Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
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.