Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
shader

Nature on verge of collapse? UN report is shocking

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not you. @TripItUp

So it’s well documented I didn’t vote for Trump and it’s also well documented I likely won’t be voting for Trump in 2020.  

Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter. 

:shrug:

Edited by TripItUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I gotta apologize. I totally forgot when Dems had the planet rescued via holding both chambers of Congress and the Presidency in Obama's first two years.  They used that time to get all of those Earth-saving measures passed and we had this problem licked. Get outta here with this it's all one side's fault. Keep expecting Dems to do the work for humanity and see how far that gets you. They can't even bother to use mass transit or ground their private jets.

The Democrats have been awful at fighting climate change. They don’t prioritize it enough, they use it to play political games and when they get the chance to make things better they often flub it up. All true; I can’t deny any of it. 

And yet they’re the only ones even willing to have the conversation. If the Republicans said, “yeah climate change is a serious problem, we just don’t like the Democrats’ solution, here is OUR solution,” then I’d have no complaints whatsoever. But they’re not willing to do that; they’re not willing to do ANYTHING. So what choice do I have but to support the Democrats? At least they recognize the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

So it’s well documented I didn’t vote for Trump and it’s also well documented I likely won’t be voting for Trump in 2020.  

Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter. 

:shrug:

That’s fine. My position is I don’t see how one can support ANY Republicans, particularly those who run for federal office, so long as they refuse to address this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That’s fine. My position is I don’t see how one can support ANY Republicans, particularly those who run for federal office, so long as they refuse to address this issue. 

I try to vote pro-environment.  Always have.  Even voted for Gore over Bush.  

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TripItUp said:

I try to vote pro-environment.  Always have.  Even voted for Gore over Bush.  

I didn’t. Back then I didn’t recognize the priority of this issue. 

And I’ve never liked Gore. I always felt that Gore was using climate change as a means to promote himself. Didn’t trust him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The Democrats have been awful at fighting climate change. They don’t prioritize it enough, they use it to play political games and when they get the chance to make things better they often flub it up. All true; I can’t deny any of it. 

And yet they’re the only ones even willing to have the conversation. If the Republicans said, “yeah climate change is a serious problem, we just don’t like the Democrats’ solution, here is OUR solution,” then I’d have no complaints whatsoever. But they’re not willing to do that; they’re not willing to do ANYTHING. So what choice do I have but to support the Democrats? At least they recognize the problem. 

Republicans have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. Democrats have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. One side is using it as an issue to get elected and then continuing to be awful at addressing it. The other denies it's even a problem. I'm really not sure one is any better than the other. Lie to your face or call you stupid for worrying to your face. No flipping way I'm counting on politicians to solve the problem. I do my best to leave no negative footprint myself and call on scientists, engineers, and the wealthy to spark the turnaround. Keep giving individuals better ways to make a compound difference. And other nations need to step it up big time as well. When I can retire, I'd love to help spread better practices around the world. That's what it will take, individuals building off individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, badmojo1006 said:

Really? Yes there have been skirmishes,  but a war to annihilate the planet?

No

and you honestly give credit to the UN?

I can totally understand how an organization that wields that much power could keep everyone in check.  Especially Israel.
You actually believe that the mighty UN could do anything to stop the US, China, or Russia from going at each other?

Wake up.  The UN is nothing more than a money sucking mega-bureaucracy that serves no purpose except to push an NWO agenda.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was elected almost 12 years ago. The Democratic party, especially with this newest class of senators and reps, has obviously grown on the issue of climate change. I don't think many of us felt as urgent about the issue 12 years ago as we do now, either. Rational thinking people are waking up to how big a deal this is, and so is our representation. That's part of the problem with having the same 70 year olds who don't integrate new information into their platforms in office for three plus decades. 

Agree or disagree with their current platforms and plans, fine. But stop invoking what Democrats did over a decade ago in your arguments. The world has changed and the voices on the left are changing as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy".  The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t have an SUV and I don’t eat hamburgers (I love them but I’m trying hard to lose weight). But again you’re missing the point. This has to be a big government effort. 

And do you truly think Tim that a "big government effort" will come with the next Dem president? I'm just asking it in this way since everything seems to come back to Trump with you (and this thread seems to be devolving back to "point the finger exclusively at the GOP").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

And I’ve never liked Gore. 

I kind of liked Gore until after the 2000 election.  His decision to contest the election at a scorched-earth level greatly lowered my opinion of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

And do you truly think Tim that a "big government effort" will come with the next Dem president? I'm just asking it in this way since everything seems to come back to Trump with you (and this thread seems to be devolving back to "point the finger exclusively at the GOP").

My answer is no, but only because the next Democratic President will be hampered by Congress. Unless and until Republicans change their position, you need filibuster proof majorities in all 3 houses. That’s the problem.

Also I don’t particularly blame Trump. He’s been quite terrible, but on this issue he’s representative of a political party that has refused to take this problem seriously ever since it emerged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy".  The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.  

This is a very reasonable point. 

Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Opie said:

and you honestly give credit to the UN?

I can totally understand how an organization that wields that much power could keep everyone in check.  Especially Israel.
You actually believe that the mighty UN could do anything to stop the US, China, or Russia from going at each other?

Wake up.  The UN is nothing more than a money sucking mega-bureaucracy that serves no purpose except to push an NWO agenda.

That ignores all the colonies it helped negotiate independence for, the civil wars it helped come to an end, helped eradicate smallpox, etc. All large human entities have corruption and the UN is no different but you are missing out on many of the positive things the UN has done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, apalmer said:

I recommend you watch "Our Planet" on Netflix to understand the impact the loss of just one or two types of animal can have. 

Take for instance the honey bee.  Losing those rascals would be problematic.  Of course I am no science teacher so what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Back in my acting days I did Shakespeare’s The Tempest.  The actor playing Sebastian was.... shiny.  Not so sharp.  One of his lines was “What if he had said Widower Aeneas too?!”

The man pronounced it as “widower an##” for the entire rehearsal period and the full run of the show. 

We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”

“I’ll dig thee pig nuts.” - Caliban

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

That ignores all the colonies it helped negotiate independence for, the civil wars it helped come to an end, helped eradicate smallpox, etc. All large human entities have corruption and the UN is no different but you are missing out on many of the positive things the UN has done. 

You didn’t even need to make this argument. The moment that Opie wrote “NWO” he invalidated any point he had to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You didn’t even need to make this argument. The moment that Opie wrote “NWO” he invalidated any point he had to make. 

Seems unnecessarily harsh on Hollywood Hogan. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Seems unnecessarily harsh on Hollywood Hogan. 

I met him at Scott LeDoux's place back in the 80's.  Scott was a competitive heavyweight fighter for a time.  Nice fella.  Did lots of things after fighting. Owned a bar for a time. got into local politics later, as I recall.  I was in one night shooting the breeze when Terry walked in.  Even knowing he was only big in comparison to Stallone, and that Stallone is a shrimp, I was disappointed in how pedestrian was his size.  He was barely bigger than I am and he was smaller than my brother.  Also he was sort of a jerk that night though Scott told me that he was having a bad night and to not judge him on that encounter alone.  Since that turned out to be my only encounter that advice sort of missed the mark, but maybe not entirely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

This is a very reasonable point. 

Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me. 

I'm a pro-nuclear energy liberal. This issue here has been a problem with branding and education. Too many people with outdated information about nuclear power.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy".  The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.  

this really isn't a coherent sentence.  "shouldn' the fact that …..this...….what?".  there's no what.

nuclear should have a place, so should solar and wind.  available land isn't really the problem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy".  The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.  

Nice attempt to sensationalize the issue. Last I checked actual facts, when solar PV panels are put on roof tops the footprint already exists. 

 

Even after accounting for limiting factors such as shading, and orientation, U.S. rooftops alone could accommodate more than 600 GW of PV capacity, and additional opportunities exist on sites such as parking structures, awnings, and airports (Denholm and Margolis 2008)

Department of Energy - SunShot Vision Study – February 2012

 

BTW, 600GW of PV capacity is 10 times the existing deployed amount of 64GW.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Republicans have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. Democrats have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. One side is using it as an issue to get elected and then continuing to be awful at addressing it. The other denies it's even a problem. I'm really not sure one is any better than the other. Lie to your face or call you stupid for worrying to your face. No flipping way I'm counting on politicians to solve the problem. I do my best to leave no negative footprint myself and call on scientists, engineers, and the wealthy to spark the turnaround. Keep giving individuals better ways to make a compound difference. And other nations need to step it up big time as well. When I can retire, I'd love to help spread better practices around the world. That's what it will take, individuals building off individuals.

I get your point you're trying to make that this is everyone's problem and we're all in this together. But from a political perspective you couldn't be more wrong. It's simply not objective to believe otherwise.

It was Obama who signed the Clean Power Plan under executive order because he couldn't work with the GOP congress, it was Obama who formally entered the Paris Climate Agreement and it was Obama who initiated multiple funding initiatives for clean energy.

Trump and the GOP has undone each of those initiatives.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I met him at Scott LeDoux's place back in the 80's.  Scott was a competitive heavyweight fighter for a time.  Nice fella.  Did lots of things after fighting. Owned a bar for a time. got into local politics later, as I recall.  I was in one night shooting the breeze when Terry walked in.  Even knowing he was only big in comparison to Stallone, and that Stallone is a shrimp, I was disappointed in how pedestrian was his size.  He was barely bigger than I am and he was smaller than my brother.  Also he was sort of a jerk that night though Scott told me that he was having a bad night and to not judge him on that encounter alone.  Since that turned out to be my only encounter that advice sort of missed the mark, but maybe not entirely.

Ah, the Fighting Frenchman.  

As far as I can tell based on popular humor, the only one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

My answer is no, but only because the next Democratic President will be hampered by Congress. Unless and until Republicans change their position, you need filibuster proof majorities in all 3 houses. That’s the problem.

Also I don’t particularly blame Trump. He’s been quite terrible, but on this issue he’s representative of a political party that has refused to take this problem seriously ever since it emerged. 

3 houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Workhorse said:

I'm a pro-nuclear energy liberal. This issue here has been a problem with branding and education. Too many people with outdated information about nuclear power.

It's just completely unrealistic. How many nuke plants do we need to power just the USA?  300?  500? 1000? (I don't really know).  Even if we started today.  Completely had the process down to a tee.  Nuke Regulations were laxed;  NIMBYs on board; Plants built to the exact same design; and A plan to manage all the waste.  We would still need to educate and train a sophisticated workforce to build and operate the plants.  In the BEST CASE scenario - starting today with everyone on board - we're looking at decades to build this out.  Then push the  out to the rest of the world.  Zero percent chance of nuke being the answer in time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PhantomJB said:

Nice attempt to sensationalize the issue. Last I checked actual facts, when solar PV panels are put on roof tops the footprint already exists. 

 

Even after accounting for limiting factors such as shading, and orientation, U.S. rooftops alone could accommodate more than 600 GW of PV capacity, and additional opportunities exist on sites such as parking structures, awnings, and airports (Denholm and Margolis 2008)

Department of Energy - SunShot Vision Study – February 2012

 

BTW, 600GW of PV capacity is 10 times the existing deployed amount of 64GW.

 

It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening.   Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations.  So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Take for instance the honey bee.  Losing those rascals would be problematic.  Of course I am no science teacher so what do I know?

European honeybees are domesticated, not wild. This article is pushing against the loss of wild species.

We're likely too dependent on the European honeybee as well. CCD and Varroa increase in lethality as the European honeybee population increases.

Encouraging native pollinators, such as Mason bees is a great exercise for any gardener or horticulturist. The trade-off is there's no hive to tap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna stop. This train has left the station.  Adapt or perish.  Period.  There is no other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening.   Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations.  So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity. 

It is not an either/or proposition. Both are required and they are inherently different types of electricity generation.

Rooftops are a form of distributed generation (at the source) and utility-scale PV and CSP (i.e. concentrated solar power) provide electricity from a large source to the utility grid. Utility-scale solar is dead in its tracks because of lack of transmission lines to the grid (full deployment of wind suffers from similar issues)

Rooftop solar not "good in theory." It is a proven technology, just not a silver bullet. Any sensible transition to net zero carbon requires full deployment of multiple forms of clean energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Not gonna stop.

This train has left the station.

  Adapt or perish. 

Period. 

There is no other option.

Nice.  I know it's Rush but can't remember which song?  Is it from "2112" or "Moving Pictures"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McJose said:

Nice.  I know it's Rush but can't remember which song?  Is it from "2112" or "Moving Pictures"?

if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is a very reasonable point. 

Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me. 

It's a political loser after Fukushima. Siting and permitting take way too long due to NIMBY and way too capital intensive to get private funding. Focus on low-hanging fruit of building out existing renewable technologies over the next 10-20 years while simultaneously investing in federal research on nuclear waste disposal. Revisit nuclear deployment in 10 years if crisis deepens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening.   Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations.  So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity. 

California is banking on the hope that future technology will allow cost effective mass energy storage.  Solar is pretty limited without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

California is banking on the hope that future technology will allow cost effective mass energy storage.  Solar is pretty limited without it.

The problem with technology is you need investment to spur improvements...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, killface said:

The problem with technology is you need investment to spur improvements...

There is a ton of research and investment.  What you don't want to do is implement without good planning and before the technology is ready.  Throwing money at a bunch of half-baked ideas is not effective.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LINK

 

Six Reasons Why You Should Ignore the UN’s Species Extinction Report

7 May 2019

Getty Images

8:35

The United Nations has produced a report warning that a million species are threatened with extinction.

Here is why you shouldn’t take it seriously.

It’s politics, not science

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which produced the report, is a political organisation not a scientific one. Just like its sister organisation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — IPCC — in fact.

As Donna Laframboise notes here, both exist purely to give a fig leaf of scientific credibility to the UN’s ‘sustainability’ agenda.

When the IPBES was established in 2010, we were informed point blank that its purpose was “to spearhead the battle against the destruction of the natural world.”

In other words, there’s all sorts of deception here. This is no sober scientific body, which examines multiple perspectives, and considers alternative hypotheses. The job of the IPBES is to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties.

That’s how the United Nations works, folks. Machinations in the shadows. Camouflaging its political aspirations by dressing them up in 1,800 pages of scientific clothing.

This is the usual suspects crying wolf. Again

No one would dispute that habitat loss is a problem for plants and animals. But it’s a big stretch from there to suggest that a million species are ‘threatened’ with actual extinction. The ‘E’ word has long been overplayed by environmentalists because it’s so dramatic and final and because everyone has heard of the dodo. There is no evidence whatsoever, though, that the world is heading for its so-called Sixth Great Extinction. As Willis Eschenbach once pertinently asked at Watts Up With That? – Where Are The Corpses?

Harvard ecologist EO Wilson once estimated that up to 50,000 species go extinct every year. How did he calculate this? Using the same method the IPCC uses for its junk-science prognostications on catastrophic climate change: computer models.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore exploded this myth long ago:

Moore said in 2000: “There’s no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson’s computer at Harvard University. They’re actually electrons on a hard drive. I want a list of Latin names of actual species.” Moore was interviewed by reporter Marc Morano (now with Climate Depot) in the 2000 Amazon rainforest documentary:

Environmental activist Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief was asked in the 2000 documentary if he could name any of the alleged 50,000 species that have gone extinct and he was unable.

“No, we can’t [name them], because we don’t know what those species are. But most of the species that we’re talking about in those estimates are things like insects and even microorganisms, like bacteria,” Keating explained.

R-i-g-h-t. So there are all these species going extinct. But we don’t know what they are because we haven’t yet discovered them. Hmm. Sounds terrible. Let’s cancel Western Industrial Civilisation right now, just in case.

Seriously, these people are like a stuck record

Here – h/t Dennis Ambler at Homewood’s place – is the Independent from 2006:

Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species threatened with imminent extinction – a global emergency demanding urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world’s most eminent biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a political framework to save the planet.

Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal “background” extinction rate – and say this is all due to human activity.

Anne Larigauderie, executive director of Diversitas, a Paris-based conservation group, said that the situation was now so grave that an international body with direct links with global leaders was essential.

The scientists believe that a body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could help governments to tackle the continuing loss of species.

They get away with presenting it as “news” every time because the mainstream media is so thoroughly compliant and dutifully bigs up each scare every time it appears.

“Nature is in its worst shape in human history’

This is exactly the kind of scaremongering claim the report was designed to generate. It gives environmental correspondents from on-message outfits like the BBC and CBC the excuse to put in a call to their favourite eco-alarmists, who helpfully respond with hysterical drivel like this:

“Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity’s own future,” said George Mason University biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research.

Actually, as Patrick Moore notes, there have been many worse times for species extinction.

Moore, in an interview with Climate Depot, refuted the claims of the species study. “The biggest extinction events in the human era occurred 60,000 years ago when humans arrived in Australia, 10-15,000 years ago when humans arrived in the New World, 800 years ago when humans found New Zealand, and 250 years ago when Europeans brought exotic species to the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii,” Moore explained.

“Since species extinction became a broad social concern, coinciding with the extinction of the passenger pigeon, we have done a pretty good job of preventing species extinctions,” Moore explained.

“I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar ‘sixth mass extinction’ article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme,” he added. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt the organization had become too radical.

Polar Bears and Tigers

By curious coincidence perhaps the two most overhyped of all doomed species are now enjoying a remarkable recovery, not least because – contrary to the claims of environmentalists – humans actually do care about flora, fauna and diversity and have made great strides in preserving them.

It has been a century since the last species of any significance – the passenger pigeon – died out. Almost all the species extinctions that have occurred in the last two centuries have been on islands, the result of predation by invasive species such as rats or cats accidentally introduced by sailors.

Polar bear populations have exploded from about 5,000 60 years ago to around 26,000 now – making a mockery of their status as an emblem of man-made environmental catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the number of tigers in India has risen dramatically in the last decade,according to the Irish Times:

The estimated population of the endangered big cat has increased from 1,411 in 2006 to 2,226 in 2014, according to the report published by the Indian government’s National Tiger Conservation Authority.

Read the small print

When you get to the bottom of the scaremongering report, the authors show their true colours.

Here is the BBC’s summary:

The study doesn’t tell governments what to do, but gives them some pretty strong hints.

One big idea is to steer the world away from the “limited paradigm of economic growth”.

They suggest moving away from GDP as a key measure of economic wealth and instead adopting more holistic approaches that would capture quality of life and long-term effects.

They argue that our traditional notion of a “good quality of life” has involved increasing consumption on every level. This has to change.

Yes, we’re back to our old friends – Agenda 21 and sustainability – the UN’s code phrases for a new world order in which technocrats of the international elite impose their globalist agenda of wealth redistribution, regulation, enforced renewables, higher taxes and enforced rationing on sovereign nations in the name of ‘saving the planet.’

If the UN really cared about species extinction, of course, it would be doing the exact opposite.

As Jo Nova points out:

1. The worst pollution is in countries with a low income per capita — when people are hungry they raze forests. The most polluted cities are in places like Ghana, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Zambia, Argentina, and Nigeria.  The most deforestation occurs in Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, and Mexico. The worst air is in India and China.

2. Only rich nations have the resources to save the environment.

3. Countries that produce more CO2 are richer.

Ignore everything the UN tells you about the environment. It’s drivel – and dangerous drivel at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that settles it.  everything is fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly is behind this new world order, how did they get into power, what do they want and what does the ction of GDP have to do with it?  How did they trick most of science into lying for them? This stuff sounds insane honestly. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

Who exactly is behind this new world order, how did they get into power, what do they want and what does the ction of GDP have to do with it?  How did they trick most of science into lying for them? This stuff IS insane honestly. 

Fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoonation said:

well that settles it.  everything is fine.

breitbart isn't your goto on environmental questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joffer said:

breitbart isn't your goto on environmental questions?

Just wait, we are 2 years away from Breitbart University

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

LINK

It’s drivel – and dangerous drivel at that.

Ironically, that's the most accurate description of the linked article in @HellToupee's post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Ironically, that's the most accurate description of the linked article in @HellToupee's post.

When did it become reasonable to post that garbage from breitbart against actual science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, killface said:

When did it become reasonable to post that garbage from breitbart against actual science

I dunno, @HellToupee likes to stir things up from time to time, so I don't know that his heart was really in that one. Still sad that others might read that and take it seriously.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
3
Quote

 

The documents obtained from the Minnesota Attorney General's office outline 3M's own research showing its PFAS compounds were not breaking down in the environment, were having negative health effects in laboratory rats and other animals — and that the blood of employees, and the public, had become contaminated with the compounds.

As these revelations occurred within the company, 3M continued to sell PFAS compounds for use in products worldwide: in ScotchGard stain protection, Teflon coating on cookware and other products, Gore-Tex water resistant shoes and clothing, sandwich wrapping paper and microwave popcorn bags, aqueous firefighting foam and other industrial uses.

For generations, 3M kept much of what it knew to itself, not informing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — or the public — until the late 1990s, when the EPA began taking notice of the rising research outside of 3M showing PFAS's persistence in the environment. T

"It’s an absolute outrage that, in the name of profit, for decades they suppressed this information, and they continued to pump these chemicals out in incredible quantities into the natural environment," Coulson said. "And the terrible result of that is that some communities, like Parchment, have had to bear the brunt of it."

Some 46 Michigan locations have PFAS compounds in groundwater that exceed the EPA's 70 parts-per-trillion health advisory level. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has estimated PFAS could be found at more than 11,300 sites in Michigan — fire stations, municipal airports, military sites, refineries and bulk petroleum stations, wastewater treatment plants, old landfills, and various industrial sites.

Seventeen rivers, lakes, streams and ponds throughout Michigan have "do not eat" fish advisories, or limitations on consumption of fish, because of PFOS contamination, including Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair and portions of the Au Sable, Huron, Flint, Saginaw and St. Joseph rivers.

 

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/05/09/3-m-lawsuit-pfas-water-contamination-michigan/3291156002/

 

TL;DR  3M spent 30 years making a product they knew was poisonous to all living beings and would never breakdown by hiding their own research they showed how bad it was and that it had gotten into lakes, rivers, animals and the bloodstream of almost every person in the country. 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can we get this freaking post issue fixed, what the hell already. I can't even edit or hide the freaking thing. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3M spent 30 years making a product that is poisonous to all life on Earth and will never breakdown. Their own research showed it was toxic and a carcinogen and that it had gotten into the water and blood of almost every living thing on Earth but for 30 years they hid it so they could profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Can we get this freaking post issue fixed, what the hell already. I can't even edit or hide the freaking thing. 

We're trying to figure out what's causing it. My hypothesis is that it only affects posts made by people who have Grammarly installed. Others on staff think I'm crazy, which is highly possible.

Out of curiosity, do you have the Grammarly browser plug-in installed?

P.S. Here's a work-around that will let you edit your post. First, click the little downward-pointing arrow in the upper left corner of the quote box within your post. Second, go ahead and edit or hide as normal.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.