gb is indeed a howling extremist that jumps from "the planet is warming" to "omg we are all going to die and every gust of wind or rainshower is proof!" without any actual physical or statistical evidence.
We're drifting ... that's not the topic of this thread; it's whether this initiative is crafted reasonably in all its details, especially who's really going to pay, and if the plan for the $ makes sense. It's clear from the posts in this thread climate change believers are as far apart on analysis of this initiative as CC believers are from CC deniers. One thing for sure, I'm amazed at the number of people in this state who are willing to tax themselves and throw money at a problem no matter how poorly thought-out the details. ("It's better than going back to the drawing board".) Many of us in Seattle are tapped out with this approach, it's the standard m.o. of our municipal gov't.
Substituting emotion backing 'do something' approaches for valid, logically self consistent actions yielding measurable results, instead of actions containing red flags galore and blatant inverted incentives and fiefdom building funding, is something very difficult for many humans to get past. Caring so so much you go beyond caring if what you're doing actually works, is rampant.
Your views are extreme. Despite oil company propaganda (re: Exxon) the vast majority believe that Global warming is real and happening now. 97% of Climate/Meteorologist scientists and especially those that have published papers believe it is real and happening now.
We're drifting ... that's not the topic of this thread; it's whether this initiative is crafted reasonably in all its details, especially who's really going to pay, and if the plan for the $ makes sense. It's clear from the posts in this thread climate change believers are as far apart on analysis of this initiative as CC believers are from CC deniers. One thing for sure, I'm amazed at the number of people in this state who are willing to tax themselves and throw money at a problem no matter how poorly thought-out the details. ("It's better than going back to the drawing board".) Many of us in Seattle are tapped out with this approach, it's the standard m.o. of our municipal gov't.
It is also about your original post giving an expert halo to someone who made obvious and likely mistakes in trying to prove that wildfire activity is not increasing. Statistics were cited that were not complete, truncated in 2010. Mast proved his bias in that misleading blog. He doesn't deserve an expert halo regarding fires or regarding this initiative.
As I said earlier the way to assess this initiative is to read the initiative, the points for and against and the rebuttals and not to buy into Mast's or anybody else's misleading "advice".
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
