Environmental Policies Doing More Damage Than Good
When you are skeptical about such things as global warming, you are called a “global warming denier” by the environmentalist wackos, in an attempt to lump you in with the so-called “holocaust deniers”, and make you seem like an evil, uncaring prick.
It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I don’t believe them. I live here too, and I don’t think industrial chemicals or raw sewage should be poured into our rivers, lakes and streams. I think that we can log our forests, but do it in a responsible way.
I took my wife and nephew up to Mt. St. Helens a couple of weeks ago, and was amazed at how the area had recovered over the 33 years since the eruption that blew out the north face of the mountain. However, there were still a lot of areas, along the Toutle River especially, where there was still a lot of devastation. If you look at a satellite photo of the mountain, you can still see how much devastation there is on the Toutle River (that grey is all ash, not the river), and around Spirit Lake.
I was 13 years old when the volcano erupted, and a Boy Scout. We had made plans to go to scout camp up on Spirit Lake later that summer. It still amazes me that we could have been up there during the eruption and possibly killed.
To get more on point, the Los Angeles Daily News has published a piece on how global warming is already impacting California.
Global warming alarmists like to point to their computer models as proof that global warming will be the end of us all. The problem with this idea is, that for all of the computing power we can muster, the computer is still running a program, and it only knows what it is told, and executes what it is told to do.
Meteorologists can’t tell us what the weather will be like next week, let alone 10 to 20 years from now, but we’re supposed to believe them about what’s going to happen to us 50 years down the road?
Back during the 1980’s, I remember the earthquake alarmists kept saying the big one would hit in the next 30 years.
Well, 30 years have passed, and we still haven’t had “the big one”. Now they are saying it will happen in the next 50.
If at first you are wrong, move the goalposts until you are right.
The issue that I have in particular is how the paper, which is quoting from professors at the ultra liberal University of California (agenda anyone?);
What the public may not realize, experts say, is how extensive the impact of climate change already is.
Since 1950, the report found, the three worst forest fire years in California — measured by acres burned — all have occurred in the past decade: 2003, 2007 and 2008. And the average number of acres scorched every year since 2000 is almost double the average of the previous 50 years — 598,000 acres annually now, compared with 264,000 acres a year then.
“A report like this is Paul Revere. It provides an early warning, an early indicator of the challenges we face,” said Matthew Kahn, a UCLA economics professor.
Is it global warming that is causing these devastating wildfires?
Are you sure?
Could it be that since we are no longer allowed to log most of our forests in order to save a stupid owl that is breeding itself out of existence, that the forests are overgrown and fuel for devastating fires? Is it man who is the enemy of the spotted owl, or is it the barred owl? Have we been lied to all along?
Now the government wants to kill the barred owl to save the spotted owl. In other words, the environmentalist wackos want to interfere with the evolution of the planet, so they can get the warm fuzzies. Is that the responsible thing to do?
If we want to fight these devastating fires, why is the Federal government loathe to contract out the 747 supertanker from Oregon’s Evergreen Aviation, designed to fight these kinds of fires? Instead, we suffer the death of 19 hotshots.
Why can’t we allow timber companies to thin the forests out a bit, and replant behind them? Because it might create jobs?
Why can’t we allow timber salvage companies to come in behind a forest fire (after everything cools down, of course and all the embers are out), and salvage what timber they can, and replant? Why is it up to us to protect nature, but we can’t give it a helping hand? Isn’t that more responsible than just letting nature take its course?
College Professors are too keen on blaming humans for global warming, but don’t want to look at the possibility that it isn’t global warming that is causing these fires at all, but our governmental policies.
The way the psycho left talks, one would believe that they want to exterminate the human race, or nearly exterminate it, and have us all living in caves again.
Look at the Georgia Guidestones. The inscriptions read (in eight different languages)
- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
- Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
- Unite humanity with a living new language.
- Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
- Balance personal rights with social duties.
- Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
- Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000. So, 6.5 billion people should die.
“Guide” reproduction wisely. In other words, you should have to get permission from the government to procreate.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials. Well, too late for that one.
But finally, “Be not a cancer on the earth, leave room for nature”. In Oregon, we live on 3% of the entire state, while the Federal government owns 53% of the state. There is plenty of room for nature.
Those who believe that global warming, or climate change is occurring believe that the science and the debate is settled. It isn’t.
Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember how we were told that the hurricane seasons were just going to get worse from there?
It hasn’t. In fact, it has decreased if anything.
Don’t give me the garbage about “superstorm” Sandy. Sandy was actually tempered by the other storm that it merged with, and it hit at a) high tide and b) during a full moon. Nothing super about it. A disaster, yes, but stop trying to equate a cat 2 hurricane with a cat 5 hurricane. It makes you look stupid and foolish.
After predicting yet another “active” hurricane season, the forecasters at Colorado State University lowered their forecast for the 2013 season.
Because their predictions have been so far off, it’s ridiculous.
And why is a university in a land locked state in the middle of the country studying and predicting hurricanes, anyway? It seems to me that if you truly wanted to study hurricanes, you would be somewhere like, oh, say, Florida! Just like if you want to study tornadoes, Kansas would probably be your best bet.
It isn’t logging that’s the threat. It isn’t big oil or fossil fuels that are the threat. It’s our idiotic environmental policies designed to keep people off our our own lands, policies designed to control our every move, and “nudge” us in the direction these leftist wackos want us to go.
If we truly need to get the population below 500,000,000, I suggest we start with the leftists and the environmentalists.