Not sure what discussing glaciers in regards to global warming has to do with National Monuments. But... 10% of earths LAND is covered by glacial ice. This is the ice that will raise sea levels when it melts, by an estimated 230ft. The National Monument program is not a reaction to global warming "bs" as many call it This idea started out as a righteous one. Basically a kid brother to our national park system but without the paved "hiking" paths But has in the last 20-30 years become a "legacy" move and to appease certain voter groups(who have their own agendas). Do you think Obama will ever visit these monument other than during his press conference? Hell no. While I personally don't like the monument designation as a political move, I would still rather see nothing but nature in those places and not have them become the next "renewable energy" wasteland.
It's the same group of players.Global Warming has nothing to do with this. It is simply payback to supporters, mostly groups like the Sierra Club, CBD, Audubon, etc... When you FUND a candidate, you only have to spend once. He waits until hislast year to do the deed since he doesn't have to run on it next time. DiFi is out too. This is her parting gift, just like what she did for the Cadaver, Cranston. If you have been involved in this stuff, this was no surprise. What was surprising is how many people thought they could fight it after the deal was already done. Perhaps something in the future can overturn it. There is plenty Obama the Dictator has done that can be questioned in the court of law, but this probably isn't one of them. Possibly legislation through Congress with no threat of a veto in the future?
I don't exactly want to drive off road up a mountain. Specifically, what is lost in terms of existing trails? I'm not trying to be difficult, trying to understand.Nearly 2 million acres as defined by the three new monuments' boundaries.
I'm gonna have to call you out on this. Glaciers are ON land, not floating on the oceans... and it's not just the rising sea level.... more fresh water has big impact on the currents. It's a complicated topic, but you can't argue against science, sorry.The fix has been in for a long time. Inch by inch the deed will be done. It doesn't matter how many petitions we sing or don't sign. It's the statist way. They've been "educating" our children on how WE are destroying the planet.
You know how I know Al Gore is full of S? The idea that when a glacier melts, the seas rise. If you consider that a glacier is ice, and as such is floating, and 90% (or there about) is under water, that mass has zero effect on the sea level. THEN when you consider that water expands when you freeze it, you quickly realize that if/when a glacier melts the net result would be the exact opposite of what Mr. Gore based his movie on.