Trump shows he is the pro-environment candidate

lennypartiv

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2019
26,522
20,342
2,320
The birds will be safe. The whales will be safe. If only the other guy cared about the environment.

---Trump pledges to scrap offshore wind projects on day one of presidency---


---...researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought---

 
Trump promised to gut environmental and safety laws if those rich bastards give him a billion dollars. He said it would be a great deal.
 
The birds will be safe. The whales will be safe. If only the other guy cared about the environment.

---Trump pledges to scrap offshore wind projects on day one of presidency---


---...researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought---

Offshore wind projects have not harmed a single whale.
 
New York Post

New documentary ‘proves’ building offshore wind farms does kill whales​


LINK
 
New York Post

New documentary ‘proves’ building offshore wind farms does kill whales​


LINK
A documentary proves something? My dog has utterly convinced me that the fact you read the NY Post PROVES you're a fucking idiot.
 
A documentary proves something? My dog has utterly convinced me that the fact you read the NY Post PROVES you're a fucking idiot.

It is made clear that you are not a real environmentalist who would have asked the obvious question, but you are confirmed victim of pseudoscience-based propaganda thus you remain ignorant while I am learning about a new concern.
 
It is made clear that you are not a real environmentalist
It is made clear that you haven't the slightest concern regarding the accuracy and expertise of your sources.
who would have asked the obvious question
The obvious question is why do the opinions of your likely-biased, unqualified sources differ so markedly from the conclusions of qualified scientists who have examined the same issue and the same evidence?
but you are confirmed victim of pseudoscience-based propaganda
You link us to the New York Post, WUWT and the Heartland Institute and accuse ME of using pseudoscience-based propaganda? My god you're pathetic.
thus you remain ignorant while I am learning about a new concern.
You're a fucking idiot.
 
The birds will be safe. The whales will be safe. If only the other guy cared about the environment.

---Trump pledges to scrap offshore wind projects on day one of presidency---


---...researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought---


Now I know you're a parody account.
 
Do you think the Heartland institute cares about whales or that they are an unbiased source for science information?

What you really meant to say is that you can't address the post because you don't know, here is a passage that would interest a real environmentalist:

Right whales are being threatened by the Biden Administration’s fast-track plans to hurriedly place 30,000 MW of wind power generation off the Eastern coast, and doing so without the proper sort of environmental impact assessment they might otherwise perform for, say, offshore oil.
 
Watts up with That? An article on whales written by a retired civil engineer?

Another I can't answer the article reply because of your bigotry, meanwhile this first paragraph was too hard for you to address:

When the Feds finally do the cumulative environmental impact analysis for whales as mandated by the Endangered Species Act there are a number of basic issues to be resolved. Here is a quick look at some for the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW).

You have nothing but fallacies to offer a mark of a small thinker you provide in abundance.
 
What you really meant to say is that you can't address the post because you don't know, here is a passage that would interest a real environmentalist:
There is a great deal more justification for fast tracking such approval than there is a new drill rig. Passages that interest me are those backed by objectively collected and analyzed empirical data. Where is yours?
 
It is made clear that you haven't the slightest concern regarding the accuracy and expertise of your sources.

The obvious question is why do the opinions of your likely-biased, unqualified sources differ so markedly from the conclusions of qualified scientists who have examined the same issue and the same evidence?

You link us to the New York Post, WUWT and the Heartland Institute and accuse ME of using pseudoscience-based propaganda? My god you're pathetic.

You're a fucking idiot.

Another counterpoint free reply you offer, it is clear you don't have the answers but name calling, bigotry and fallacies indicate that you are a miserable debater.
 
Last edited:
There is a great deal more justification for fast tracking such approval than there is a new drill rig. Passages that interest me are those backed by objectively collected and analyzed empirical data. Where is yours?

The LAW requires the environmental impact statement which isn't being done for offshore wind projects which is why it is going to get a lawsuit demanding it, a reality that eludes you.

There have been too many unexplained whale deaths in recent years for the region to ignore it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top