Global Warming Hysteria

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
8,649
Paul Joseph Watson, c'mon, I know you can do way better...

Plus, can you factually deny the Earth is getting warmer when science says otherwise?
He actually has some pretty good videos, I like most of them...he does have some duds though.

Colorado just had a winter storm and the day before was 80...climate change or chemtrails?

When I was a teenager the big scare was an ice age was coming and we were all going to freeze to death..I didn’t freeze to death. The opposite started happening so then it was global warming next and now we have climate change..see where I get my pov from?
 





marcecar10

Established
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
144
can you factually say the earth is getting warmer without pointing to the carbon dioxide and ignoring the suns behavior?
The production of greenhouse effects gasses have definitely not do us any favor. The average Earth temperatures rise every year, more places get temperature anomalies. It's been this way since the Industrial Revolution, it makes a lot of sense.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp
 





marcecar10

Established
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
144
He actually has some pretty good videos, I like most of them...he does have some duds though.

Colorado just had a winter storm and the day before was 80...climate change or chemtrails?

When I was a teenager the big scare was an ice age was coming and we were all going to freeze to death..I didn’t freeze to death. The opposite started happening so then it was global warming next and now we have climate change..see where I get my pov from?
It was all because of global warming, whether it was the ice age or the rising temperatures. The seasons get more distorted, the weather gets more erratic, the ocean currents get affected, colder winters, hotter summers. Everything you have been told about "climate change" has to do with global warming.
 





polymoog

Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
3,538
The production of greenhouse effects gasses have definitely not do us any favor. The average Earth temperatures rise every year, more places get temperature anomalies. It's been this way since the Industrial Revolution, it makes a lot of sense.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp
is this man made, or is it the sun, like some science journals say? why are other planets warming? https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
i guess the science isnt settled.

further, i posted a video clearly demonstrating that "scientific sources" are cherrypicking the data. check out post #94 and see for yourself (or not). as usual, theres an agenda here cleverly disguised as an environmental issue "that affects us all".
 





Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
8,649
It was all because of global warming, whether it was the ice age or the rising temperatures. The seasons get more distorted, the weather gets more erratic, the ocean currents get affected, colder winters, hotter summers. Everything you have been told about "climate change" has to do with global warming.
You said something earlier about kool-aid, I think you’ve drunk it.
 





marcecar10

Established
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
144
is this man made, or is it the sun, like some science journals say? why are other planets warming? https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
i guess the science isnt settled.

further, i posted a video clearly demonstrating that "scientific sources" are cherrypicking the data. check out post #94 and see for yourself (or not). as usual, theres an agenda here cleverly disguised as an environmental issue "that affects us all".
The guy literally believes that number of heatwaves is somehow the same as the heat wave magnitude as he puts to contrast both graphs. So, what is he telling me is that heatwaves were much stronger around the 1940s but there were in number less than in the current time. And oh, surprise, you got the 1936 heatwave, to represent that huge spike in his own graph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

Then you have the forest acres burned, and I have to concede defeat there since there used to be more acres of forest being burned, and probably has to do with the fact that heatwaves were more stronger during the past.

But then you get to Arctic sea extent and then he commits another mistake by saying the decrease looks "linear" when it doesn't since you have ups and downs in the graphic shown. There was no linear decrease. And then, he uses a graph that extends from the 1970s to the 1990s to say that pre-1979 data was erased "purposely". Yes, there was apparently more data before 1979 but it doesn't make much difference since the sea ice extent hit rock bottom between 2005 and 2015 according to the first graph. And also we have news, that things in 2019 were even worse than the ones shown on the graphic. So yeah, it's not gonna make any difference.

https://psmag.com/environment/arctic-sea-now-prefers-thin-crust-ice-to-deep-dish
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/arctic-sea-ice-extent-just-hit-a-record-low-for-early-june-worse-may-come/

Then we get to sea level where he makes another mistake claiming that sea level has been rising for thousands of years naturally. Yeah, that is true, but it's not on the pace it used to be. And that's where man-made comes into the picture. Also he's comparing a graph that initially addressed only US sea level rising but used a graph showing post glacial data from all over the world.

And let's not take his graph from Waverly, OH as any indicator also since as we established before heatwaves were way stronger in the past but there were fewer. And also, he's using "number of days above 90F" as a variable and I don't know how much reliable that is. Maybe a better variable would be an average but what do I know, right? Also, the thing is that his graph from Waverly is not that cut-clear, since weather changes but it's not the same in all parts of the world. Let me show you, Waverly reached its highest temperature ever on 1930 but in Columbus, which is just an hour trip away, the highest temperature ever was reached in 1954; and in the Ohio State University in the same city their highest temperature ever was reached in 2012. We can go all day, Cleveland reached its highest in 1988, Cincinnati in 1999. I don't see how a graph of Waverly discredits all the science before them.

https://www.plantmaps.com/ohio-record-high-and-low-temperature-map.php
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/waverly/ohio/united-states/usoh1009/2019/1

So, in conclusion, that video has a lot of flaws and also, using a video of a nobody trying to discredit the IPCC is as dumb and delusional as it can gets. There's also the fact that the quote attributed to Ottman Edenhofer, came from an interview in German and that happened way before the Paris Agreement.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot

And I'm sorry but I thought you had better arguments than "the Green New Deal looks like the Commmunist Manifesto", like c'mon.
 





polymoog

Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
3,538
And let's not take his graph from Waverly, OH as any indicator also since as we established before heatwaves were way stronger in the past but there were fewer. And also, he's using "number of days above 90F" as a variable and I don't know how much reliable that is.
thats actually a good point. it is indeed only one city, which is a poor sample size in which to base all of his calculations. however, the point he makes is that the UN graphs are cherrypicked to show that there is a trend. with your commentary, you point out that he tweaks the stats to show that there is either a flatline (no change) or a decrease in the trend. this only proves that any graph can be selectively adjusted to prove anything, which is what the UN is doing to push this agenda. in this case, theres a great deal of money to be had behind the scenes in promoting the climate change issue (not to mention the added NWO bonuses of psy-ops on the general public, getting them to eat a different way (no more meat; eat bugs or dead humans instead), live a certain way (agenda 2030), have less children (depopulation agenda-- see the georgia guidestones), restrict vehicles on the road for pollutions sake, etc. all in the name of "saving the planet". conservatives happen to agree with the truthers on this, but this isnt an exclusively conservative viewpoint.

let me ask you this: why is it with the impending doom of the oceans rising within a few years due to climate change that all of these millionaires havent started selling their beachfront homes en masse? i can understand why the conservative- minded millionaires havent, but why havent the liberal/climate change supporters done so? why hasnt that real estate market completely tanked with an overabundance of sellers?

-----------------​

by the way, i appreciate that you, as a climate change supporter, can carry on a rational discussion on this issue. that doesnt happen too often.
 





Last edited:

marcecar10

Established
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
144
thats actually a good point. it is indeed only one city, which is a poor sample size in which to base all of his calculations. however, the point he makes is that the UN graphs are cherrypicked to show that there is a trend. with your commentary, you point out that he tweaks the stats to show that there is either a flatline (no change) or a decrease in the trend. this only proves that any graph can be selectively adjusted to prove anything, which is what the UN is doing to push this agenda. in this case, theres a great deal of money to be had behind the scenes in promoting the climate change issue (not to mention the added NWO bonuses of psy-ops on the general public, getting them to eat a different way (no more meat; eat bugs or dead humans instead), live a certain way (agenda 2030), have less children (depopulation agenda-- see the georgia guidestones), restrict vehicles on the road for pollutions sake, etc. all in the name of "saving the planet". conservatives happen to agree with the truthers on this, but this isnt an exclusively conservative viewpoint.

let me ask you this: why is it with the impending doom of the oceans rising within a few years due to climate change that all of these millionaires havent started selling their beachfront homes en masse? i can understand why the conservative- minded millionaires havent, but why havent the liberal/climate change supporters done so? why hasnt that real estate market completely tanked with an overabundance of sellers?

-----------------​

by the way, i appreciate that you, as a climate change supporter, can carry on a rational discussion on this issue. that doesnt happen too often.
Well, yes, graphs can be adjusted to point out either pros or contras, I understand that but I don't think that's enough to discredit all the research made on climate change or global warming.

And I also understand that there are economic and political actors on both sides of the debate. That's why I don't believe the whole "push agenda" argument since for every liberal/progressive actors there is probably another conservative/neoliberal actor on the other side. Like when we discuss the climate change organizations or the fossil fuel companies. That's why I rely mostly on the science that evidences climate change, since there are many studies that point out the same conclusion: the Earth is getting hotter at faster pace due to man-made activity.

But anyways, thanks for your comments.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551


Everything is awful: Greenpeace comes to the realization that no alternative materials to plastics are eco-friendly
by: Clare Goldsberry

October 10, 2019

It was bound to happen. In a recent report from Greenpeace, “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution Solutions,” the organization has concluded that not only is plastic bad for the environment, every other “alternative” material is, as well.

Those who are promoting a return to paper packaging will soon be hearing outcries from Greenpeace about how paper usage is destroying the world’s forests. After all, it is the earth’s forests that consume tons of CO2 from the atmosphere like so many giant sponges. So, all you tree-huggers can breathe easy, so to speak.

Additionally, it was noted that a lot of paper packages (as well as single-use paper cups and containers) have plastic liners and can’t be recycled. Off to the landfill with those! Paper recycling facilities are drowning in paper, and some recycling centers have stopped collecting paper entirely.

And if you thought that bioplastics were safe from Greenpeace, think again. Greenpeace has dismissed bioplastics, or bio-based plastics made from plants such as sugar cane or corn, as just so much “greenwashing.”

As I’ve noted many times in my articles, bioplastics are designed specifically to be left out in the open environment to degrade over several years. And when it does break down, it merely fragments into smaller pieces. The same is true of the so-called “compostable” plastics. So, I actually have to admit I agree with Greenpeace on this one.

Greenpeace has determined that recyclability is a “myth.” Except for the mechanical recycling of PET and HDPE, many of these newly developed “loop-type” recycling schemes involve the shipping of consumer goods all over the country for washing and sterilization, and then shipping them to the brand owners' fill plants and back again to the consumer. Forget about following the money—follow the carbon footprint on this one!

Chemical recycling was mentioned in the report, which I think has some merit, especially for co-mingled plastic waste and dirty ocean plastics. Greenpeace doesn’t hold out much hope for that, either. “Investment in new chemical recycling infrastructure is risky in that it will ‘lock in’ demand for plastic waste in order to generate more plastic as well as non-plastic by-products,” said the report.

So what are we to do? What materials should we use to hold the goods we purchase? Everything has a downside. Multi-use plastic retail bags are being banned in favor of non-woven carry bags, which are still “plastic.” As for cotton bags, they come from agricultural processes requiring gasoline-powered equipment to plant and harvest, not to mention the aircraft used to drop defoliant on the mature cotton so the bolls can be more easily gathered by another piece of gasoline-powered equipment.

Everything we can think of that might be an alternative to plastic has been proven over many studies to be not as eco-friendly or cost and resource effective as plastics. Greenpeace’s idea that every community should go to a “zero-waste” model sounds good on paper, but in large cities it probably isn’t practical. That’s why we have municipal waste collection.

Greenpeace, as well as other groups seeking ways to eliminate plastic packaging and other single-use plastics from the planet, just may have to pivot, whether they like it or not. Alternative materials aren’t cutting it and waste won’t be eliminated.

On that note, enjoy the Decemberists performing "Everything Is Awful" in the video embedded below, with the small caveat that plastics definitely are not.


 





Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
8,649


Everything is awful: Greenpeace comes to the realization that no alternative materials to plastics are eco-friendly
by: Clare Goldsberry

October 10, 2019

It was bound to happen. In a recent report from Greenpeace, “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution Solutions,” the organization has concluded that not only is plastic bad for the environment, every other “alternative” material is, as well.

Those who are promoting a return to paper packaging will soon be hearing outcries from Greenpeace about how paper usage is destroying the world’s forests. After all, it is the earth’s forests that consume tons of CO2 from the atmosphere like so many giant sponges. So, all you tree-huggers can breathe easy, so to speak.

Additionally, it was noted that a lot of paper packages (as well as single-use paper cups and containers) have plastic liners and can’t be recycled. Off to the landfill with those! Paper recycling facilities are drowning in paper, and some recycling centers have stopped collecting paper entirely.

And if you thought that bioplastics were safe from Greenpeace, think again. Greenpeace has dismissed bioplastics, or bio-based plastics made from plants such as sugar cane or corn, as just so much “greenwashing.”

As I’ve noted many times in my articles, bioplastics are designed specifically to be left out in the open environment to degrade over several years. And when it does break down, it merely fragments into smaller pieces. The same is true of the so-called “compostable” plastics. So, I actually have to admit I agree with Greenpeace on this one.

Greenpeace has determined that recyclability is a “myth.” Except for the mechanical recycling of PET and HDPE, many of these newly developed “loop-type” recycling schemes involve the shipping of consumer goods all over the country for washing and sterilization, and then shipping them to the brand owners' fill plants and back again to the consumer. Forget about following the money—follow the carbon footprint on this one!

Chemical recycling was mentioned in the report, which I think has some merit, especially for co-mingled plastic waste and dirty ocean plastics. Greenpeace doesn’t hold out much hope for that, either. “Investment in new chemical recycling infrastructure is risky in that it will ‘lock in’ demand for plastic waste in order to generate more plastic as well as non-plastic by-products,” said the report.

So what are we to do? What materials should we use to hold the goods we purchase? Everything has a downside. Multi-use plastic retail bags are being banned in favor of non-woven carry bags, which are still “plastic.” As for cotton bags, they come from agricultural processes requiring gasoline-powered equipment to plant and harvest, not to mention the aircraft used to drop defoliant on the mature cotton so the bolls can be more easily gathered by another piece of gasoline-powered equipment.

Everything we can think of that might be an alternative to plastic has been proven over many studies to be not as eco-friendly or cost and resource effective as plastics. Greenpeace’s idea that every community should go to a “zero-waste” model sounds good on paper, but in large cities it probably isn’t practical. That’s why we have municipal waste collection.

Greenpeace, as well as other groups seeking ways to eliminate plastic packaging and other single-use plastics from the planet, just may have to pivot, whether they like it or not. Alternative materials aren’t cutting it and waste won’t be eliminated.

On that note, enjoy the Decemberists performing "Everything Is Awful" in the video embedded below, with the small caveat that plastics definitely are not.


Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
...power shutdowns, combined with ham radio operators being forced off of public lands..... nothing to see here....

http://allnewspipeline.com/Whats_Really_Going_On_In_California_Part_II.php

Sinister Signs Globalists Have The United Nations Agendas On The Fast Track With Seeds Being Planted To Sow Chaos

- Were Forced California Power Outages A 'BETA Test' For The Rest Of America?


By Stefan Stanford

Back on October 9th, we published this story on ANP titled "What Is Really Going On In California? Over 500,000 Without Power Already And A Week Of Darkness Ahead Could Deliver Chaos, But Is More At Play Than Meets The Eye? Series Of Earthquakes At Top Secret California Naval Compound Ongoing To This Day", a story which garnered over 590 comments from ANP readers, many of them pointing out that something sinister appeared to be going on with ANP reader 'IDontKnow's' comment the top voted:

All I know is that after I first read Remie's post yesterday, all the hair on the back of my neck stood up. My own patriot warning system in red alert. This is as crazy as the town in New Mexico where they evacuated all the people for an unidentified terror threat. There is NO REASON to shut down the grid over wind. If the grid is down, people use candles, lanterns, generators. Generators are more dangerous than the damn grid. I still have a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad feeling about this...

As Remie had pointed out in a comment which we included within that story of the forced blackouts in Northern California, "I just hope nothing "weird" happens during this time frame that so many people in the state have no power."

We also received a whole bunch of emails from ANP readers over the past 4 days since we published that story, each of them pointing out some of the 'bizarre oddities' surrounding the decision to cut off power to millions of California residents prior to fires even breaking out there, a decision that apparently had been made by authorities long before 'fire season'. Though as one ANP friend had pointed out to us, while authorities in California had apparently made the decision to cut off electricity to residents there once 'fire season' arrived months ahead of time, why didn't they notify residents that far ahead of time so that they, too, could prepare?

Another ANP friend pointed out to us that all of this seems like moves co-ordinated by the state of California to help fast-track in the United Nation's Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 while as Mike Adams points out in the 1st video at the bottom of this story, these blackouts may just be designed to 'sow chaos in America' with the cover story that PG&E is turning off electricity to prevent fires being so ridiculous that it's obviously covering up something else.

And then we get the real kicker coming to us from this story over at The Guardian which reports "Record Power Shutoffs In California Are Set To Become The 'New Normal'". So NOW we get closer to the truth!

With others warning the forced shutdown of the grid in California was some kind of a 'beta test' for a nationwide grid shutdown scenario, possibly designed to prevent the mass communications of a successful coup here in America with California recently banning Ham radio repeater infrastructure another sign of what Steve Quayle says the evil reason being "they don't want Ham operators telling people the truth about what's happening in California - control the narrative evil in play", others have warned we're watching the Hegelian Dialectic playing out to it's completion: “First they predict the fires, then turn off the power, then they start the fires, next they spread the fires….
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
https://www.westernjournal.com/white-house-angers-opponents-announcing-g-7-summit-will-held-resort-climate-change-not-agenda/

White House Angers Opponents by Announcing G-7 Summit Will Be Held at His Resort, Climate Change Not on Agenda
White House Angers Opponents by Announcing G-7 Summit Will Be Held at His Resort, Climate Change Not on Agenda

By Erin Coates
Published October 18, 2019 at 7:55am

The Group of Seven 2020 summit will be held at Trump National Doral resort next year, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney announced Thursday.

The summit will take place from June 10-12 at the resort property in Miami, Florida. The resort is owned by President Donald Trump’s family.

“We thought of the 12 places that we looked at … this was by far and away the best choice,” Mulvaney said.

Possible locations for hosting the summit were also considered across the country in states such as California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Tennessee and Utah.

Mulvaney made sure to emphasize that Trump would not be profiting from holding the event at the specific location.

“I get the criticisms. So does [Trump],” he said. “But no, there’s no issue here on him profiting from this in any way, shape or form,” he said.

“If you think it’s going to help his brand, that’s great, but I would suggest that he doesn’t need much help promoting his brand,” Mulvaney added.

The acting White House chief of staff also outlined what would and would not be on the agenda at the summit.

“The focus of the event will be global growth and challenges to the global economy, specifically we’re dealing with things like rejuvenating incentives for growth and prosperity, rolling back prosperity killing regulations, ending trade barriers and reopening energy markets,” he said.

“Taking a lot of what we’ve been doing here domestically with such success and trying to encourage the rest of the world to get on board.”

When asked, he specified that “climate change will not be on the agenda.”

During this year’s summit in Biarritz, France, Trump was not present at a session focused on climate, biodiversity and oceans, The Hill reported.

“The President had scheduled meetings and bilaterals with Germany and India, so a senior member of the Administration attended in his stead,” press secretary Stephanie Grisham told reporters at the time.

French President Emanuel Macron added that reporters “shouldn’t read anything into the American president’s absence. … The U.S. are with us on biodiversity and on the Amazon initiative,” according to Reuters.

The then-Group of Eight Summit was last held in the United States in 2012 at Camp David in Maryland.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/after-her-american-tour-how-is-greta-thunberg-getting-home

After her American tour, how is Greta Thunberg getting home?
The 60-foot yacht she chartered to get her to New York has returned to Europe, and Thunberg says she does not know how she will return to Sweden




Greta Thunberg arrives in New York after her 15 day boat trip across the Atlantic Ocean.

October 18, 2019
8:15 PM EDT

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist, has been making waves the world over with powerful speeches and appearances in climate strikes.

Since late August, she’s been on a tour of North America, attending rallies, meeting with world leaders, and speaking at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York City. She’s set to march in a climate strike in Edmonton on Friday, Oct. 18.

Thunberg has said she received many requests to speak at events internationally, but declined due to the extensive travel it would require. But she decided to make an exception to attend the UN climate summit as well as a major UN climate change conference in Santiago, Chile, where her trip is scheduled to end.

I don't know yet how I will get home


Her trip to North America is well-documented — she sailed for 15 days from England to New York on a carbon-neutral racing yacht to avoid the huge impact air travel has on carbon emissions.

But now that she’s finally here, some have begun to wonder: how is she getting back home to Sweden?

Before she left England in August, she said “I don’t know yet how I will get home,” according to the Daily Mail.

For starters, the boat she took to get to New York, the Malizia II, has returned to Europe. Despite trying to avoid carbon emissions, her organization has seen some criticism because the crew returned by plane — her team said the emissions were offset.

Which means that Thunberg is left with either chartering a plane, which she refuses to do, hopping on a commercial cruise line, which she’s also spoken out against because of the emissions, or chartering another carbon neutral boat to come pick her up.

“Greta doesn’t take airplanes so she’ll have to get to both Chile and back to Sweden using other modes of transportation,” a spokesperson for Thunberg’s team told Vox.

“The details are not confirmed yet.”
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
....I'm 60, and I would say that for pretty much my entire life, I've been of the belief that 'plastic never breaks down'..... because that's all I've ever heard about the matter....
....here's something which may cast some doubt on that conviction.... and it's from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and M.I.T......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/18/plastics-science-is-winning/

Plastics: Science is Winning

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 18 October 2019
Science is beginning to win in the long battle over misinformed anti-plastic advocacy. It has been a long time coming. The most recent paper on the subject of pelagic plastic (plastic floating in the oceans) is from a scientific team at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Mass., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The study is “Sunlight Converts Polystyrene to Carbon Dioxide and Dissolved Organic Carbon” by Collin P. Ward, Cassia J. Armstrong, Anna N. Walsh, Julia H. Jackson and Christopher M. Reddy. It is good basic science.

We are all familiar with polystyrene— it is prevalent in modern packaging, both as a solid, such as yoghurt cups, or in expanded form used for disposable foam drink cups. Much of the plastic flotsam found on the worlds beaches and floating in rivers is this ubiquitous plastic, particularly the expanded foam.
The new abstract of the new study starts with this:
“ABSTRACT: Numerous international governmental agencies that steer policy assume that polystyrene persists in the environment for millennia. Here, we show that polystyrene is completely photochemically oxidized to carbon dioxide and partially photochemically oxidized to dissolved organic carbon. Lifetimes of complete and partial photochemical oxidation are estimated to occur on centennial and decadal time scales, respectively. These lifetimes are orders of magnitude faster than biological respiration of polystyrene and thus challenge the prevailing assumption that polystyrene persists in the environment for millennia.” [ bolding mine — kh ]​
It is about time that someone scientifically challenged the activist position held and promulgated by many environmental, anti-plastics and anti-corporate groups that “Plastic is Forever”.

Plastic is not forever. Glass, both natural and man-made, is forever, but not plastic.
=========

<<<<Break>>>> .... very 'scienc-y' section....

...link to entire article: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/18/plastics-science-is-winning/

=========

Author’s Comment:

Our societies are under constant attack by mis-and ill-informed activists fighting shadows and imagined boogeymen instead of trying to make the world a better place for those truly in need. Those spending their time, money and effort in the battle to ban plastic straws, for instance, appear ridiculous to those of us who have spent years helping some of the almost one billion people living in profound poverty, many lacking simple necessities like sources of clean drinking water, efficient safe cooking stoves or access to minimal basic health care.

Plastics are miraculous modern materials which have made so many things possible in our modern societies. You will not find many (maybe not even one) anti-plastic activists without a modern cell phone or living in a plastic-free home — it is probably close to impossible today.

Unnecessary waste, particularly of excess packaging materials, is a problem, at least in the United States, where almost everything sold is wrapped in too many layers of packaging material which needs to be disposed of. Yes, much of that waste is plastic which should be, but is not, recycled.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
...quick!.... somebody tell AOC that the 'problem' has been solved! :rolleyes:

https://www.cnet.com/news/a-new-system-from-mit-engineers-can-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air/
MIT engineers devise new way to remove carbon dioxide from the air
It works like a high-tech catalytic converter and could be a game changer for clean air.

Shelby Brown

October 25, 2019 2:21 PM PDT


This graphic, with a flow of air in blue and carbon dioxide in red, demonstrates how the device works.
MIT

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology may have developed a new weapon in the fight against climate change. Researchers have created a new system for removing carbon dioxide from a stream of air that can work at almost any concentration level, from power plant emissions to open air, according to MIT News.

MIT said the new system requires less energy and money to operate than other methods, which require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants.

The device at the heart of the system behaves like a large battery. It absorbs carbon dioxide from a gas stream that passes over its electrodes as it's being charged up. It then blows out the pure carbon dioxide as it discharges.

The system's inner-workings are detailed further by the researchers -- MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian and professor T. Alan Hatton -- in a paper called Faradaic Electro-swing Reactive Adsorption for CO2 Capture, which was published this month n the journal Energy and Environmental Science.

"In my laboratories, we have been striving to develop new technologies to tackle a range of environmental issues that avoid the need for thermal energy sources, changes in system pressure or addition of chemicals to complete the separation and release cycles," Hatton told MIT News. "This carbon dioxide capture technology is a clear demonstration of the power of electrochemical approaches that require only small swings in voltage to drive the separations."

While operating, the device alternates between charging and discharging. During a charging cycle, fresh air blows through the system. During discharging, concentrated carbon dioxide blows through.

The research team has launched a company called Verdox to commercialize the system, which could have applications for the bottling of soft drinks and the creation of plant food.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
551
...good article, explaining how we have all been led to believe that worldwide bee populations are collapsing due to man-made pesticides.... and that we're all going to starve, accordingly... read this for an explanation of "PseudoScience" and how it's used to further the progressive agenda

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/28/apocalypse-not-how-science-is-distorted-to-serve-the-activist-agenda/

Apocalypse Not! How Science Is Distorted To Serve The Activist Agenda
Henry I. Miller
October 28, 2019
Part 1 in a series

Much of modern environmental activism, which owes more to zealotry than evidence, has spawned a nasty perversion — let’s call it the Pseudo-Scientific Method. As employed by environmental campaigners and the activist scientists who enable them, it has little to do with scientific discovery or the accumulation of knowledge; rather, it is “advocacy research” that creates “evidence” to support a pre-determined public policy — usually, inappropriate regulation or even bans.

The “target” is usually an ideologically disfavored industry or its products, such as nuclear power, genetic engineering, or pesticides. The result is flawed public policy choices and the ever-deepening corruption of the scientific enterprise.

Take the Great Bee Hoax, for example. If you’re still relying on the mainstream and social media for your information, you probably believe that honeybee populations are crashing worldwide, that without bees to pollinate our crops we’ll all soon starve, and that we’re in this sorry state because evil pesticide companies are reaping huge profits and despoiling the environment, while crony regulators look the other way.

At least, this is what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to believe. When the Agriculture Department recently suspended its annual census of U.S. honeybee hives due to budget cuts (a decision that was soon reversed), the Democratic senator from New York rose in high dudgeon claiming — what else? — collusion.

“Schumer demands USDA continue counting honeybees as populations plummet,” headlined a newspaper account of one of Schumer’s numerous statements on the subject. Suggesting that “corruption may be afoot,” he explained: “There’s great speculation that this [falling bee populations] is done by pesticides. … Maybe the pesticides industry went to the USDA and got them to quietly kill the survey.”

If so, it would have been an odd strategy, because the USDA’s beehive census has been one of the main sources of evidence that refutes alarmist claims of honeybee declines. According to the USDA count, honeybee populations, far from “plummeting,” have actually risen by about 150,000 hives in the last 20 years. Most foreign governments keep official counts of their bees, and bee populations are rising abroad, too.

---------Break for "Scientific Method" discussion and several graphs... indicating that bee populations are stable, or increasing...
link for full article:
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/28/apocalypse-not-how-science-is-distorted-to-serve-the-activist-agenda/

All of this provides a textbook case of the Pseudo-Scientific Method in operation. Incredibly, few of these academic scientists ever bothered to even do a simple Google search of the readily accessible data on honeybee populations. The scientific literature of the time became replete with references to non-existent honeybee “declines” that blindly repeated what was being reported in the media, which in turn repeated the fabricated crisis being touted by the activists. This is a perfect example of an “information cascade,” the way in which incorrect ideas gain acceptance by being parroted until eventually we assume they must be true even in the absence of persuasive evidence. Articles describing the negative effects of neonics on honeybees were cited by succeeding papers to create a massive and growing body of “evidence” in the scientific literature supporting a proposition that was fundamentally mistaken from the start.

As the postulated catastrophes become ever more expansive, as the geography expands and the number of species involved grows from thousands to millions, many of which have never even been identified, let alone studied, the hysterical claims about widespread extinctions are never actually demonstrated. But they also become ever harder to disprove. From the viewpoint of the practitioners of the Pseudo-Scientific Method, what could be better?

The scientists who glommed onto the “bee-pocalypse” narrative never bothered to go back and correct the record. As we’ll see in the next installment, they simply swapped out crises, jettisoning honeybees for claims that it was actually wild bees that were facing extinction, and then moving on to claims that all insect species will soon die out – because, of course, of neonicotinoid pesticides.
 





Top