Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree39Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 16th, 2016, 05:03 PM   #51
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 23,941
I think that water droplet just got a wee bit smaller.

Quote:

Fertilizer plant leak leads to massive sinkhole in Florida

Source: CBS News

TAMPA, FLA. More than 200 million gallons of contaminated waste water from a fertilizer plant in central Florida leaked into one of the state’s main underground sources of drinking water after a massive sinkhole opened up beneath a storage pond, a phosphate company said Friday.

Mosaic, the world’s largest supplier of phosphate, said the hole opened up beneath a pile of waste material called a “gypsum stack.” The 215-million gallon storage pond sat atop the waste mineral pile. The company said the sinkhole is about 45 feet in diameter.

The sinkhole, discovered by a worker on Aug. 27, is believed to reach down to the Floridan aquifer, the company said in a news release. Aquifers are vast, underground systems of porous rocks that hold water and allow water to move through the holes within the rock.

According to the University of Florida, it’s the principal source of groundwater for much of the state, and the cities of Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Orlando, Daytona Beach, Tampa, and St. Petersburg all rely on it. The aquifer also supplies water to thousands of domestic, industrial and irrigation wells throughout the state.

Read more: Fertilizer plant leak leads to massive sinkhole in Florida - CBS News


And of course the company is telling people there's nothing to worry about, nobody's at risk.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov
Camelot is online now  
Old September 16th, 2016, 08:07 PM   #52
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
It's not my agenda. It's humankind's agenda.

The Western nations indeed initially drove the increases in CO2 levels simply because the Western nations led the world in industrialization for a long time. Now, China tops the CO2 emissions chart, while we have cut our CO2 output. Feels pretty good to me.
To what data are you referring?

On a much more philosophical note, I don't think the vast, global discrepancies of wealth, created primarily by capitalism, are sustainable.

White guilt doesn't fit into this discussion at all.
The discrepancies are not created by capitalism. They are created by crony capitalism and government intervention. I beg to differ on white guilt aspect as well. It is well noted that modern Marxists accuse and blame the west for colonialism that has led to these third world countries. It is total horse shit. Nations such as Somalia were up and coming, they was not shitting in holes while they were under control of western nations. Soon as the UK said here is your independence it took about two decades for it to become a total shit hole. This has been repeated in almost every third world shit hole. So what does this have to do with Climate change? Nothing, but Climate change seems to be an excuse to pay off these imaginary debts from this imaginary notion that the west is responsible for those shit hole nations being corrupt shit holes. It is fueled by liberal white guilt and anti-capitalist marixism. So, as of now, according to the Paris Accords, climate change is the vessel that white guilt can begin making reparation payments to corrupt shit hole nations.
coke is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 01:50 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
The problem is when the environmentalist radicals tell outright lies to shove a narrative. For example
The Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears : NPR
...and those alleged "outright lies" happen to be...?

Indeed, the article you cited started out by referring to longterm polar bear population projections that, regardless of their potential accuracy, have not reached the end of their time periods. And then the article you cited talks about the roughly current status of the polar bear population, of which reflects a different time frame than those projections. So, putting aside the belief you appear to hold that (potentially) inaccurate projections are somehow "outright lies," how could any supposed "outright lie" of a projection possibly be determined when the end time of said projection hasn't been reached?

(And, separately, keep in mind that it appears that the further back in time one goes from the present, the less accurate the total polar bear population figure tends to be. So, if anything, the claim that "there are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago" is a rather wild guesstimate, at best, if it is applied to the entire polar bear population...even though that claim might be fairly accurate when it's applied to a sub population of polar bears whereby that sub population has been more accurately monitored during that forty year time period.)
Thanks from imaginethat

Last edited by baloney_detector; September 17th, 2016 at 01:53 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 01:56 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 9,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
...and those alleged "outright lies" happen to be...?

Indeed, the article you cited started out by referring to longterm polar bear population projections that, regardless of their potential accuracy, have not reached the end of their time periods. And then the article you cited talks about the roughly current status of the polar bear population, of which reflects a different time frame than those projections. So, putting aside the belief you appear to hold that (potentially) inaccurate projections are somehow "outright lies," how could any supposed "outright lie" of a projection possibly be determined when the end time of said projection hasn't been reached?

(And, separately, keep in mind that it appears that the further back in time one goes from the present, the less accurate the total polar bear population figure tends to be. So, if anything, the claim that "there are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago" is a rather wild guesstimate, at best, if it is applied to the entire polar bear population...even though that claim might be fairly accurate when it's applied to a sub population of polar bears whereby that sub population has been more accurately monitored during that forty year time period.)
Polar bears eat seals. Plot the seal population to predict future polar bear population.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 02:27 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Polar bears eat seals. Plot the seal population to predict future polar bear population.
That might be a better approach. But even that methodology could likely become rather complicated because seals also rely on a food source that could shift in location with northward retreating ice. And, to complicate matters further still, polar bears are in direct competition with killer whales who also eat seals and utilize open seas that result from that same northward retreating ice.

So, perhaps the best general prediction is climate change, which causes changes to ice coverage, most likely inevitably leads to changes in all three populations, those being polar bears, seals, and killer whales.
Thanks from imaginethat
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 04:31 AM   #56
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
...and those alleged "outright lies" happen to be...?

Indeed, the article you cited started out by referring to longterm polar bear population projections that, regardless of their potential accuracy, have not reached the end of their time periods. And then the article you cited talks about the roughly current status of the polar bear population, of which reflects a different time frame than those projections. So, putting aside the belief you appear to hold that (potentially) inaccurate projections are somehow "outright lies," how could any supposed "outright lie" of a projection possibly be determined when the end time of said projection hasn't been reached?

(And, separately, keep in mind that it appears that the further back in time one goes from the present, the less accurate the total polar bear population figure tends to be. So, if anything, the claim that "there are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago" is a rather wild guesstimate, at best, if it is applied to the entire polar bear population...even though that claim might be fairly accurate when it's applied to a sub population of polar bears whereby that sub population has been more accurately monitored during that forty year time period.)
Here is one let me know if you need any more shock articles on the Polar Bear. Furthermore what the hell are you talking about a sub popultion for? Were talking about the species. Not a sub species, not a sub population. Also to make extinction claims then build the "sub population" straw man makes no sense. Either the species is going extinct or its not. The claims, as the one I just posted have been nothing but exaggerations intended to shock the public when the fact is the species as a whole is doing fine. Furthermore when you look at population studies there are several factors to consider. For instance, last year a massive amount of deer died in Illinois. The total was around 155,000.00. We have to do something!! Oh, wait that was the number harvested in hunting. See the below Salon article for an example of truth twisting.



http://www.salon.com/2014/11/18/alas...alarming_rate/
coke is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 08:36 AM   #57
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Polar bears eat seals. Plot the seal population to predict future polar bear population.
That is simplistic. Polar bears hunt seals in particular ice related environments. Given the lack of ice in summers, even though there are still lots of seals, the bears can't catch as many seals because they don't have the correct environment.

Summer berries can't replace seal blubber for polar bears, say researchers - Edmonton - CBC News
RNG is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 08:43 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
They weren't being silly. They were measuring and modeling the effects of ever increasing particulates in the atmosphere at the time and that was the result. It was valid.

In that case, the world came to recognize the immediate threat to human health from the particulates and government regulations greatly decreased the particulate loading of the atmosphere, reversing that trend.

One of the ideas floated around to counter current warming is to introduce artificial aerosols into the upper atmosphere to increase the blockage of solar energy reaching the surface. A suitable aerosol hasn't been found (thank the FSM, IMO, no telling the total effects of such a move).
You missed the sarcasm.

Deniers use the ice age bit to discredit climate science.
imaginethat is online now  
Old September 17th, 2016, 08:47 AM   #59
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You missed the sarcasm.

Deniers use the ice age bit to discredit climate science.
I knew you were being sarcastic IT, but I'm more sure many on this board didn't.
RNG is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 09:25 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
The discrepancies are not created by capitalism. They are created by crony capitalism and government intervention.
You deserve the question leveled at socialists. Just where did capitalism work ... without depending on raw materials from economic colonies, without depending upon an underclass willing to do necessary jobs at low wages and often dangerous or inhumane working conditions, without fractional banking, without bringing death and near-genocide to native populations, and without capitalists passing off as much liability as possible to the public sector, to increase profits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
I beg to differ on white guilt aspect as well. It is well noted that modern Marxists accuse and blame the west for colonialism that has led to these third world countries. It is total horse shit.
No it's not "total" horseshit. Though the Brits sometimes left behind good works, the record of France and other European powers is deplorable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Nations such as Somalia were up and coming, they was not shitting in holes while they were under control of western nations.Soon as the UK said here is your independence it took about two decades for it to become a total shit hole.
When was Somalia "up and coming?" Somalia was a very bad example for you to choose. Western nations have been screwing up and with Somalia seriously since WWI at least. And being Muslims, the Somalis have been screwing with each other for many centuries. Somalia's "shit hole status" predates Western intervention, however, Western intervention did exacerbate Somalia's ongoing shit hole status.

Please read some of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali...2.80.931969.29

Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
This has been repeated in almost every third world shit hole. So what does this have to do with Climate change? Nothing, but Climate change seems to be an excuse to pay off these imaginary debts from this imaginary notion that the west is responsible for those shit hole nations being corrupt shit holes. It is fueled by liberal white guilt and anti-capitalist marixism. So, as of now, according to the Paris Accords, climate change is the vessel that white guilt can begin making reparation payments to corrupt shit hole nations.
Concerning the Paris Agreement:
The level of NDCs [nationally determined contributions] set by each country will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms. Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met. There will be only a "name and shame" system or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan. As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.
Who's being paid off?
Thanks from Camelot
imaginethat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
big, lie



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.