounty hunters to find undocumented aliens. I think that Mississippi is preparing legislation. I presume the TV networks will oblige with action programs showing what heroes bounty hunters are. There may already be auditions taking place.  I wonder if they will institute similar "private" law enforcement officials to go after organized crime and biker gangs. Maybe the profit motive is what was missing in criminal investigation and prosecution. Those private prisons turned out to be profitable, so there's precedent.

I saw a headline about Trump thinking about imposing tariffs on UK and EU, but I didn't read the details. That should go well.

[digitaldog]

Stocks largely recovered from an early tumble Monday after President Trump confirmed he would delay imposing tariffs on Mexico for a month.

For the climate change deniers, from that liberal Wall Street Journal today:

Climate change will cause a $1.47 trillion decline in U.S. home values by 2055, according to a new study from climate-research company First Street. 
Rising home-insurance costs and more homeowners spurning some risky neighborhoods will drive these declines, First Street said. The relationship between climate change and home values has become a more urgent question as losses from storms, wildfires and other natural disasters are hitting new records. Climate change is making many of those events worse, scientists say, and more Americans have moved to disaster-prone areas in recent years, increasing the number of properties at risk.

[Robert Roaldi]

Stocks largely recovered from an early tumble Monday after President Trump confirmed he would delay imposing tariffs on Mexico for a month.

For the climate change deniers, from that liberal Wall Street Journal today:

Climate change will cause a $1.47 trillion decline in U.S. home values by 2055, according to a new study from climate-research company First Street.
Rising home-insurance costs and more homeowners spurning some risky neighborhoods will drive these declines, First Street said. The relationship between climate change and home values has become a more urgent question as losses from storms, wildfires and other natural disasters are hitting new records. Climate change is making many of those events worse, scientists say, and more Americans have moved to disaster-prone areas in recent years, increasing the number of properties at risk.

I guess the implication is that Canada is still an enemy then but that Mexico won't be an enemy till March. Do people actually believe this horseshit? It's dumber than dirt.

If people do believe this, that is, that borders don't mean anything anymore and that whatever America wants, America can take, we have far bigger problems than an imposed trade war.


I recently heard a sensible commentary from Sam Harris on the subject of climate change. The issue seemingly cannot be discussed rationally so maybe it's best to stop addressing it directly. He suggested approaching the subject from another angle, that of keeping the water and air clean and fit for humans. This is potentially an easier sell and may get us partway there, which is better than nowhere.

He may have a point but we live in a world where many people think that the Covid vaccines caused more deaths than the disease. We live in a world where many Americans seem to think that Canada is a threat to them. I think I read that one of the nominees for Secretary of something or other does not believe in the germ theory of disease. I don't know how it's possible to discuss anything with someone like that. I'm pessimistic. Your country seems to be ruled by drunken bar talk at the moment. This is bad for the world of course, but it's worse for yourselves.

[Robert Roaldi]

The latest news is that tariffs are off the table for both Mexico and Canada till March. But Trump insisted on a condition that we have to meet here in Canada, we have to hire a Fentanyl Czar (or Tsar?). That'll fix things.

[kers]

Symbiose is the best way to grow economically: sudden changes are bad for the economy....
Basic things that everyone but Trump understands... Prices will rise...
Now data hungry Musk has access to all federal data, Americans should fear complete commercialisation of all the information that is gathered and it will be sold to the highest bidder; and Big Brother Musk knows all.
Then it is so easy to break things and so difficult to make things: Trump and the Republicans cause huge damage to the US, turning it into an autocracy. Democratically chosen and then bring the democracy down.
From one day to another ;Stopping US-aid and not contibuting to the WHO will have a devastating effect on the life of many people around the world.  Is it this what the people want?

[Robert Roaldi]

Symbiose is the best way to grow economically: sudden changes are bad for the economy....
Basic things that everyone but Trump understands... Prices will rise...
Now data hungry Musk has access to all federal data, Americans should fear complete commercialisation of all the information that is gathered and it will be sold to the highest bidder; and Big Brother Musk knows all.
Then it is so easy to break things and so difficult to make things: Trump and the Republicans cause huge damage to the US, turning it into an autocracy. Democratically chosen and then bring the democracy down.
From one day to another ;Stopping US-aid and not contibuting to the WHO will have a devastating effect on the life of many people around the world.  Is it this what the people want?

I'm a cynic and a pessimist when it comes to the wielding of power. The USA allows health insurers to increase their profits by killing people. If it allows that, it will allow anything.

I agree with you that Musk et al is looting the government. The MAGA-sphere is still cheering because they've fallen for the lame propaganda about woke trans dangers. They still think Trump is on their side, the poor lambs. After backing out of the Mexico/Canada tariffs, he was in front of the press again last evening talking about Canada being the 51st state. All he can do is play the cassettes in his head. Sooner or later, bullshit like that will stop being the distraction that it is.

His dropping of the tariffs probably came about because the rich and the powerful watched the markets crash yesterday morning and made a few calls.

Meanwhile, Putin remains untouched. But that was true when Biden was around so someone is benefitting by allowing that war to continue. Is the strategy to let Putin bankrupt himself? I have no idea. But if the greatest nation on earth is in a battle for freedom and democracy, its tactics are obscure. It could be that Russia's ace in the hole are their nuclear weapons. If more and more countries begin to view the US as enemy it is going to occur to them that maybe they should get some too. So this is all bad. As things stand, the US may spend the next few years in the courts. What an obscene waste of time and energy.

I wonder what it is like for the generals at the Pentagon to be taking direction from Hegseth. Are they ticked off or all-in?

[Rob C]

“I wonder what it is like for the generals at the Pentagon to be taking direction from Hegseth. Are they ticked off or all-in?”

Perhaps they are used to it, regardless of who’s in power; reminds me of the commercial world, where consultants are called in by companies just to share the blame. As a calendar photographer, it happened to me: I was foolish enough to take on a major assignment where the client had already committed to inexperienced models without my advice/opinion being sought or desired. Post-shoot, spaghetti and the fan found me there in plain sight. I suppose that if I’d refused the gig, I'd never have been offered another anyway. So, it became a TMAR Production: take the money and run. ;-(

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.
Perhaps they are used to it, regardless of who’s in power; ...

Thank you for the best belly laugh of the week.


I saw a headline earlier than Musk wants to close the Dept of Education. Maybe what's going on is that they plan to send all those unemployed civil servants to work in the newly vacated farm fields now that all those "aliens" are being sent to Gitmo. Maybe firing civil servants plays well to MAGA-land.

In the past few weeks, Mr. T has alluded to the fact that Canadians and people of Greenland want to join the US. Really, why would they want that?