betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) Scribblett had scratched the surface of what I think would be an interesting discussion (in her update). Quote Stunning Statistical fraud behind the global warming scare. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ I responded with this: There is such a thing called "CLIMATEGATE!" Of course, the deniers - the ones who deny that there is a scam behind climate change - would continue to deny, and bury the warnings. Quote Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed. The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html If one doesn't get carried away by all the hype, and keep maintaining an objective look - how can you not question what the hysterical environmentalists are demanding we do? let's start with plastics! That's the latest scare these days. Plastics are heavily polluting the oceans. It's just a matter of time - they scream! Then they latch on to plastic straws! Ban them! Yeah, right! How many ziploc sandwich bags, ziploc freezer bags - of all sizes - are we using???? Do you ever hear any complaints about them? No! Because everyone - including the environmentalists - find them convenient! What about kitchen trash bags? How come no one's calling for that ban? Because everyone - including the environmentalists - find them convenient! What about Saran wrap???? None! No one's mentioning it....because everyone - including the environmentalists - find them convenient! What about those plastics in produce section of grocery stores? Why are they still around? And yet, they want to ban plastic grocery bags! Go figure. Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) If the situation is dire - surely the plastic you'd want to ban would be the ones that everybody's using, right? Just imagine the volume of those things! Plastic water bottles has nothing on sandwich/freezer bags/saran wrap combo. Like saran wrap, sandwich and freezer bags! Lol, the amount I go through with these had made me wonder indeed why no one's clamoring for the ban! Surely I'm not the only one using them like crazy! Take a peek at a kids lunch bag and count how many plastics are in them! How many plastics are in your lunch bag? The hysterical environmentalists only want to ban plastics that they don't use. So, based on that alone - why the heck do we easily swallow everything they tell us hook, line and sinker? Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 What about these things? The Rainbow Loom Band Quote Rainbow Loom is the runaway hit of this holiday season. The jewelry-making kit and its accessories occupy several top spots on Amazon’s list of best-selling toys. Inventor Cheong-Choon Ng, who quit his job as a crash-test engineer at Nissan last year to manage the company, has sold more than 3 million looms. That’s one loom for every seven American children between the ages of 4 and 8 (the recommended age range for the toy). The loom recently achieved the true mark of toy success: Several schools have banned the product because it was distracting kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-rainbow-loom-bad-for-the-environment-the-downside-of-this-years-hot-toy/2014/01/06/11b4dc84-71a0-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?utm_term=.31084d11ebed It did got banned in some schools......but not because of the environment! Where's the outrage for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) Plastic water bottles! They're outraged by them - and yet no one's mentioning plastic containers for gatorade, or coca cola or pepsi cola....and all the plastic containers for yop and yogurts.....and juices, and the variety of tubs for spreadable cheeses, not to say plastic wrapping/bags that contain the blocks or the strings, or the shredded!! Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) You still doubt what I've said? Quote Royer and her team tested a wide range of commonly-used plastics for their study, which is published in the August edition of the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE. Every type of plastic in the test was found to release the invisible pollutants. However, the highest polluter was low-density polyethylene, one of the most widely-used plastics on the planet. The material is used to make plastic bags, shampoo bottles, food storage containers and a wide range of textiles and construction components. https://globalnews.ca/news/4365368/plastic-greenhouse-gas-emissions-pollution-degrade/ Again, the question: why is there no outright clamor for all these plastic materials to be banned? You'd think every environmentalist government all over the world - starting with Macron, Merkle and Trudeau - would be scrambling to heed that peer-reviewed research. And yet, the attitude is, "Meh. Let's ban other things." Why the laissez-faire attitude when it comes to certain things? The answer is simple logic: There can't be no real looming disaster if they have the luxury of picking-and-choosing what they want to ban. There is lots of time! There is no urgency....that is, if, there is even something disastrous looming to begin with! This is all hype ....and hysteria by the over-emotional snowflakes. Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) Look at the weather - they're all getting extreme, they'd most likely say. Even if that's true (and not simply hype)..... So? Look at the earthquakes and erupting volcanoes - they seem to abound, too. Maybe, it's that time again......... earth will soon be re-shaping itself again! Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) If we're living at the time of a climate shift - like some peoples in the ancient past once did - surely the only logical course of action will be to prepare for it, instead of trying to stop it. How can you stop nature? Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) Paper or plastic bag? the grocery clerk asked. That option is gone now in most stores. Somebody must've realized they're cutting too many trees to turn into paper bags. Between the forest fires and tree-cuttings, we're having all these landslides! The latest must've been the real goal for trying to "ban" plastic bags. It boils down to money. You have to pay for them plastic bags now! Giant stores like Loblaws and WalMart don't want to look cheap and greedy, so they've got to have excuses to charge for those bags! So.....here comes the government propaganda to the rescue! Now, they cost 5 cents each. But people still prefer to pay for them. I bet, these big corporations are just itching to raise the price. Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 Why would you assume that anything would be done about it if the situation is dire? The climate change situation should tell you that one of our species favourite hobbies is doing nothing when action is required. Or, more accurately, pretending to do something so we can feel good about ourselves while walking docilely to our doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 I don't know what this chain of posts is getting at. If you're saying we need real action to do more, that's good. If you're saying throw in the towel because people are hypocrites, so might as well give into lazy complaisance, that's weak. I'd like to know that the fish I eat aren't full of toxic oil by-products and chemicals that simulate the effects of estrogen. It's all fun and games until you don't have an oceanic food supply. What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch ? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is the largest of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world’s oceans. It is located halfway between Hawaii and California. Plastic Accumulation It is estimated that 1.15 to 2.41 million tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year from rivers. More than half of this plastic is less dense than the water, meaning that it will not sink once it encounters the sea. 1.15 to 2.41 million metric tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year The stronger, more buoyant plastics show resiliency in the marine environment, allowing them to be transported over extended distances. They persist at the sea surface as they make their way offshore, transported by converging currents and finally accumulating in the patch. Once these plastics enter the gyre, they are unlikely to leave the area until they degrade into smaller microplastics under the effects of sun, waves and marine life. As more and more plastics are discarded into the environment, microplastic concentration in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will only continue to increase. Estimation of Size The GPGP covers an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square kilometers, an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch covers an estimated surface of 1.6 million square kilometers To formulate this number, the team of scientists behind this research conducted the most elaborate sampling method ever coordinated. This consisted of a fleet of 30 boats, 652 surface nets and two flights over the patch to gather aerial imagery of the debris. Sampling at different locations within the same time period allowed a more accurate estimate of the size of the patch and the plastic drifting in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 One would imagine, given all that, that it would be a no brainer to restrict plastic use to that which is absolutely essential, and ban all use of plastic that is there merely for convenience. But instead we come up with the Keurig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 34 minutes ago, bcsapper said: One would imagine, given all that, that it would be a no brainer to restrict plastic use to that which is absolutely essential, and ban all use of plastic that is there merely for convenience. But instead we come up with the Keurig. This is why we need government to step in. Leaving it to individuals to do better on the environment isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2018 Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: This is why we need government to step in. Leaving it to individuals to do better on the environment isn't working. My view is that government is no better. A government's only goal is to be re-elected and they aren't going to stick their necks out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: This is why we need government to step in. Leaving it to individuals to do better on the environment isn't working. They did. What province was that government that banned grocery bags??? BC? It's the government who's not getting it......and more like it, they're in on it! GREEN is just another industry. Just like how some people got mega-rich because of wars - some rich people will become mega-rich because of this Green industry! I'm telling you - environmentalism is the latest biggest scam! Edited September 16, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: I don't know what this chain of posts is getting at. If you're saying we need real action to do more, that's good. If you're saying throw in the towel because people are hypocrites, so might as well give into lazy complaisance, that's weak. I'd like to know that the fish I eat aren't full of toxic oil by-products and chemicals that simulate the effects of estrogen. It's all fun and games until you don't have an oceanic food supply. What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch ? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is the largest of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world’s oceans. It is located halfway between Hawaii and California. Plastic Accumulation It is estimated that 1.15 to 2.41 million tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year from rivers. More than half of this plastic is less dense than the water, meaning that it will not sink once it encounters the sea. 1.15 to 2.41 million metric tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year The stronger, more buoyant plastics show resiliency in the marine environment, allowing them to be transported over extended distances. They persist at the sea surface as they make their way offshore, transported by converging currents and finally accumulating in the patch. Once these plastics enter the gyre, they are unlikely to leave the area until they degrade into smaller microplastics under the effects of sun, waves and marine life. As more and more plastics are discarded into the environment, microplastic concentration in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will only continue to increase. Estimation of Size The GPGP covers an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square kilometers, an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch covers an estimated surface of 1.6 million square kilometers To formulate this number, the team of scientists behind this research conducted the most elaborate sampling method ever coordinated. This consisted of a fleet of 30 boats, 652 surface nets and two flights over the patch to gather aerial imagery of the debris. Sampling at different locations within the same time period allowed a more accurate estimate of the size of the patch and the plastic drifting in it. Really? Quote Furthermore, National Geographic reported that while the name “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” may conjure up an image of a floating island of debris, the actual garbage patch itself was actually difficult to see: The claim that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch covers “8.1 percent of the Pacific Ocean” is also a matter of debate. A 2011 study from Oregon State University, however, asserted that the real size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was hundreds of times smaller than commonly claimed: There is a lot of plastic trash floating in the Pacific Ocean, but claims that the “Great Garbage Patch” between California and Japan is twice the size of Texas are grossly exaggerated, according to an analysis by an Oregon State University scientist. Further claims that the oceans are filled with more plastic than plankton, and that the patch has been growing tenfold each decade since the 1950s are equally misleading, pointed out Angelicque “Angel” White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State. The studies have shown is that if you look at the actual area of the plastic itself, rather than the entire North Pacific subtropical gyre, the hypothetically “cohesive” plastic patch is actually less than 1 percent of the geographic size of Texas. But a study published in 2018 stated the opposite of many of these assertions — that the Pacific Ocean trash pile was much larger than previously reported and rapidly growing, that most of its bulk was larger objects rather than microplastics, and that about one-fifth of its volume came from the 2011 Japan earthquake referenced above: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/great-pacific-garbage-patch/ Quote 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' is a myth, warn experts, as survey shows there is no 'rubbish island' Far from showing a vast swathe of plastic containers, fishing nets and rubbish, the detritus was seen to be scattered over a wide area, with just 1,000 large objects discovered in a survey of thousands of square miles. Although The Ocean Cleanup, the charity who carried out the sweep, claimed that they had found more plastic than was expected, other experts said the ‘garbage patch’ was a myth which had never been substantiated by any proper scientific research and risked diverting attention from the real problem – a dangerous build of microplastics in the area. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/05/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-a-myth-warn-experts-as-survey-sho/ Edited September 17, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) Still on the garbage patch The irony of this, it'll be the environmentalists who'll be more likely to end up destroying earth! Quote The Ocean Cleanup, is a Dutch organisation which wants to remove and recycle the patch of rubbish. “The aerial expedition - our final reconnaissance mission - brings us another step closer to the clean-up of the Great Pacific garbage patch,” said Boyan Slat, the chief executive of The Ocean Cleanup. “The initial findings of the expeditions again underline the urgency to tackle the growing accumulation of plastic in the world’s oceans.” The organisation, which wants to try to clean the patch, has developed a series of long floating barriers designed to use ocean currents to funnel rubbish into a cone for collection. The barriers are due to be fully deployed by 2020. However Dr White said the clean-up scheme had not been properly thought through. “One of the most troubling aspects is the ignorance of the plan to not comprehend that any large volume filtration scheme will remove plankton that serve critical ecological services from the surface ocean,” she added. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/05/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-a-myth-warn-experts-as-survey-sho/ Don't forget too, the media is into sensationalism. Even the mainstream media is into that now. They love to scare people. Don't take it from me - here's an authority on that: Quote While "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is a term often used by the media, it does not paint an accurate picture of the marine debris problem in the North Pacific ocean. Marine debris concentrates in various regions of the North Pacific, not just in one area. The exact size, content, and location of the "garbage patches" are difficult to accurately predict. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/garbagepatch.html Edited September 17, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) What about aluminum? Quote What Aluminum Extraction Really Does to the Environment Environmental impact Overall, the entire process of transforming raw bauxite into aluminum is incredibly energy intensive, requiring copious amounts of electricity, water and resources to produce (that is the main reason why power plants are built solely to support the aluminum industry). Since pure aluminum ore is so stable, an extraordinary amount of electricity is required to yield the final product and, at least in the U.S., half of the smelting energy consumed is courtesy of coal, one of the most notoriously polluting fuel sources known to mankind. The EPA says that the release of perfluorocarbons during the aluminum smelting process are 9,200 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in terms of their affect on global warming. When bauxite is extracted from the earth, the strip-mining process removes all native vegetation in the mining region, resulting in a loss of habitat and food for local wildlife as well as significant soil erosion. The caustic red sludge and toxic mine tailings that remain are commonly deposited into excavated mine pits where they ultimately seep into aquifers, contaminating local water sources. Greenhouse gas emissions released during smelting and processing (which have been found to blanket surrounding regions with toxic vapors) include carbon dioxide, perfluorocarbons, sodium fluoride, sulfur dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and a vast list of other problematic elements. Particulates released during processing that are known to compromise air quality include combustion byproducts, caustic aerosols, dust from bauxite, limestone, charred lime, alumina and sodium salt. Landfills across the globe continue to be the final resting place for infinite numbers of aluminum beverage cans, which, when incinerated, contaminate air with toxic compounds and take up to 500 years to fully decompose. https://recyclenation.com/2010/11/aluminum-extraction-recycling-environment/ Did you ever hear of anyone clamoring for it to be banned? No! Heck, Trudeau even got mad when Trump raised the tarriff on it! Lol. Aluminum is said to be another factor for the decline of bee population! So.....why do we still even have aluminum foil? Quote Aluminum foil takes about 400 years to break down and although recyclable, most of it ends up in the oceans or landfills. https://sciencing.com/dangers-aluminum-foil-8314412.html If environmentalists have the luxury to pick and choose which things to ban, regardless of the said effect on the environment - then, things aren't dire as they want us to believe. Edited September 17, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) Quote What's the greenest way to wrap my sandwiches? Is is better for the environment to use clingfilm or aluminium foil to preserve your lunch for later? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/12/lunch-clingfilm-foil-environment Why don't we get rid of both.......if it's a dire situation for mankind? Edited September 17, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jonas Posted September 17, 2018 Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 As people mature, they realize the choices they make have consequences and the good people among them try to mitigate the damage by making better choices. You don't have to attack them just because you haven't reached that stage yet. When you're older, you'll probably be mortified by some of the things you've said and the damage you've caused, and environmentalism will make sense to you because you'll realize human life is precious and shouldn't be taken for granted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Don Jonas said: As people mature, they realize the choices they make have consequences and the good people among them try to mitigate the damage by making better choices. You don't have to attack them just because you haven't reached that stage yet. When you're older, you'll probably be mortified by some of the things you've said and the damage you've caused, and environmentalism will make sense to you because you'll realize human life is precious and shouldn't be taken for granted. Address the questions pertaining to plastics and aluminum. You're saying people like Trudeau, Merkle and Macron - and all environmentalist leaders, haven't matured yet? Quote the choices they make have consequences and the good people among them try to mitigate the damage by making better choices. Obviously, you haven't read everything I gave - or, some of them went sailing over your head. I wouldn't downplay the possible consequences. Quote The Ocean Cleanup, is a Dutch organisation which wants to remove and recycle the patch of rubbish. However Dr White said the clean-up scheme had not been properly thought through. “One of the most troubling aspects is the ignorance of the plan to not comprehend that any large volume filtration scheme will remove plankton that serve critical ecological services from the surface ocean,” she added. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/05/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-a-myth-warn-experts-as-survey-sho/ They may well have good intentions - however, the consequences could be devastating for us all! Edited September 17, 2018 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jonas Posted September 18, 2018 Report Share Posted September 18, 2018 The ass-clown president is not much smarter. He too thought it was a good idea to deny the intensity of the hurricane in the middle of it, suggesting Anderson Cooper was lying about its intensity. Anderson has already proved him wrong, but you'll never see ass-clown president retract a false claim like the NYT does when they make a mistake. This willingness to deny reality and people's suffering seems outright evil to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jonas Posted September 18, 2018 Report Share Posted September 18, 2018 Not only Trump. A Trump official in HUD (Lynne Patton) spent the hurricane tweeting suggestions that the media was lying about it and it wasn't that bad. Think about how sick and irresponsible that is. Waitaminute...am I trying to encourage Trump supporters to actually think of the damage they are causing? That sound like a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 18, 2018 Report Share Posted September 18, 2018 That plastic mess in the ocean is mostly from the third world. The world has come in an out of numerous ice ages warming up without any help from humans, earth will cycle again, humans cannot stop it, no matter what we do. This doesn't mean we should go on polluting and not clean up our act and not everyone agrees with the hysteria. Making fun of reporters pretending to be in conditions worse than they actually where doesn't mean people are making light of the tragedy. Not everyone believes in all the hysteria including Dr. Roy Spencer. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ https://americanboomerdaily.com/meteorologist-climate-change-not-causing-more-hurricanes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jonas Posted September 18, 2018 Report Share Posted September 18, 2018 That's a classic example of denier psychology. It's like they can't accept that their actions have consequences and they might be part of the problem. Plastics in the ocean? Don't worry. It's all been inventoried by me and I blame the brown people! :LOL: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 18, 2018 Report Share Posted September 18, 2018 Where does the plastic come from. https://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-comes-from-just-10-rivers/a-41581484 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.