Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A thoughtful culling of these agencies (and their hog-tying of taxpayer monies) would be good for the public as a whole, and would do little to no damage to the environment.
Ah, but therein lies the problem. What is "thoughtful"? What appears thoughtful to me probably seems draconian to someone else. I'm sure just about everyone here can cite a situation where some EPA minion overstepped the letter of their authority. I'm also sure that just about everyone here can recall a situation where some EPA minion exposed criminal negligence using the letter of public law.
What do you think you want? Here's a community downstream from a gold mine. Do they have a right to be protected from heap leach effluent contaminating their drinking water? Here is also a community upstream from the same mine. Do they have the right to say that the mining jobs their economy depends on are more important than someone else's right to potable water? Who upholds whose rights? Who determines the risk or lack of? How does anyone weigh the health of someone's kids (from arsenic poisoning) against the health of another's kids (from unemployment). The mining company? State or local government that both communities voted into office? Some non-governmental body of technicians hired to spot water contamination? The answer you get will depend on which group you ask, and we all know how unbiased and altruistic people are.
I would suggest that screaming about abolishing some agency like EPA entirely would be stupid, naive, and come right around to bite you in the butt eventually. If no one was selfish enough to ruin water, air, the oceans, or what have you to make a profit maybe. But we don't live in cloud cuckoo land now do we?
How do we create this thoughtful culling without the bias of the downstream community, the upstream community, or the mining company?
One publication with them admitting that there was margin of error in 2014 assuming that your source is correct and another quote from ex-employees from some weird source, that's your proof.
No, genius, I found a couple of quick examples in about 5 minutes. I'm sure there are plenty more that I could dig up that I've seen over the years. The hockey stick. Climategate and on and on.
I'm not writing a dissertation for the sake of arguing with someone whose mind is already closed.
Besides what is the point? No matter what I post, you will smear the source before you examine
the evidence. A "weird" source? Ex-Employees? Those are rather distinguished Ex-empoyees from the
same organization you hold in such high esteem. They are retired and under no pressure to kow tow
to the prevailing alarmist dogma.
The point is that you are trying to say you have hard science on your side and you really do not!
You have POLITICIZED science. You have dogma. You have activism.
People like you think that science can be corrupted by big oil but it can't be corrupted by billion dollar (yearly) research budgets predicated on more alarmism!
I don't deny climate change. I don't deny the Earth is getting warmer. I don't deny that man plays a role.
I am skeptical of the alarmism. The computer models. How much of this is natural vs. man made and how of it we can actually reverse by increasing taxes and government bureaucracy.
Above all I am skeptical of the scientific community and organizations that conduct science. People like you love to use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy and pretend you have hard science on your side as if it's being conducted in a vacuum with the only consideration being the search for knowledge, no matter where it leads. I believe that it is INFLUENCED by those who fund it, whether that is big oil or the billions we pour into it from our national budget. If you think blind impartial science is being conducted with no bias towards a particular outcome, you are beyond naive.
Again, it's just amazing to me that people like you think science can be corrupted by big oil but not by big government!
No, genius, I found a couple of quick examples in about 5 minutes. I'm sure there are plenty more that I could dig up that I've seen over the years. The hockey stick. Climategate and on and on.
I'm not writing a dissertation for the sake of arguing with someone whose mind is already closed.
Besides what is the point? No matter what I post, you will smear the source before you examine
the evidence. A "weird" source? Ex-Employees? Those are rather distinguished Ex-empoyees from the
same organization you hold in such high esteem. They are retired and under no pressure to kow tow
to the prevailing alarmist dogma.
The point is that you are trying to say you have hard science on your side and you really do not!
You have POLITICIZED science. You have dogma. You have activism.
People like you think that science can be corrupted by big oil but it can't be corrupted by billion dollar (yearly) research budgets predicated on more alarmism!
I don't deny climate change. I don't deny the Earth is getting warmer. I don't deny that man plays a role.
I am skeptical of the alarmism. The computer models. How much of this is natural vs. man made and how of it we can actually reverse by increasing taxes and government bureaucracy.
Above all I am skeptical of the scientific community and organizations that conduct science. People like you love to use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy and pretend you have hard science on your side as if it's being conducted in a vacuum with the only consideration being the search for knowledge, no matter where it leads. I believe that it is INFLUENCED by those who fund it, whether that is big oil or the billions we pour into it from our national budget. If you think blind impartial science is being conducted with no bias towards a particular outcome, you are beyond naive.
Again, it's just amazing to me that people like you think science can be corrupted by big oil but not by big government!
Simply quoting a few errors does not discount the overwhelming science that disagrees with your conspiracy theory. Skepticism is a good thing but when you discredit scientific organizations without providing any alternative sience you really just don't want to believe.
Rant all you want science indicates otherwise, this is the same NASA that has always been in place for decades but suddenly they are corrupted because they don't agree with your agenda. Now it becomes a conspiracy and they are corrupt because they receive funding, their funding doesn't depend on warming.
Simply quoting a few errors does not discount the overwhelming science that disagrees with your conspiracy theory. Skepticism is a good thing but when you discredit scientific organizations without providing any alternative sience you really just don't want to believe.
Rant all you want science indicates otherwise, this is the same NASA that has always been in place for decades but suddenly they are corrupted because they don't agree with your agenda. Now it becomes a conspiracy and they are corrupt because they receive funding, their funding doesn't depend on warming.
Yet if I start naming scientists who are skeptical of Climate Change or the alarmism surrounding climate change, you and your ilk would immediately start engaging in conspiracy theories about how they were paid off by big oil. I've been down this road in these debates before.
I'm not speaking in absolutes. I think the science around climate change is valid and we need to find cleaner forms of energy but I also think the skeptics have a valid point about the limitations of our current knowledge and the rampant alarmism.
Again, I find it astounding that you seem to think science can be corrupted by big oil but NOT by big government!
Yet if I start naming scientists who are skeptical of Climate Change or the alarmism surrounding climate change, you and your ilk would immediately start engaging in conspiracy theories about how they were paid off by big oil. I've been down this road in these debates before.
I'm not speaking in absolutes. I think the science around climate change is valid and we need to find cleaner forms of energy but I also think the skeptics have a valid point about the limitations of our current knowledge and the rampant alarmism.
Again, I find it astounding that you seem to think science can be corrupted by big oil but NOT by big government!
Well yes if you quoted Anthony Watt and Myron Ebel but you're right there is some credible opposition such as Judith Curry from Georgia Tech.
I do give you credit because you believe it is warming and it is partially due to man, there is a large contingent that believes neither. There is a very small downside to clean energy and much to gain.
The difference is that big oil and any company is profits and it you read about Exxon and others you would see theri influence.
Thank you for this thread. I am happy to write in it. I work for a Federal Agency as well. Our National Union was for Clinton and there were many Federal Employees in the Union. However; the Federal Agency I work for has another Union of our own Agency, that endorsed Trump! So, we are very, very happy Trump won. So, it's Great News for us , and a few other agencies that supported Trump. Thanks again for the thread, I am glad some of the other agencies will lose some funding as well.
We need to lay off 50-75% of the federal workforce in DC....they're worse than harmless. I would dismiss the Dept of Education, cut the military in half, cut the EPA by 75-80%, and cut every other dept at least 25%. Then I would fire everyone in the IRS above a GS-7 who might be tainted by the corruption of criminal treatment of Conservatives. Finally, I would move most of the Federal workforce in DC to places where they won't be so tainted by a such liberal environment....DC voted 96% for Hillary.
Take it easy Sir. Please not my Agency. Trump has said he will triple my Agency! My Federal Agency fully supports Trump and Pence! Do you really want to cut any of these agencies?
These Agencies make up Dept. of Homeland Security
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Transportation Security Administration
United States Coast Guard
National Protection and Programs Directorate
United States Secret Service.
Last edited by Serenity2019; 11-15-2016 at 08:56 AM..
Take it easy Sir. Please not my Agency. Trump has said he will triple my Agency! My Federal Agency fully supports Trump and Pence! Do you really want to cut any of these agencies?
These Agencies make up Dept. of Homeland Security
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Transportation Security Administration
United States Coast Guard
National Protection and Programs Directorate
United States Secret Service.
yeah, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
