Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Our ponds verses Government

I respectively disagree snrub. I have been in the trenches and seen both sides of these kinds of issues as past president of our state aquaculture associate. ( in regards to water ownership)

Does the gov get carried away and make stupid decisions that can make things worse? You bet! But at the same time I've seen folks jump to conclusions that are not based on the facts and believing what they want to believe.

Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes you have to make sure your sources are not biased and reved up to make a story.

As far as GW I'm not touching that here. It's become a wedge issue and no ones changing anyone's mind. Arguing is futile.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

It's not just our ponds vs. the government. It's our everything vs. the government. That's not what the founders and the framers had in mind. In fact, it's what they feared most – even more than global climate change. Sorry – I couldn't help it. I was interested in global climate change even before the term was in the news every day. Even before the fear was global cooling. People have a right to fear global climate change, and they also have a right to fear what the government is doing to them in the name of global climate change. I'm reminded of what Herman Göring said about how the people can be made to come along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked. There are many forms of attack that can be used to scare us.

If you're really interested in global climate change, take a look at temperatures over the past 2 million years. Fortunately, we're living in a brief warm period following the last long period of continental glaciation. During the last 2 million years, where many of us are living now was under a mile of more of ice, and the next big change is likely to be a return to those conditions. Whatever it is, IMHO, we puny humans aren't going to change it. We can, of course, pollute like crazy, and we can do something about that. But CO2 isn't pollution, despite what the EPA and the Supreme Court, in all their wisdom, say.

With regard to ponds, my fear is that regulations will price me out of adding any more ponds. I will not be able to afford to pay experts to say the obvious. Most of us here are staunch environmentalists, so one has to ask why we would oppose regulation being touted as beneficial to the environment? On the flip side, some of the posts here could easily be used to support not trusting landowners to base their decisions on scientific evidence, and thus needing government oversight to prevent damage.

Well that hasn't quite happened, the alarmist's didn't die off after the dust bowl, they didn't die off after the 70's ice age warnings, they didn't die off after the 2000's global warming alarm, and they aren't dying off now with the ever broad warning of "climate change".

I must admit though that the most recent foray into a climate scare is by far the best and most creative. You just can't beat the term "climate change". It is the all encompassing term that can explain anything from a tornado, to a hurricane, to cold weather to hot weather. Everything is "climate change". It's the most convenient term, and ingenious, I've ever heard. Good on the marketing person who thought that one up!

That quote you used has been put in fast forward by some who can't seem to wait for the "die off". I'm no Trump supporter but...

http://nypost.com/2015/12/13/aclu-leader-resigns-after-threatening-to-shoot-trump-supporters/

Anyhow, back on topic. I like my water and can tolerate it being policed by MY State. If I don't like it, I can move to another place I think is more appreciative of the taxes I pay. It's how our law was designed and it promotes the freedom our Founding Father's designed into this Country.

If enough people agree the feds managing everyone's water is the way to go, there's a way to fix it/make it happen. You amend the Constitution and get your way, it's really quite simple IF you have the votes. The votes are not there though and bad guys are circumventing the law of the land.

Peace and love to all

Please point out the posts here that "could easily be used to support not trusting landowners to base their decisions on scientific evidence, and thus needing government oversight to prevent damage."

If I didn't know better, I'd have thought you were making a run at people who don't see it your way. Nah, I have belief in people and know that's now what you meant.

We agree on the constitution. We disagree on trust in science.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/noaa-nasa-2015-hottest-earth-wide-margin-36398091

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Hey guys any thoughts on Georgia Giant Bream

Is "science" based on fact or not. Is it based on proof or not? WHO or WHOM is science? I will not have any one group, with an agenda I might add, make up my mind on what a fact of science is. I have pointed out 4 different times in the last 80 years where "science" said the sky was falling. Each time this happened the naysayers were told that they were daft. The "naysayer group" also included other scientists, odd.

I cannot find a weather site that can tell me, with a probability better than flipping a coin, what my weather will be remotely like next week. I cannot find one that will tell me what my weather will be like tomorrow, regarding precipitation, with better odds than a coin flip. The kicker is I can look outside and find the opposite weather than these weather sites actually say is happening right now LOL. With this data I am to believe that one sect of "scientists" can tell what the weather for the entire planet is going to do and why? From a group that is so certain of themselves, so specific, that they call this phenom "climate change".

I find it hard to understand why you don't respect why some would question your science. I respect your opinion but I laugh at your "facts".

You are not required to believe the scientists. You are not alone.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/do-americans-know-where-scientists-stand-on-global-warming/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

I lived through last year. I admit the heat was terrible, but I made it. Unfortunately, not everyone did. Tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc. got some of us, but most made it. I, for one, am ready to tackle this year, with all the heat and rising seas it may bring. On the other hand, I'm sick of ice and snow and cold. I'm ready for spring and all the dangers that will come with it.

I've worked for the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation. I've also worked under contract to DoE. I'd rather trust my neighbor. And if my neighbor screws up, I have a better chance of doing something about it than if the government screws up. And my neighbor isn't as apt to come in here and tell me I have to fill in my pond or I'll be fined a million dollars a day. It wasn't someone's neighbor who released the toxic sludge into the Animas River. It wasn't Exxon either.

Most scientist in the AAAS are not employed by the federal government.

About time to lock this one !

I have not sensed any malevolence in the posts, but rather civil debate.

I rather enjoy this debate. Clock it why?

Back you my man RAH

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...nsus-ian-tuttle

The AAAS is the largest scientific organization in the world. They say:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society"

My posts cite national and international scientific organizations, not a press release from an organization that describes itself as a conservative organization (ideology driven). Folks will believe what they will. As Max Planck said so many years ago, and as I post again.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

Here is some good reading for our MM climate change supporters. because......the debate is NOT over.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/

RAH, and who funds your agency?

http://www.aaas.org/news/omnibus-sets-major-boosts-several-science-agencies

If you pay me research money, I'm apt to give you what you want.

Guys get back to ponds and water

As a non-AAAS member and as a private-sector scientist for over 30 years, I have learned that trusting the evidence, rather than gut feel, leads to more accurate conclusions. When we look out our windows, common sense tells us the earth is flat. Many people died refusing to believe the earth was round, but that did not flatten the earth out.

The issue of the new EPA definition of the "waters of the USA" is not based on scientific evidence, but rather on jurisdiction and law. My concern is expensive red tape for landowners that does nothing to preserve water quality.

Seems to me that if it wasn't for global warming, then we wouldn't have the unusually strong El Nino, and the recent history of more back to back El Ninos. And without the friendly El Ninos, the empty lakes and reservoirs on the west coast would not be filling up at record pace. Who could have predicted a huge lake going up 17 feet in 24 hours recently?

Seriously folks, you can argue day and night till the end of the world about short term observations that seem to show a 'trend', but the final answer is that there is a God, and only he controls the weather patterns. Science is the study of what He has made and what He has done.

He certainly allows us to interact and have an effect on our environment. We are called to care for our planet (and our ponds!) as we would care for our own body or our own family's health.. But weather patterns are for us to marvel at and be humbled by, but shame on us for having the hubris to think that we are actually the cause of a weather event or any future change in overall weather patterns.

Mr. Duggan Sir. Believe it or not, these subjects are related. The premise used by those who want regulation on your pond is also used by those who want to have your car burn corn or your meat be made of soy. Once you can get your hooks into people, make them believe that the greater good is being served, you can remove private property rights.

RAH, you can convince me of your argument if you can come up with a sound result. It appears that your premise is that "Man is responsible for global climate change".

Tell me what your scientists say will happen and when. I don't want to hear that it could get cold or it could get hot or we could have some hurricanes. That crap has been going on for millions of years.

For instance, what will the average global temperature increase, from a bench mark of 2014, be in 2019? That would at least have some appearance of science. Tell me what your "scientists" on the dole say will be our temp increase then. I'm assuming it would be an increase but, if it's not, what will the average temp decrease be? I'm looking for a forecast that falls outside of the historical norms. If that's a bit much, will we have a hurricane increase and by how many storms?

I have a suspicion that no matter how bad they miss the mark, an excuse of some sort will be given BUT, let's give it a try This post will surely be here in 2019 and we can have us a chat. In the past I hear "scientists" tell us why what happened did happen. Any fool can do that. I want to hear what exactly is going to happen. Someone could do that if science is on their side.

This one has gone too far - read the rules.