View Full Version : Environment


Got Stripers
03-28-2017, 07:37 AM
I guess if he can't fix the healthcare system, maintain a travel ban or build his grand wall; he can sign an executive order to screw the environment. There is a forward thinking president, but I guess if you think global warming is fake news, it's time to fire up some old coal fired plants.

detbuch
03-28-2017, 07:51 AM
I guess if he can't fix the healthcare system, maintain a travel ban or build his grand wall; he can sign an executive order to screw the environment. There is a forward thinking president, but I guess if you think global warming is fake news, it's time to fire up some old coal fired plants.

Relax. Our benevolent nanny government won't let too many of us die. It needs a voter base . . . or at least some beasts of burden to provide its goodies.

RIROCKHOUND
03-28-2017, 08:17 AM
I guess if he can't fix the healthcare system, maintain a travel ban or build his grand wall; he can sign an executive order to screw the environment. There is a forward thinking president, but I guess if you think global warming is fake news, it's time to fire up some old coal fired plants.

Don't worry, those jobs will come back.... oh wait.. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-cant-bring-back-mining-jobs-574766

I guess, like the generals and ISIS, Trump knows more about this issue than Bob Murray....

detbuch
03-28-2017, 08:36 AM
Don't worry, those jobs will come back.... oh wait.. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-cant-bring-back-mining-jobs-574766

I guess, like the generals and ISIS, Trump knows more about this issue than Bob Murray....

A quote from Bob Murray in the article you posted: "I would not say it's a good time in the coal industry. It's a better time," Murray told the Guardian. "Politically it's much better. Barack Obama and his Democrat supporters were the greatest destroyers the United States of America has ever seen in its history. He destroyed reliable electric power in America, he destroyed low-cost electric power in America, and he attempted to totally destroy the United States coal industry."

RIROCKHOUND
03-28-2017, 09:52 AM
A quote from Bob Murray in the article you posted: "I would not say it's a good time in the coal industry. It's a better time," Murray told the Guardian. "Politically it's much better. Barack Obama and his Democrat supporters were the greatest destroyers the United States of America has ever seen in its history. He destroyed reliable electric power in America, he destroyed low-cost electric power in America, and he attempted to totally destroy the United States coal industry."

I read that as well.
To say the Obama destroyed low-cost power in America is laughable and wasn't worthy of acknowledgement. Natural Gas (and fracking) is killing coal. That is a trend that predates Obama.

Nebe
03-28-2017, 10:27 AM
I read that as well.
To say the Obama destroyed low-cost power in America is laughable and wasn't worthy of acknowledgement. Natural Gas (and fracking) is killing coal. That is a trend that predates Obama.

Facts are irrelevant Bryan. Obama was out to destroy America. Do t you listen to Alex Jones? 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RIROCKHOUND
03-28-2017, 11:47 AM
Facts are irrelevant Bryan. Obama was out to destroy America. Do t you listen to Alex Jones? 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The trend goes back to the early/mid 2000's, gas is cheaper and cleaner.

Murray's point above was that automation/equipment has increased productivity which reduces the number of jobs needed

detbuch
03-28-2017, 03:44 PM
I read that as well.
To say the Obama destroyed low-cost power in America is laughable and wasn't worthy of acknowledgement.

Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/14/pay-the-man-electricity-rates-soar-to-record-levels-as-obama-shutters-coal-plants/

Natural Gas (and fracking) is killing coal. That is a trend that predates Obama.

That is the market working (in spite of regulations). That would happen naturally, without federal regulation. And Trump's EO relaxes Obama's regulations on natural gas and fracking as well as on coal. So those industries can expand, hire more, and produce more energy, including electricity, and help to lower prices.

And technology making coal mining more efficient is a historical trend, not just a reaction to Obama regulations. And, even though tech advances reduce the need of manpower in existing plants, opening up federal lands to coal mining will require a new crop of jobs if there is still any life left in coal.

I don't know if any of this makes any difference, good or bad, but there are arguments both ways. I am not confident in saying any projection or prophecy is laughable. I am a skeptic when it comes to any prediction. But I do think that a free market produces better "economy" than a highly regulated one.

Ian
03-28-2017, 06:24 PM
That is the market working (in spite of regulations). That would happen naturally, without federal regulation. And Trump's EO relaxes Obama's regulations on natural gas and fracking as well as on coal. So those industries can expand, hire more, and produce more energy, including electricity, and help to lower prices.

And technology making coal mining more efficient is a historical trend, not just a reaction to Obama regulations. And, even though tech advances reduce the need of manpower in existing plants, opening up federal lands to coal mining will require a new crop of jobs if there is still any life left in coal.

I don't know if any of this makes any difference, good or bad, but there are arguments both ways. I am not confident in saying any projection or prophecy is laughable. I am a skeptic when it comes to any prediction. But I do think that a free market produces better "economy" than a highly regulated one.

American history is filled with horror stories regarding "the market" when left unchecked. Collapses, scandals, abused workers... despite all of that we still have people asking to "just let the markets work."

I'll admit, regulations are tough to enforce in a relevant manner at a blanket level, but to just trust that a bunch of companies are going to make the right decisions for "the little guy" is crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers
03-28-2017, 06:50 PM
So 75,000 coal miner jobs are worth more then probably 4 times the amount of jobs in alternate energy industries?

Nebe
03-28-2017, 09:20 PM
So 75,000 coal miner jobs are worth more then probably 4 times the amount of jobs in alternate energy industries?

Absolutely. Because alternative energy is a huge threat to all that old oil money.

Can you imagine how broke all those oilmen will be if this country went full solar, wind, tide and biofuel from switchgrass and hemp? How could they pau for their yachts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe
03-28-2017, 09:22 PM
In the meantime the GOP will keep the poor and the uneducated focused on immigrants posing a huge threat to safety and will do something to pander to their Christian base, but it's painfully obvious what the real objective is here.
I just wonder when the bombs will start falling to get the price of oil to go back to $90 a barrel.

Keep worrying about those bad hombres !!!! ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
03-28-2017, 10:53 PM
American history is filled with horror stories regarding "the market" when left unchecked.

Can you point out when the market was left unchecked?

When we speak of "the market," we are talking about a system of trade. The free market is a system of voluntary trade, value for value. Any coercion distorts a free market, making it less free.

But, because humans being the fickle persons that we are, thus making it doubtful that we will be constrained by checks and balances, you probably won't find in any organized society which has a strong government component an unchecked market.

Collapses, scandals, abused workers... despite all of that we still have people asking to "just let the markets work."

"Collapses" cannot be regulated out of existence. Not even government is immune to various collapses. Perhaps, in some totally mind-controlled society in which the notion of "success" is wiped out of human consciousness, there would be no "failure." But such a society would, for lack of motivation, stagnate out of existence. Possibility of collapse is inherent in human nature. Blame humanity for collapse, not the market.

"Scandals" also are not written into the free market. They also exist in government as well. They exist in all forms of human intercourse. Again, blame humanity, not the market.

"Abused workers" also are not part of the ethos of a free market. Abused workers also exist in government. Abuse is a form of coercion. Coercion distorts the market. Blame humanity, not the market.

I'll admit, regulations are tough to enforce in a relevant manner at a blanket level, but to just trust that a bunch of companies are going to make the right decisions for "the little guy" is crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are conditioned to think in terms of "checking" the market by government regulation. In reality, the market has built in checks and balances which should not be distorted by government regulation. What the government should check, what it was meant to check by our constitutional system, is criminal, corrupt, abusive human distortion of the market. Our founded system was instituted to protect the market, not check it. The market was to be protected from coercion, including government coercion.

If someone points a gun to your head and demands your money with no return of value in kind, that is not free market. That is human criminality, human corruption, human abuse, human coercion. The government was formed to check that, and to let the market be free.

And if the government, either to favor by regulation some business that bribes it in order to overcome competition, or decides because of ideology, or some good intention derived from data which may be good, but is often inadequate or inaccurate, to make blanket regulations--that is a form of coercion directly on the market, not a protection of the market.

The market is made up of human trade by businesses of all sizes and people of all stripes. They all, in a free market, depend on each others' well being in order to survive. The loss of any one shrinks the market. And each business has to survey data correctly. It has to determine price and the sustainability of supply. It has to maintain customer satisfaction. If it does not constrain itself to the natural checks and balances of a free market, it will cease to exist. Or it will have to depend on some form of government coercion in the market in order to survive.

Criminal prosecution was meant to be the domain of the states and local governments. The "check" against criminal coercion is more relevantly, as you put it, regulated at local levels in touch with the needs of their populace. Different strokes for different folks rather than one size fits all.

The problem of one central authority regulating the market of the entire country is it tends to overregulate thus creating the Big Business/Big government complex that we have drifted into. The "Nation of Shopkeepers" that de Tocqueville defined as America has become much less so. The hassle of dealing with growing regulations is more easily handled by bureaucracies than by small businesses.

And that makes it more difficult to create a market for the "little guy." There are still a lot of self-motivated people who create smaller, even family, businesses. But there is more of a tendency for people to work for somebody else. Or not to work at all. The irony of illegal immigrant enclaves is that they are left more alone, not as restrictively regulated. So they are able to create a market environment that suits their community level of income and cultural tastes.

But keeping up with big government taxation and costly regulation along with growing government debt makes it difficult for "legal" small businesses and sole proprietors to keep up with the constant inflation, or even sustain their endeavors.

The right decisions for the little guys, as you put it, would better be made by a freer market. There is always a market for different levels of income if the market is free enough to provide it. What big government policies tend to do is create more little guys who depend on the government safety net to survive. That is not the market's fault. Free it up to make it viable to have functioning little guys.

detbuch
03-28-2017, 11:04 PM
So 75,000 coal miner jobs are worth more then probably 4 times the amount of jobs in alternate energy industries?

If the market was able to function as a market rather than the brainstorm of some central planner, alternate energy would easily be able to rev up that 4 times amount of jobs if it was more economical to do so.

detbuch
03-28-2017, 11:11 PM
In the meantime the GOP will keep the poor and the uneducated focused on immigrants posing a huge threat to safety and will do something to pander to their Christian base, but it's painfully obvious what the real objective is here.
I just wonder when the bombs will start falling to get the price of oil to go back to $90 a barrel.

Keep worrying about those bad hombres !!!! ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do realize that most of those immigrants coming from the south of us are Christians, right?

And if we pump more oil here or in Canada, the price of oil will go down. Even more so when Saudi Arabia, et. al, decide to lower their prices in response in order to make it less profitable to pump it here.

And yeah, you're right . . . the Christians are the real threat, not immigrants from the Middle East. Keep an eye on those Christians. They're gonna bring this country down.

wdmso
03-29-2017, 04:28 AM
More roll backs and typical Republican Ideas less regulation will help create jobs.. why do you think companies went to China or Mexico low cost wages and NO REGULATIONS the lack of of REGULATIONS only lined the pockets of the owners and share holders
not the workers or the environment ... Companies have a History in America.. where the worker and the company had a symbiotic relationship .. and history has also shown us How big business changed that and why they cant be trusted to do whats right they must be forced by government by laws and regulations ...

But i get it some think if there were no catch limits (regulation ) Cod would be abundant striped bass would still be around and herring so keep banging the free market or should i say free for all market ... and see whats in store for the future generations when profits are sought above sustainability and stability in the Market

The repeal was strongly backed by major providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, who argued that ISPs were being subject to stricter privacy laws than companies like Google or Facebook. SHOCKING

Coal other financial services worker rights rolled back

Whos looking out for the Avg American Trump?? think again

PaulS
03-29-2017, 06:34 AM
Rolling back worker protection.

detbuch
03-29-2017, 07:36 AM
More roll backs and typical Republican Ideas less regulation will help create jobs.. why do you think companies went to China or Mexico low cost wages and NO REGULATIONS the lack of of REGULATIONS only lined the pockets of the owners and share holders

There are regulations in China and Mexico. The OVERregulating in the U.S. made it more profitable, more responsible, to produce elsewhere.

not the workers or the environment ... Companies have a History in America.. where the worker and the company had a symbiotic relationship .. and history has also shown us How big business changed that and why they cant be trusted to do whats right they must be forced by government by laws and regulations ...

The symbiotic relationship is the market. Big business can only intrude on that relationship by coercion. And for that coercion to be sustainable, it requires a symbiotic relationship between Big Government and Big Business with regulations that make it less possible for the competitors of Big Business.

But i get it some think if there were no catch limits (regulation ) Cod would be abundant striped bass would still be around and herring so keep banging the free market or should i say free for all market ... and see whats in store for the future generations when profits are sought above sustainability and stability in the Market

In a truly competitive and free market, competitors would see problems of sustainability due to practices that threaten the survival of the market. They would either, in cooperation, check behavior that threatens the market or appeal to their local, state, or regional court systems to sue rogue businesses who abuse the market.

The repeal was strongly backed by major providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, who argued that ISPs were being subject to stricter privacy laws than companies like Google or Facebook. SHOCKING

Explain.

Coal other financial services worker rights rolled back

Explain.

Whos looking out for the Avg American Trump?? think again

Explain.

Jim in CT
03-29-2017, 07:45 AM
In the meantime the GOP will keep the poor and the uneducated focused on immigrants posing a huge threat to safety and will do something to pander to their Christian base, but it's painfully obvious what the real objective is here.
I just wonder when the bombs will start falling to get the price of oil to go back to $90 a barrel.

Keep worrying about those bad hombres !!!! ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So tell me, what is the real objective of the GOP?

And assuming it was indeed a crime, tell the parents of the 14 year-old girl who got gang raped in her Maryland high school bathroom, that there is no upside to regulating immigration.

Nebe, who gets to decide which laws we obey, and which we don't? Why can't I decide not to pay my federal income taxes?

Jim in CT
03-29-2017, 07:50 AM
And yeah, you're right . . . the Christians are the real threat, not immigrants from the Middle East. Keep an eye on those Christians. They're gonna bring this country down.

And the Amish, don't forget the Amish, those bastards.

It's an interesting quirk of liberalism. Liberals think misogyny is bad, and they think homophobia is bad, but for reasons I have never quite figure out, liberals won't say Islam is bad. Is there a single female or gay person out there, who would rather find themselves in Saudi Arabia than the Vatican?

Jim in CT
03-29-2017, 07:50 AM
Explain.

Because shut up.

Jim in CT
03-29-2017, 07:52 AM
So 75,000 coal miner jobs are worth more then probably 4 times the amount of jobs in alternate energy industries?

Obama's stimulus package (almost a trillion dollars) was supposed to create a whole lot of clean energy jobs. Right? And it didn't. So maybe there is more going on in that industry, than can be solved by throwing some money at it.

PaulS
03-29-2017, 08:18 AM
You have energy companies who think the views of the head of our EPA are a joke.

PaulS
03-29-2017, 10:23 AM
The lessoning of environmental regs. will hurt the poor more than the middle and upper class. Pres. Trump talked about "carnage" yet his policies will make things much worse for the people he appealed to.

He is slashing projects to help low-income families pay for heating or move to better neighborhoods; cutting nutrition assistance for mothers and help for low-income students to enter college, food support (WIC) for the poor with children, etc. The mortality of the poor, whites w/no more than a college educ. has increased over the last 20 or so years.

Jim in CT
03-29-2017, 10:32 AM
You have energy companies who think the views of the head of our EPA are a joke.

And there were a lot of CEOs who thought Obama's policies were destructive. and school superintendents who are opposed to school choice (I am a huge fan)

The correct answer usually doesn't lie at one extreme or the other. Sometimes it does, so it's worth asking and listening.

detbuch
03-29-2017, 03:12 PM
The lessoning of environmental regs. will hurt the poor more than the middle and upper class. Pres. Trump talked about "carnage" yet his policies will make things much worse for the people he appealed to.

It depends on what is meant by "helping" the poor. If by helping the poor is meant making it easier for them to remain poor, or to remain in place, it might be possible for government central planners to regulate society by totally controlling the market in order to make that happen. Remaining in a place which is defined by central planners is the model for communistic societies. Indeed, it is the aim of communistic societies to eliminate gradations of place--the elimination of class. Everyone (with the possible exception of the planners and regulators) will be levelled to a unitary, hopefully well taken care of, "class."

If what is meant by helping the poor is to create conditions which allow them to move out of that place, regulating society by over regulating its market would be the worst thing for a government to do. Only free market societies allow individuals to fluidly move in and out of their class structures. The freer the market, the more fluid will be the moving in and out of economic classes. In a sense, by eliminating the condition of permanent residence in a class, a free market essentially eliminates a defined class structure. In a free market there is an undefined spectrum between poverty and wealth available to all who have the ability and initiative to navigate through it.

Inherent differences in individual ability and initiative, as well as inherited advantages, will, of course, give an edge to some over others. However, eliminating intrinsic advantages would require the total, centrally planned, communistic society.

A so-called "mixed" economy supposedly allows for free market fluidity in concert with government aid to the bottom spectrum. Unfortunately, in a democracy wherein government tenure depends on periodic election to power, those who rule must constantly promise things in order to get elected. So there cannot be an unchanging, permanently defined "mix" of free market and government regulation. And the promises will have to be made not only to the poor, in order to get a majority (unless the poor are the majority which would speak badly of a society and its government), but promises would have to be made along the spectrum of wealth.

So regulations will have to be concocted which give advantages to some along the entire spectrum--from poor street to Wall Street. The tendency will therefor be the constant growth of regulation. This is especially true when there is no effective limitation on government growth and government power.

America has been experiencing a utopian attempt at mixing market with regulation. Unfortunately, it is also experiencing the expansion of central government power with all the ills which accompany that growth. The balancing act has gone out of kilter and the scales have tipped against freedom in favor of regulation. This is not sustainable in any way except continuing on to total regulation. Total government control which would include forgiveness of the national debt and a centrally planned economy.

And it is less than debatable whether that would be sustainable given history and human nature.



He is slashing projects to help low-income families pay for heating or move to better neighborhoods; cutting nutrition assistance for mothers and help for low-income students to enter college, food support (WIC) for the poor with children, etc. The mortality of the poor, whites w/no more than a college educ. has increased over the last 20 or so years.

Federal help for low income families has drastically escalated since LBJ's Great Society projects. It has not reduced low income families. Rather it has created more of them. For income to actually grow, there must be a market which creates incomes and produces in ways that those incomes grow. When government projects (regulations) restrict market freedom, market response will be ever more centralized, bigger businesses. Ergo less income producing jobs. And so will require even more "projects" to help low or, more and more, no income families. When income is provided by government, it must be siphoned from the private sector, which shrinks private sector growth, requiring more centralized, merged, business models. And on, and on . . . fueling the Big Government/Big Business complex . . . which eventually must meld into one entity.

If the Federal government would just stick to the few and defined powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the beast of centralized and unlimited government power would be slain. The states, really, are capable of creating regulatory models of their own and can more relevantly address problems that belong to government rather than to the market. Just doing that would solve most of our economic problems and many of the social ones.

The quality of education would improve and its costs would drop dramatically (Federal Government "investment" in education invariably raises its costs). And the teaching of economics, the power of self reliance, rather than some Progressive notion of social justice, as well as the virtue of federated republican (small "r") government over the authoritarian style of an all-powerful central government, would do wonders toward changing the American character from its now identity divided government dependency toward a more American "e pluribus Unum" individuality capable of solving its own problems.

Got Stripers
03-29-2017, 06:02 PM
I started this thread about my concern about the long term impact to the global (yeah it is a global problem) environment by the policies and beliefs of this administration, how we got into a discussion about what class of people are impacted the most is par for the course I guess. Not dissimilar to the striper regulations or lack thereof, for years we fishermen predicted what was coming, but regulations to address the problem were far too late to stem the tide. Rebuilding a striper stock is going to be a lot easier than repairing a global environmental problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
03-29-2017, 06:51 PM
I started this thread about my concern about the long term impact to the global (yeah it is a global problem) environment by the policies and beliefs of this administration, how we got into a discussion about what class of people are impacted the most is par for the course I guess. Not dissimilar to the striper regulations or lack thereof, for years we fishermen predicted what was coming, but regulations to address the problem were far too late to stem the tide. Rebuilding a striper stock is going to be a lot easier than repairing a global environmental problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The long term impact will be that the earth will go through various stages or phases of cooling and warming with various catastrophic events. Many species will disappear. Many will newly appear as a result of evolutionary forces. Land masses will appear and disappear. Humans will adjust as much as possible in varying degrees. Our unregulated activities will cause drastic changes in the sun which will affect all life forms on earth, and which will dissolve the solar system in some cataclysmic event.

I say that with all the certainty that climate change believers have in the long term effects of this administration's policies.

Obviously, those of us who voted for the Repubs are too stupid to know what is right and wrong. What science says. And it is obvious that this administration desperately wants to commit massive human genocide, including themselves and their families.

Actually, I don't have the slightest idea about what course the environment will take. You, obviously, know very well and certain.

It's a lot easier, with my limited mental capacity, to stick to things like economics, government, human nature, freedom and tyranny, the Constitution--things that humans have demonstrated an ability to guide in various directions.

PaulS
03-30-2017, 06:26 AM
I started this thread about my concern about the long term impact to the global (yeah it is a global problem) environment by the policies and beliefs of this administration, how we got into a discussion about what class of people are impacted the most is par for the course I guess. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the discussion can't take a different path?

Got Stripers
03-30-2017, 07:03 AM
The long term impact will be that the earth will go through various stages or phases of cooling and warming with various catastrophic events. Many species will disappear. Many will newly appear as a result of evolutionary forces. Land masses will appear and disappear. Humans will adjust as much as possible in varying degrees. Our unregulated activities will cause drastic changes in the sun which will affect all life forms on earth, and which will dissolve the solar system in some cataclysmic event.

I say that with all the certainty that climate change believers have in the long term effects of this administration's policies.

Obviously, those of us who voted for the Repubs are too stupid to know what is right and wrong. What science says. And it is obvious that this administration desperately wants to commit massive human genocide, including themselves and their families.

Actually, I don't have the slightest idea about what course the environment will take. You, obviously, know very well and certain.

It's a lot easier, with my limited mental capacity, to stick to things like economics, government, human nature, freedom and tyranny, the Constitution--things that humans have demonstrated an ability to guide in various directions.

You are one sarcastic SOB. I'm no scientist, but everything I've read suggests there is a consensus in the scientific community that the environment is changing due to man's impact. Is it likely we can launch Ben Afleck and company into space the do a road runner move around the moon and split a planet killer; pretty sure that's a no. If a super volcano blows and causes all kinds of climate issues, is that man's fault; pretty sure that's another no. If the Californians who many on this board seem to despise for the manor in which they govern, falls into the sea after the next big one, is that their fault; well I'd say no and you might say good riddance.

Global warming IMHO is real, it's being accelerated by man and to roll back or implement new policies that can only worsen the impact, even if it's only a four year term; is just not taking us in the right direction. The USA has always lead the world in making changes that are taking everyone on this planet in a positive direction, from rules of war, to nuclear agreements and to making change to slow man's impact on global warming.

As the saying goes, you can pay me now or pay me later, the bill will come to those several generations down the road; we will have been long gone.

Got Stripers
03-30-2017, 07:06 AM
So the discussion can't take a different path?

Pattern of thread stealing, were are the thread police when you need them:), like I've said a few of you need to just get a room.

Slipknot
03-30-2017, 07:13 AM
So how can Trump effect the rainforests being destroyed daily? That to me is one of the biggest losses because of greedy corporations. The plants alone destroyed could be discoveries and cures for all kinds of maladies that may now never happen., not to mention the trees lost that produce oxygen from the CO2. But I guess people need to have their cheap McDonalds burgers :wall:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
03-30-2017, 07:26 AM
Got Stripers, your intent of the original post was great. We here all have a deep interest in a healthy environment.

Contrary to what you hear many places, liberals aren't the only ones who care about such things. Republicans have to drink water and eat food and breath air too. We have the same vested interest in a healthy environment.

We should have some protections in place for the environment, I have never heard a Republican say otherwise, never. But you can go to far with those regulations and restrictions. And the science is far from settled on the impact of the most strict regulations.

What I find interesting, is that many of the leaders of the environmental movement (Al Gore comes to mind, and all of the Hollywood imbeciles), live a lifestyle that is completely at odds with that which they profess to believe. Al Gore flies everywhere on a private jet, has massive homes that are climate controlled. But he tells me I should sit in the dark and not flush my toilets until they are full? Sorry, the only thing he has un-plugged is his treadmill.

PaulS
03-30-2017, 08:17 AM
Pattern of thread stealing, were are the thread police when you need them:), like I've said a few of you need to just get a room.

Maybe you need to offer to be a mod?

PaulS
03-30-2017, 08:18 AM
Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA rejected the agencies recommendation that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers. The harm includes learning and memory declines, particularly among farm workers and young children who may be exposed through drinking water and other sources.

Jim in CT
03-30-2017, 09:05 AM
Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA rejected the agencies recommendation that one of the nationís most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers. The harm includes learning and memory declines, particularly among farm workers and young children who may be exposed through drinking water and other sources.

I need to read about that.

We can go too far in either direction. In the 1970s and 1980s, the use of DDT was banned worldwide because the pesticide was causing birds eggs to break, threatening bird populations. The environmentalists wanted to save the birds, so they got DDT banned. Birds were saved. At the same time, millions of poor black children died of malaria in Africa.

That's an example of going too far for nature.

Obviously, we need to make sure we don't go too far to put people first, to the point where we destroy nature.

detbuch
03-30-2017, 11:22 AM
You are one sarcastic SOB.

How did you know that my mother is a bitch? In many ways she is. But she was also a great mother considering her circumstances.

I'm no scientist, but everything I've read suggests there is a consensus in the scientific community that the environment is changing due to man's impact.

But there are a lot of things which you apparently did not read. Here's a tiny sample:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25103-professor-resigns-due-to-craziness-over-climate-science
(The 23 related articles linked at the end of the article are also interesting/informative.)

And:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
(also a couple of interesting links to others in the article)

And: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20195-un-climate-boss-resigns-in-scandal-says-mission-is-religion

And, did you read the Copenhagen Accords Proposal on the solution to AGW? It was 200+ page proposal on what would be the creation of what is an international governing body which effectively controls the World's economy and governance in order to decrease global warming. Recently Merkel and Hollande said that fighting AGW required “a profound transformation of the world economy and society.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418751/climate-science-and-politics-are-diverging-rupert-darwall?target=topic&tid=1853

Is it likely we can launch Ben Afleck and company into space the do a road runner move around the moon and split a planet killer; pretty sure that's a no.

Do I detect sarcasm here?

If a super volcano blows and causes all kinds of climate issues, is that man's fault; pretty sure that's another no. If the Californians who many on this board seem to despise for the manor in which they govern, falls into the sea after the next big one, is that their fault; well I'd say no and you might say good riddance.

Global warming IMHO is real, it's being accelerated by man and to roll back or implement new policies that can only worsen the impact, even if it's only a four year term; is just not taking us in the right direction. The USA has always lead the world in making changes that are taking everyone on this planet in a positive direction, from rules of war, to nuclear agreements and to making change to slow man's impact on global warming.

As the saying goes, you can pay me now or pay me later, the bill will come to those several generations down the road; we will have been long gone.

I honestly don't have an opinion on AGW per se. I do see it being used politically. And do think, whether it is real or not, that it is being used as one of the many means to further the agenda of making our academic institutions indoctrination centers for leftist ideology.

As far as Trump's EPA impact on climate goes, some, or most, of the Obama regulations targeted by Pruitt have already been stayed by the Supreme Court. And Pruitt's reasons seem legitimate. Getting into the weeds of it can shed a different light than casting blanket criticisms. Again, I am not as certain either way as you seem to be. I don't think Pruitt is stupid. He does want to return regulatory power back to the states, which I entirely believe is right and Constitutional. I don't believe that the states want to destroy the environment, if for no other reason than doing so would destroy the lives of their own citizens.

At any rate, asking for input from people who don't know enough to have a valid opinion so don't care to profess one, who then have to hear opinions by others who don't really know but depend entirely on one side of an argument, might evoke some frustration if not actual sarcasm.

Got Stripers
03-30-2017, 03:53 PM
So how can Trump effect the rainforests being destroyed daily? That to me is one of the biggest losses because of greedy corporations. The plants alone destroyed could be discoveries and cures for all kinds of maladies that may now never happen., not to mention the trees lost that produce oxygen from the CO2. But I guess people need to have their cheap McDonalds burgers :wall:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A voice of reason, it will all catch up to us, maybe not you and I, but generations down the road will feel it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers
04-02-2017, 05:39 PM
Columbia tragedy blamed on deforestation (greed) and climate change. Top tier making the money and those below suffer as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device