|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
objectivedata
Posts:1
New User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/05/2007 7:04 AM |
|
As I have watched the Logan Council go through the information gatheriing process, in this case workshops, I am amazed that they were able to schedule way back in September 2006 the final workshop as Reduction targets and Action plan. In other words they knew the outcome before the information gathering began. The workshops themselves have been informative but biased toward what some call a "green" agenda. There has been precious little science based discussion. The comment from the Climate Change discussion was simply "climate change is what it is". As far as I have been able to discover no other viewpoints on climate change were solicited or brought forward. One presentation by a Sierra Club representative was it.
I read all the posts above this one and wanted to point out how council decisions are being prepared for and arrived at. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 10:39 PM |
|
I assume that had the city council voted not to adopt any reductions, then the final workshop would not have occurred. Perhaps they were just being cautious by scheduling and announcing the whole list of events.
While you state that there was only one presentation, and it was by a global warming "apologist", are you aware of anyone else or any other group that petitioned to presented their viewpoint? I was not at the meeting, so I don't know, but it seems that if so many people in Logan disagree with Global Warming as a theory, then they probably would not have voted for people that seem to believe it. Furthermore, I have not seen much backlash against this decision outside this virtual community. Are you saying that the majority of the citizens of Logan are wrong?
As I stated above, I really don't have a problem if they do believe in Global Warming - it leads to good policymaking. Recycling helps to preserve our natural resources, energy conservation lowers our utility bills (thereby increasing the amount of money we can spend on consumer goods, spurring the economy), and reduction in air pollution is ALWAYS good policy as it reduces the incidence of heart and lung problems (lowering healthcare costs across the board) and provides a beautiful environment (attracting tourists and higher income residents). If the Logan City Council wants to believe in a theory that many consider to be false, but still leads to good laws, then I don't have a problem with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|