Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "" video.

  1. There's plenty of water. We're just stuck in the 19th and early 20th Century how we "do water." No Bill. There were a lot of articles out there about global cooling in the 1970s. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" is based on 1978 being the end of the 20th-Century COOLING period! From about WW II to the end of the 1970s, things were gradually cooling off, and scientists WERE concerned about an impending ice age. You and I were both around in the 1970s, but while you were smoking weed, I was reading those articles. We both misspent our youths, but in different ways, maybe. There was a big "Ice Box versus Hot House" debate going on at the time. Yes, there's gradual warming taking place, which is what happens during interglacial periods. We're actually IN an interglacial period, right now. But beyond short-term variations, up and down, the trend has been stable for thousands of years (interrupted by volcanos interrupting summers, here and there). Only simple-minded people think that there's an "ideal climate" that we once had and are losing because of fossil fuels and cow farts. You want the world to stand still and any departure from your arbitrary time stamp of "This is how things should be, now and forever" is juvenile. I think that we DO pollute too much and we DO put excessive pressure on the ecosystem. I just don't think government officials are going to help us get to a better place. They're just in it for their buddies. A LOT of things I'd LOVE to do around the place to reduce my environmental impact (including carbon footprint that guys with private jets love to harp on about) are prevented by U.S. Government regulations. I can't have a new, compact pickup truck that gets 25 or 30 MPG, but I CAN buy a mid-sized pickup that gets 18 or 20 MPG, because it has a big enough wheel base to fall into a different category under EPA rules. The EPA won't approve a lot of heating solutions that would be up to 90% more efficient than my EPA-approved setup. They don't make it illegal, but they don't approve it, either, and when federal regulators don't approve them, contractors and insurance companies won't DO them! I'd lose my homeowner's insurance if I did what I WANT to do, so I just keep wasting fuel! The people who are trying to FORCE the "positive change" we all want don't know what they're doing. Maybe they DO know what they're doing, but the only solutions they push (and basically allow) are the ones that make a few billionaires and big corporations richer, but don't even move the needle on emissions... They're just making everything harder to do and harder to get, for the benefit of a mere handful of people. Bill Maher affects this world-weary attitude, but he's basically a walking talking beacon of ignorance.
    1
  2. More people means more ideas and innovation. This has been the case throughout history. We're not getting everything right, and as an outdoorsman, I can tell you that there's more and more pressure on National Forest and especially the rivers and streams. Even in the catch-and-release waters, there are old-timers (like me) who don't go, any more, because most of the fish I catch (to release) have "sore mouths." By that, I mean, you can see healed and unhealed injuries from previous fishermen. The trails I'd walk are becoming DITCHES from all the feet using them. I can only imagine what the national parks are looking like, and - to make more money to kill people with - the federal government is cutting back its support for the parks. I think if you're in a good state with good state parks, they're still maintained very well, and they manage the pressure being put on the lands and waters. It's not the number of people. It's how they live. We're still evolving, and while I don't agree with what they're doing to farmers around the world, I think agriculture should shift to more natural ways. No GMO. They're proud that they have plants that Roundup doesn't kill! I'm angry that they're trying to sell me food that's been sprayed with Roundup! Nitrogen fertilizers via petrochemicals can boost production, but they're hell on the soil biome. You make a quick buck, but you're storing up trouble for the future. That doesn't mean that they should cut off farmers, all of a sudden. But they should incentivize (better yet, let the MARKET) incentivize growing things the right way. Most Americans would choose to buy food without chemicals. I'm not a purist on this stuff. But we've gone way overboard on our chemical farming, and I don't trust the GMO foods, because I don't know what mutation they're building into their DNA. It might be a chemical toxin some plants secrete that interrupt insect reproduction. So they don't HURT the pests. They just make sure that the pests that eat them aren't going to have many babies. Then we eat them. Is that happening? I'm not sure. I think it's one of the traits they may be selecting for from plants that are pest-resistant. Pest resistance can take many forms, and the chemicals that inhibit reproduction might not affect the flavor of foods, so they're considered a win-win, when they're actually a slow extinction.
    1