15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @shavixmirMore than 4 degrees.
Very witty. Haha.
I do feel obliged to ask if you know what the average ocean temperature is, though.
But to the underlying point, yes, Harnett seems woefully incapable of serving in the position she's been nominated for.
15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @shavixmirThis is about density: If you put a dense volume (say an iron ball) into a boat, the boat will sink in to replace as much volume of water which weighs the the same than the iron ball. Now take the reading of the Level. Now put the iron ball out of the boat and into the water. Since Iron is about7.5. times denser than water the volume it will replace now is much lower than the volume of the replaced water when the iron ball is in the boat, Thus the Level falls.
Say what?
You mean to say that if I put a floating playmobil pirate boat (my daughter's) in a basin of water, the water will rise. But when I push it completely underwater, the water will go down (compared to when the boat was floating on top)?
Oh. Yeah. Right. I see how that works. The water flows into the cracks and fills up the hull...
Cool. Lea ...[text shortened]... Is that correct?
God damn, I'm gonna be a water-displacement expert by the end of this thread!
An iron ship (Titanic for example) can swin, since it is hollow and air has a very small density. If you begin to float parts of the ship with water it will sink, because light air is replaced by heavy water..Quote 2This ship is made of iron and I assure you it can sink" (engineer to Administrator who after the collision with the iceberg claimed that the ship was insinkable)
15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @vivifyIs there any reason to believe that she isn't qualified to do what Trump would want her to do in that role?
While I've included a link for those who refuse to watch YouTube, I URGE you to watch this exchange with Donald Trump's pick to head his environmental council. Reading about this woman simply cannot convey her stunning lack competence for this role. The video shows a different part of Hartnett's Whitehouse hearing from what's discussed in the article below ...[text shortened]... due to global warming will raise sea levels, but hotter seas will expand by themselves.[/quote]
To put it in perspective, consider the fact that Trump placed Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA. Frontline did a nice piece on that topic. You can watch it at the link below.
Frontline: War on the EPA.
How Scott Pruitt went from fighting the Environmental Protection Agency to running it and rolling back years of policy.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/war-on-the-epa/
15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sh76Possibly because she has some weird medical condition which gives her an abnormal density?
Side point: Why does she have to be committing suicide? .
Or maybe she is a body-builder who just lost her title?
15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @vivifyI watched it.
Anyone watch the vid?
Perhaps you need to reevaluate the reason that Trump nominated her.
16 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSo why do you think Trump nominated her, then?
I watched it.
Perhaps you need to reevaluate the reason that Trump nominated her.
16 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @vivifySame reason he nominated people to cabinet positions who are amazingly unfit to run their departments. He wants all regulations on corporations to disappear.
So why do you think Trump nominated her, then?
16 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @vivifyFor the same reason that he placed Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA: To remove environmental protections despite the fact that the science says otherwise. To carry out such a mandate no knowledge of science is required.
So why do you think Trump nominated her, then?
What did you make of the Frontline episode?
16 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneOkay, for a moment, I thought you were defending Trump's pick.
For the same reason that he placed Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA: To remove environmental protections despite the fact that the science says otherwise. To carry out such a mandate no knowledge of science is required.
What did you make of the Frontline episode?
I haven't watched the PBS report. Give me a couple of hours, and I'll respond with what I think about it later today.
17 Nov 17
Originally posted by @vivifyI'll be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Okay, for a moment, I thought you were defending Trump's pick.
I haven't watched the PBS report. Give me a couple of hours, and I'll respond with what I think about it later today.
17 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI watched the video. It's a well done report, though I really am not a fan of using ominous music and imagery whenever Trump was talked about or his picture was used. I hate when a documentary tries to make my mind up for me.
I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts.
This video just backs up much of what I've already known about Pruitt: a corporate shill attacking the EPA for corporate interests. The video did expound more on the impact of EPA regulations on states where coal and fossil fuels were vital to the local economy, which I appreciate. I knew that prior to the video, but I still found it eye-opening.
I think the report focused too much on the coal industry, and that's it's major failing. Apart from it's impact on fossil fuels, the EPA under Pruitt, a pesticide found to cause brain cancer in children that was about to be blocked, was allowed after Pruitt met with the company that produces the pesticide:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-pesticide-dow-20170627-story.html
Trump also banned Obama-era restrictions on the dumping of coal into rivers and streams:
https://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
By focusing too squarely on the coal industry vs the EPA, Frontline's report doesn't truly convey what a disaster Pruitt's role in the EPA is on the environment, as well as Trump's.