Do you support saving the environment but disagree with the growing trend of Eco authoritarianism? (toxic, natural)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^^ More good examples of fake problems. De gustibus non disputandum est...so I can't argue against any aesthetic advantage that may have accrued to you by the noted changes-- but none of them produced any measurable improvement in the environment.
Pb was removed from gasoline & paint-- adding it was one of the costliest step in the production process and the biggest lobbyists for the change were the industry producers themselves-- but there has been no measurable improvement in children's health or mentality since the change.
Mandating ethanol in gasoline was a political move aimed at gaining farm votes. It saves only 1 gal of gasoline for every 100 used (ie- a fuel supply slated to last 100 yrs will now last 101 yrs. Big deal) at the expense of actually putting more co2 into the atmosphere, if anyone still thinks that's important.
"Second hand smoke" is another non-problem. It's been calculated that a non-smoker would have to work 5 eight hour shifts a week in a room with 20 active smokers for over 1000 yrs to be exposed to as much carcinogen as one smoker in his 40 yr smoking career-- and only 15% of smokers actually get lung or throat cancer. (That fact in itself is another example of how we get this false impression of how great a problem something is supposed to be when our only foray into the facts is what we get from the popular press.)
In summary, these Draconian regulations have produced no discernable advantages to air quality, but the regulators can take a bow for their "concern" for our safety.
There is no way that anyone who suggests that taking lead out of gas was not a good idea should ever be taken seriously. That is seriously flat earth and contrail territory.
First of all, Manmade Global Climate Change has become its own religion. Those who worship most fervently are generally not very smart.
That said, several things come into play:
1. Those who are most vocal in their MGCC Worship are typically hypocrites who consume multiplied times the energy than what is consumed by normal people.
2. Giving such zealots - especially in government positions - more control over our lives is NOT a good idea.
3. The ONLY truly environmentally friendly thing to do is to consume less. Period.
4. Plant trees.
5. Do every little thing you can do to take care of the environment closest to you. If everyone did that, we'd all be fine.
Good example. Rachel Carson has been proven wrong on several, if not all, of her contentions. How many African kids have died of malaria because her book led to the banning of DDT? Millions.
After that I would warn people not to take you seriously. DDT is banned internationally for use in agriculture, but its use in malaria control remains permitted under the regulations of the Stockholm Convention. The production of DDT and its use in malaria control have never been discontinued.
I'm not sure where you get this information but might I suggest that you do a little fact checking before making such claims?
There is no way that anyone who suggests that taking lead out of gas was not a good idea should ever be taken seriously. That is seriously flat earth and contrail territory.
No measurable health or environmental benefit to removing Pb….If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion when new data emerges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I'm not sure where you get this information but might I suggest that you do a little fact checking before making such claims?
No measurable health or environmental benefit to removing Pb….If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion when new data emerges.
I don't care what the "daily beast" says. DDT was not banned in African Countries, the biggest problem is that most mosquitoes have developed immunity to it due to overuse. https://e360.yale.edu/features/rache...ruth_about_ddt
Below is a classic example of eco-fascism gone ballistic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
Climate change is real except to the lunatic right with their false science, religious fanaticism and ideologically polluted minds that keep them from accepting the truth and facts.
Forums should ban deniers and their idiocy as it is stifling discussion on how to deal with this crisis. All these people do is deal in false and misleading information.
My personal values are strongly libertarian (lower-case 'l' emphasized) and have been since the first stirrings of that philosophy when I was in my teens (and now fifty years ago). And as such. I believe that property rights must be well-defined -- and linked to a mandate for the responsible use (stewardship) of that property.
To cite an example, my home community (pop 25,000) lies about 30 miles downstream (Susquehanna River North Branch) from the much larger communities of Wilkes-Barre and Scranton (pop 500,000), where the "old politics" (which bear a strong likeness to the "identity politics" of the present day), are still in force.
As a result, our community was coerced into upgrading its sewer treatment years in advance of the politically-connected upstream, and an increase in the height and strength of flood-control dikes there has aggravated flooding in downriver communities.
Because in the world of identity politics and us-vs.-them so common to environmental zealots, its mostly a matter of who has the numbers to get their way at the expense of someone else.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-03-2019 at 10:49 AM..
I don't care what the "daily beast" says. DDT was not banned in African Countries, the biggest problem is that most mosquitoes have developed immunity to it due to overuse. https://e360.yale.edu/features/rache...ruth_about_ddt
I stand corrected, if what you say is true about Africa....But it was banned in Asia and malaria deaths skyrocketed.
Re: lead poisoning: No discernible changes in developmental abnormalities from mid 70s to now; no changes in IQ levels; no changes in anemia rates-- What was the benefit to removal of Pb? Please document.
These graphs(obtained from a Bing search of historical average IQ changes) show differential levels for white vs black kids since Pb was removed from paint & gasoline. For the sake of this discussion, I think we can agree that black kids probably had a higher exposure to Pb than white kids from residual Pb paint in older homes, etc....BUT- the statistically insignificant rise in values over time are parallel to each other, ie-- it can't be the Pb.
I stand corrected, if what you say is true about Africa....But it was banned in Asia and malaria deaths skyrocketed.
Re: lead poisoning: No discernible changes in developmental abnormalities from mid 70s to now; no changes in IQ levels; no changes in anemia rates-- What was the benefit to removal of Pb? Please document.
These graphs(obtained from a Bing search of historical average IQ changes) show differential levels for white vs black kids since Pb was removed from paint & gasoline. For the sake of this discussion, I think we can agree that black kids probably had a higher exposure to Pb than white kids from residual Pb paint in older homes, etc....BUT- the statistically insignificant rise in values over time are parallel to each other, ie-- it can't be the Pb.
Are you serious? Yeah it's real scientific to show some test scores on reading and math, call them IQ charts and then inform us that lead is safe because the black kids were probably exposed to lead and their IQ didn't drop? Maybe you should read up on the symptoms of lead poisoning? https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20354717
Well,I do what I can "'to reduce my carbon foot print"; use my own shopping trolley, recycle everything I can. Use as little plastic as I can. I have a drought tolerant garden (important in South Australia) Monitoring my water use has shown I use less than half of the average for a single person household.
Last year I installed a 5Kw solar power system. It has reduced my electricity use by a third over the entire year..
I have inadvertently reduced the fossil fuel I use. Since retiring, my car use has reduced from 20,000 to 5000 km a year. This was not intentional, I simply use my car a lot less.
I consider most politicians we have in Oz to be technically illiterate. That they really should not be trusted with important technical decisions. My favourite piece of political incompetence in recent years, is our multi $billion National Broadband Network. A complete pig's breakfast, due to ignorance and party politics.
I have no time for bourgeois political correctness.Two organisations which have earned my ire in recent years are PETA and Greenpeace, which I loathe.
Thought for the day "Beware of the true believer; at best he is naive, at worst, dangerous" (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)
It's all about power & control....Remember the day after the 9/11 attack? EVERY American had a flag in their window & on their car. A crisis unites people regardless of their political POV-- and those who want to gain power try to create an artificial crisis. What could be better?- an artificial one can't be solved; it just lives on as long as it's useful or until the naïve public finally sees it as a lie.
Great answer. There have been numerous attempts to pass a carbon tax here in Washington, the last one called initiative 1631, which was defeated last November. Cliff Mass, a professor at the University of Washington School of Atmospheric Sciences, also has a popular Pacific Northwest weather blog, and wrote about his opposition to I-1631. He does believe that human activity is responsible in part, for climate change, but that I-1631 was severely flawed and recommended that people vote against it. In the post he included an image of pigs at a trough to represent political pork.
A number of students at the university attacked Cliff on social media, calling him every name in the book, accused him of deception, being on oil company payrolls, racism, misogyny, and other things. The attacks got even worse when students complained to the Assistant Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, who sent a mass email to the faculty of the Atmospheric Sciences Department stating in part:
Quote:
a recent blog posting by a member of our community on a personal website included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense to a significant number of members in the departmental community.
The Atmospheric Sciences Department Chair sent a mass email to the Department faculty including the link to a post slandering Cliff for his opposition to 1631, and voicing concern about his behavior and ‘racism.’ Here is the blog post: https://medium.com/@AlexLenferna/if-...1-d61b2631226b
This was next:
Quote:
The Chair then called a general Department-wide meeting about the blog post Mass wrote, with the event billed as ‘controversy.’ An ombudsperson was enlisted to run the meeting, but the Chair took over, serving as inquisitor and critic. The Chair prevented Mass from finishing his opening comments and hectored Mass throughout the meeting. The activist students were true to form, hurling all kinds of insulting, personal and inappropriate remarks.
I-1631 was severely flawed, giving new meaning to the term "special interests" and had an oversight mechanism that was the equivalent of the fox guarding the henhouse. It was even written in a way to try to trick voters, calling the carbon tax a "fee on large emitters based on their pollution." The perspective and goals of I-1631 supporters are clear in an article written in The Stranger, a Seattle paper with the title
Quote:
New carbon fee initiative drafted with more color and less white supremacy.
The author also believes the color of the skin of people writing climate policy is most important writing:
Quote:
When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.
The "green new deal" is another example of an attempt to exert control in the name of social and/or economic "justice." Any climate goals are secondary at best, while peddling the idea that climate change has "exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices." And that somehow, climate change has a disproportionate effect on women, the poor, minority communities, ect, so we need to give them tons of free stuff to make everything better.
And not even a thought about the economic cost or even if it would even do any good, because they don't care. They want control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you should read up on the symptoms of lead poisoning? 
