Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Following my post here https://www.speakev.com/threads/no-doubt-left-about-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming.142320/page-7#post-2687581
I was just looking at this news item, thinking to myself "I bet some forum folks will try to claim ALL of those people are climate change deniers!!".


I then did a web search for 'litter after environmental rally' and there was a shed load of that.

I have never, not ever ever, knowingly dropped any litter on any part of this Earth. I have missed a bin occasionally and recovered the mistake.

I do not know how people can rationally consider themselves capable of forming opinions about CO2 emissions when they knowingly litter. Flat out, it disqualifies them. End of.

So what problems does AGW bring with it? Well, it has distracted people from all the REAL pollution in the world. If all that effort had been put into dealing with immediate environmental issues, the world might not be such a pig-shit industrial tip it is.

If you have ever knowingly dropped litter and left it, then please, just don't even consider yourself worthy to have an opinion on this/CO2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
Peoples opinion on AGW is utterly irrelevant in general, regardless of whether they are foul enough to litter or not.

All that matters is what is published in well respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

If all that effort had been put into dealing with immediate environmental issues, the world might not be such a pig-shit industrial tip it is.
I admire your optimism...I wish I could agree....
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Peoples opinion on AGW is utterly irrelevant in general, regardless of whether they are foul enough to litter or not.
I agree, it is a scientific thing or it is not.

My point is that they shouldn't even dream of commenting about AGW if they don't understand the basic sources of pollution (i.e. themselves).

What was the other thread about then, where you were defending a statement about people's opinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
But are there significantly different levels of litter left after other types of rally? If environmental rally attendees drop far less litter, on average does that their opinions are slightly worthy? Or is it the case that even 1 bit of litter means their views on anything should be completely ignored?

Should anyone who travels by plane for example have their environmental views ignored?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yes, just one piece of litter rules out their opinion about the environment.

I don't see how that can be challenged. Either you think and care about the environment or you don't. Why make claims that you do, then harm it knowingly (and unlawfully)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
Yes, just one piece of litter rules out their opinion about the environment.

I don't see how that can be challenged. Either you think and care about the environment or you don't. Why make claims that you do, then harm it knowingly (and unlawfully)?
But is dropping one piece of litter a worse environmental act than driving a car? Or having children? Or not eating all the food on your plate?

Surely the very act of existence should rule out any opinion on the environment, as simply by being here, it means you don't care about the environment?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
But is dropping one piece of litter a worse environmental act than driving a car? Or having children? Or not eating all the food on your plate?

Surely the very act of existence should rule out any opinion on the environment, as simply by being here, it means you don't care about the environment?
Yes, it is avoidable and unlawful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
Driving cars is avoidable and in some places is unlawful.

Just because something is illegal, doesn't automatically make it a bad thing, merely that it's used as a control mechanism by those in power over the general population. For example in some US States it's legal to grow cannabis, but not in others.

In the grand scheme of things, litter is a small issue compared to the effects of car use, which spread far beyond the environment.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It is about attitude, not about effect. If you don't give a shit about a little impact on the environment, what gives you the idea that you have something to think or say to someone else about it?

I find it a bit disgraceful that anyone would suggest that 'a bit of littering' is OK compared with driving a car.

This utterly and totally demonstrates the point of the thread: The problem here is that people have been totally misdirected by a 'war on CO2' when there is more direct action they can and should take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Can we define what littering is? Plastic bag? Apple core? Brake dust? Spurious threads on self righteous gatekeeping? Ignoring the fact that "littering" can occur long after you've supposedly passed on custody of the item but it remains your morale responsibility to ensure you disposed of it correctly in the first place?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Can we define what littering is? Plastic bag? Apple core? Brake dust? Spurious threads on self righteous gatekeeping? Ignoring the fact that "littering" can occur long after you've supposedly passed on custody of the item but it remains your morale responsibility to ensure you disposed of it correctly in the first place?
If you don't know, again you are proving my point. But check out the link in the OP if you really don't.

Looks to me that the whole of society's compass of what is or is not 'pollution' has been corrupted by 'environmentalism' itself, and the last posts are proving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,583 Posts
Looks to me that the whole of society's compass of what is or is not 'pollution' has been corrupted by 'environmentalism' itself..........
I gave up on that particular point once they managed to convince people that CO2 is a pollutant. The people pushing that agenda know full well that isn't the case but have used it successfully to get people to cut back on burning fossil fuel on the back of the highly debatable 'save the planet from GW' because they know that the real problem is particulates and Nox.

On the wider issue of trash pollution that will take a lot more effort because people are inherently selfish and stupid over the disposal of waste. And they cannot be hoodwinked into changing by a similar 'save the planet' scheme as the false war on CO2. They will have to legislate for biodegradable packaging much more on this particular real problem. Because humans will continue to be selfish and stupid whatever you do.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
And they cannot be hoodwinked into changing by a similar 'save the planet' scheme
Ironic, really, because a high density of plastic particulate matter in the oceans (especially together with all the silicon tetrachloride from solar panel manufacture) could actually interfere with the biosphere to a planet-wide harmful effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
If you don't know, again you are proving my point. But check out the link in the OP if you really don't.

Looks to me that the whole of society's compass of what is or is not 'pollution' has been corrupted by 'environmentalism' itself, and the last posts are proving it.
So we're agreed then that putting recyclable materials in the wrong bin is littering, putting food waste in landfill is littering, and exporting waste (not reworked product) to 3rd world countries is littering too.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Putting recyclable waste in the wrong bin is a missed opportunity for recycling, but it is not littering (see below my definitions). Eventually I think we will have to start 'mining' old landfill and recycle it properly, so as long as its storage is benign then that is at least 'managed'.

Putting food waste into landfill is not littering as it is still contained and has only a short term environmental impact, but it is wrong for different non-littering reasons. I would not call it littering but would not object to that notion.

Yes, shipping crap to 3rd world countries, I'd go along with that being littering unless the route to its final disposal is appropriate, transparent and auditable.

Littering and pollution is about the uncontrolled release of waste into the environment which could have been managed and contained. The severity of the incidence of littering/pollution is how readily it is reabsorbed into the environment without lasting effect.

A plastic bottle thrown on the beach will still be floating around the oceans in 50 years time as broken particulates, a tonne of CO2 released today will be gone in 50 years time. The problem with CO2 is not that it cannot be absorbed, but that we are adding more all the time, which is a different problem to adding a persistent pollutant to the planet. The 'fix' for CO2 is simple, just stop making the stuff and it'll go away. But if only today you stop throwing plastic bottles in the sea, it'll still be there long into the future, it won't be reabsorbed. That makes the latter far far worse than the former, but these have been conflated in people's minds. Possibly deliberately. I don't know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
I gave up on that particular point once they managed to convince people that CO2 is a pollutant. The people pushing that agenda know full well that isn't the case but have used it successfully to get people to cut back on burning fossil fuel on the back of the highly debatable 'save the planet from GW' because they know that the real problem is particulates and Nox.
Who are ‘they’?

CO2 is a pollutant when you’re trying to stop a planet warming up.

Particulates and Nox are also pollutants, it’s not either or here.

On the wider issue of trash pollution that will take a lot more effort because people are inherently selfish and stupid over the disposal of waste. And they cannot be hoodwinked into changing by a similar 'save the planet' scheme as the false war on CO2. They will have to legislate for biodegradable packaging much more on this particular real problem. Because humans will continue to be selfish and stupid whatever you do.
Whilst I agree with you that a good percentage of humans appear to be selfish and stupid, I really don’t get your other comments about the ‘false war’ on CO2.

Again, who are ‘they’ and how have we been hoodwinked?

Can you explain any benefit at all if we continue to generate CO2 at the levels we do?

I can’t work out if you’re in the employ of ‘big oil’ and I genuinely don’t understand the motivation behind your comments here and on other threads.

What did ‘they’ ever do to you? Why the angst?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,044 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Who are ‘they’?
IPCC.
99% of climate scientists who depend on research funds to prove the Earth is warming.
IMF
Politicians of most countries.
Legislators.
Organisers of 'carbon credits'.
So called 'environmentalists' and various anarchists who seem to be little more than fascists in sandals who seem to want us to go back to a medieval agrarian society.

CO2 is a pollutant when you’re trying to stop a planet warming up.
Not really, it is a naturally occurring planetary gas. Currently at unprecedentedly low levels. I mean really unprecedented, not just "unprecedented for the last 10 years" nonsense.

Particulates and Nox are also pollutants, it’s not either or here.
True, although about 10~100 times more NOx is generated in lightning strikes than man makes, funnily enough...

What did ‘they’ ever do to you? Why the angst?
For trying to manipulate a (possibly genuine) set of circumstances for their political and financial gain.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
IPCC.
99% of climate scientists who depend on research funds to prove the Earth is warming.
IMF
Politicians of most countries.
Legislators.
Organisers of 'carbon credits'.
So called 'environmentalists' and various anarchists who seem to be little more than fascists in sandals who seem to want us to go back to a medieval agrarian society.
So, it’s all made up so that a few scientists can have jobs for life? Come on.

Not really, it is a naturally occurring planetary gas. Currently at unprecedentedly low levels. I mean really unprecedented, not just "unprecedented for the last 10 years" nonsense.
You said on another thread that the problem with CO2 is that we’re producing too much of it, make your mind up.

True, although about 10~100 times more NOx is generated in lightning strikes than man makes, funnily enough...
Can you find an independent source for that assertion? Studies I can find show that it’s more like 25% of NOx is from lightning strikes.

The rest is produced by us and more often than not emitted just where we don’t really want it, ie in cities or populations.

For trying to manipulate a (possibly genuine) set of circumstances for their political and financial gain.
Like traditional fossil based energy companies have been doing you mean? If you think it’s a possibly genuine set of circumstances, then what does it matter if ‘they’ are trying to set the agenda to try and mitigate the effects of whatever is coming?

How have they hurt or disadvantaged you? Do you work for a high carbon industry? Is this low carbon transport you told us your working on a fuel cell or something? I’m trying to understand where your bias comes from and why you and your tag team buddy keep posting fringe opinions like they’re cast iron facts?
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top