The environmental process provides an opportunity to express your input into the decision that is eventually made. You can get involved as much or as little as you have time and energy for. It's a long and expensive road that requires sustained effort if you really want to be heard.
I've seen climate change debates completely hijack many a forum that have nothing to do with it. Your claims about this topic indicate to me that you've been listening to one particular point of view on it rather than looking at the science. This is not the place to debate that emotional-political topic so let's get back to the Half Dome quota discussion.
Well I appreciate your opinion and while I might not be a expert this science that you talk about has been shown by a good majority of scientist to be misrepresented by the other scientist side.
It's funny, for example the past 50 years the medical community has been convinced that fat is bad especially saturated fat and that it was the cause of cholesterol and medical problems. The thing is the doctor who started such claims didn't really have any proof but merely theories and from there people have followed his ideas. Problem is that more people despite the low fat diets are getting more heart disease, doctors have now after more objective data found that based on evidence and observation not just theory that it's the lack of fat and good cholesterol that causes heart problems and also they intake of carbs and America's biggest problem sugar.
My point is that while there might be some truth to the environmentalist side there appears to be a lot of data they are leaving out, my comments are far from emotion.
That aside I like Steve's recent post. It's a touchy subject and an important one. I agree that the world has lots of beauty and mankind should do what it can to take care of it and most people's positions are sincere.
On the half dome issue, I'm not sure I have a great answer. I don't agree that because people are idiots and either intentionally disobey the law and get hurt or unintentionally get hurt should we place law after law. You could make it mandatory to have a class certificate of some sort but that's doesn't prevent people from being stupid it will just cost more people money and time. It's impossible to protect people from themselves, part of freedom. We could work our way to socialism where government decides what's better for you than you deciding what's good for you. We have become a people that after every sad incident we need a law for it. The problem is that laws only affect the innocent because criminals don't obey laws and neither do idiots. Limiting the amount of people? Ok so now 5 are dead what's next? Eventually just close it right? " if you trade freedom for security you deserve neither and will loose both" benjamin Franklin
Always with respect, well not always but I try
John
