Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Environment (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=92068)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1119645)

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.

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1119654)

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1119665)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1119652)

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/...limate-science
(The 23 related articles linked at the end of the article are also interesting/informative.)

And:http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
(also a couple of interesting links to others in the article)

And: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...on-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/articl...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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1119655)

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

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