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

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...........................

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

: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.

 

Exactly. Read the articles:

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

These sources are rather lacking in objectivity.

 

And science.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Seriously??!!

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.