Kansas Crimson

Become?

Did I miss something? Where are the Climate Change deniers on here?

chiknbut wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:57 am Did I miss something? Where are the Climate Change deniers on here?

dolomite, for one

i don't recall if DC has evolved in his thinking or not...he and i have had some involved discussion on the topic going back to the commie days

i don't know that there are many deniers on here, but that won't keep me from linking stories i feel are worth sharing (not that you were insinuating that i should)

globally, if we any hope of avoiding the worst of what may be to come, we'll all have to make sacrifices...paying more for fuel, not being able to by your fancy, lifted, gas-guzzling 4x4, etc., etc., etc...

we can no longer afford temporary "prosperity" to the detriment of our future (and by "our" i mean humanity)

Vast amounts of wetlands and thousands of miles of U.S. waterways would no longer be federally protected by the Clean Water Act under a new proposal by the Trump administration.

The proposal, announced Tuesday at the Environmental Protection Agency, would change the EPA's definition of "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, limiting the types of waterways that fall under federal protection to major waterways, their tributaries, adjacent wetlands and a few other categories.

The change aims to "provide states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies,"said the EPA's acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler...

...

Randy Noel, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said the new proposal should make it easier for development to take place.

"As a home builder, I'm pretty excited about it because we hadn't had any lots to build on," he said.

Noel lives in south Louisiana, an area with a lot of wetlands. He says developers were running scared because it wasn't ever clear which wetlands were federally regulated and which weren't. "Hopefully this re-definition will fix that," he said...

yeah, lets do things like re-map flood plains and then ask the government to foot the bill when our community floods

i'm shocked every day by how short-sighted so many people can be just for the sake of a few extra dollars

Wow. Hopefully the states themselves pick up the slack and protect them on their own?

A panel of federal judges from the 4th Circuit Court recently blocked plans to construct an underground gas pipeline through two national forests and a portion of the Appalachian Trail ― and it did so by quoting the Lorax.

“We trust the United States Forest Service to ‘speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues,’” the panel ruled...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dr ... b8aea8a107

that’s fantastic...on a number of levels

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:48 am

Vast amounts of wetlands and thousands of miles of U.S. waterways would no longer be federally protected by the Clean Water Act under a new proposal by the Trump administration.

The proposal, announced Tuesday at the Environmental Protection Agency, would change the EPA's definition of "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, limiting the types of waterways that fall under federal protection to major waterways, their tributaries, adjacent wetlands and a few other categories.

The change aims to "provide states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies,"said the EPA's acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler...

...

Randy Noel, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said the new proposal should make it easier for development to take place.

"As a home builder, I'm pretty excited about it because we hadn't had any lots to build on," he said.

Noel lives in south Louisiana, an area with a lot of wetlands. He says developers were running scared because it wasn't ever clear which wetlands were federally regulated and which weren't. "Hopefully this re-definition will fix that," he said...

yeah, lets do things like re-map flood plains and then ask the government to foot the bill when our community floods

i'm shocked every day by how short-sighted so many people can be just for the sake of a few extra dollars

Having sat through years of local Planning Commission hearings, I'm not sure people are aware of just how devastating this will be to all kinds of localities, not just national forests or nature preserves. Lots of high income, I don't want to be taxed folks who will be very unhappy to discover what developers can now build right next to them.

Fuck those high income people who hate getting taxed!


(Who likes getting taxed?)

To this day, I’m so thankful for the 2001 Bush tax cuts when I was in financial distress and going through the end of a marriage. That tax cut gave me $300 that paid for one hour of my lawyer’s time.

Spare me the bullshit that “across the board” tax cuts assist everybody equally.

Just for the record, the 2001 cut was, for the most part, a Keynesian cut, with little or no supply-side justification.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:31 am

chiknbut wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:57 am Did I miss something? Where are the Climate Change deniers on here?

i don't recall if DC has evolved in his thinking or not...he and i have had some involved discussion on the topic going back to the commie days

This either incredibly disingenuous or incredibly forgetful.

I've never denied the phenomenon.

No it wasn't.

I don't want to argue taxes (or anything else) with you, but the whole point of the cut was to stimulate short-term growth (to counter-act the tech-wreck-induced recession) by putting cash in people's pockets quickly. Marginal rates were, indeed, lowered, but the primary focus was the immediate-term impact, which is why: A. Income rate cuts were phased-in and then sunsetted-out; B. Cap-gains rate was not lowered at the upper brackets; C. Focus was on reinvestment through IRA and education provisions; and D. the rate cuts were PREceded by the $300-$600 tax rebates.

The 2003 cuts, with their elimination of the phase-in period, backdating to the start of the year, and massive cuts to the cap-gains rates was, both in practice and in rhetoric, far more supply-side grounded than 2001.

Trad, I apologize for mentioning taxes and diverting your thread into that discussion—but wasn’t trying to. Only meant to describe a kind of voter whose interest in local issues is often just their taxes, but who cares a lot about over-development in their neighborhood.

A couple of years ago, I read an article which said that the greatest costs in the future would not be for national defense but for dealing with the disasters from climate change. Driving around and looking at the debris, damaged houses and businesses, and the large pine trees snapped in two in Panama City yesterday, I fear the author may be correct.

seahawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:44 am
A couple of years ago, I read an article which said that the greatest costs in the future would not be for national defense but for dealing with the disasters from climate change. Driving around and looking at the debris, damaged houses and businesses, and the large pine trees snapped in two in Panama City yesterday, I fear the author may be correct.

It's scary to think about how badly we are ruining our planet and the other animals that we share it with.

I was watching a special on the animals and waters of Botswana the other day, and even they are feeling the effects of climate change and a growing world population.

As the waters of Botswana continue to shrink the animal population continues to decline....really puts things in perspective. Unfortunately global coordination won't happen, and some of these countries are so poor they probably couldn't care less about things like pollution and animal populations. They're just trying to survive day to day.


But hey, we're not here for a long time. We're here for a good time!

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:43 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:31 am

chiknbut wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:57 am Did I miss something? Where are the Climate Change deniers on here?

i don't recall if DC has evolved in his thinking or not...he and i have had some involved discussion on the topic going back to the commie days

This either incredibly disingenuous or incredibly forgetful.

I've never denied the phenomenon.

not disingenuous

must be misremembering. was it only the models projecting future impacts that you took no stock in? or was it that you know the climate is changing, but unconvinced of the role humanity has played?

I recall DC taking some position along the lines of, regardless of whether climate change is real, we are collectively so invested in big oil that there’s no sense in pursuing other energy.

Or something.

sounds familiar

the almighty dollar

Nope.

DC's position is now and long has been that the climate is warming, that man is, at least in part, responsible, and it is important to consider and account for these matters.

At the same time, the "97%" statistic is nonsense. Climate scientists are only beginning to understand the ways in which various variables interact with one another to affect climate -- a fact that is born out by the ongoing ridiculously incorrect climate models. Abandoning fossil fuels would cause far more damage to the human population than not doing so. Abandoning fossil fuels would also do little good, given that the majority of emissions now come from the developing world. The United States stands alone among developed nations in cutting its emissions, despite not having taken drastic steps. And most importantly of all, the actual "science" of climate has long been overtaken by the politics of it, and the end goal of much of that politics is to control people's behavior, not save the world. (Which is why meat is the next target, and why I noted that it would be, as far back as the .commie days.)