Radical Environmentalism

[American_Jihad]

The Environmental Apocalypse

August 1, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

...

The Global Warming hysteria is about absolute power over every man, woman and child on earth.

Environmentalism is wealth redistribution on a global scale. The goal isn’t even to lift all boats, but to stop the tide of materialism from making too many people too comfortable.

The liberal billionaire who clamors about sustainability likes progress. What he dislikes is the middle class with its mass produced cars and homes, cheap restaurants full of fatty foods and television sets and daily deliveries of cardboard boxes full of stuff and shopping malls. He thinks, in all sincerity, that they would be happier and more spiritually fulfilled as peasants.

Beneath all the empty chatter about social riches and sustainability is that need to impose progressive misery. Beneath the glossy surface of environmentalism is a vision of the American middle class learning to dig through bags of garbage, the detritus of their consumerism for which they must be punished, to become better people.

The Environmental Apocalypse | FrontPage Magazine

 

[American_Jihad]

Third biggest greenhouse gas emitter? World's wasted food

Reuters Facebook
1 hour ago

...

In its report entitled "The Food Wastage Footprint", the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated that the carbon footprint of wasted food was equivalent to 3.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

If it were a country, it would be the world's third biggest emitter after China and the United States, suggesting that more efficient food use could contribute substantially to global efforts to cut greenhouse gases to limit global warming.

In the industrialised world, much of the waste comes from consumers buying too much and throwing away what they do not eat. In developing countries, it is mainly the result of inefficient farming and a lack of proper storage facilities.

"Food wastage reduction would not only avoid pressure on scarce natural resources but also decrease the need to raise food production by 60 percent in order to meet the 2050 population demand," the FAO said.

...

Third biggest greenhouse gas emitter? World's wasted food - NBC News.com

 

[bripat9643]

Dumb fuck, the primary source of lead and mercury are coal fired generation plants. Shut those down and you solve much of the GHG increase and, at the same time, almost completely shut down the primary source of lead and mercury in this nation.

Actually the primary source of lead and mercury is thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.

As for the toxicology of mercury from coal:

Environmentalism is fascism

• Mercury is a ubiquitous natural element. Ketchup and barbeque sauces contain 50 times the “environmentally safe” concentrations of mercury.
  
• Health risks arise when methylmercury, synthesized by aquatic bacteria, accumulates in fish and whales. Humans eating inordinate amounts of such animals risk mercury poisoning (hydrargyria). This danger is mitigated by the pervasive presence of the methylmercury blocker selenium in fish. Seychelles Islanders eat fish twice a day for their entire lives without succumbing to hydrargyria.
  
• Epidemics of mercury pollution appear in computer simulations concocted by enviro-scientists but not in public health records. Hospitals are not crammed with hydrargyria sufferers.
  
• Faroe Islanders display detectable, yet contentious, evidence of mercury poisoning. (The Faroe Islands, situated between Iceland and Scotland, are home to 40,000 people.) Whale is a Faroe Islander staple. Whales are low in selenium, high in methylmercury. Faroe Islanders have mercury concentrations 350 times higher than average Americans. International officials have asked them to stop eating whales, but the Faroese do not think this is necessary.
  
• The international precautionary level for mercury in humans, 58 parts per billion (ppb), comes from the Faroe Islands studies. If those studies are properly adjusted for the presence of other chemicals, the level would be 71 ppb.
  
• A 1999 Centre for Disease Control study sampled 1,709 US women of childbearing age. All had mercury levels in the 1 to 21 ppb range; none were symptomatic.
  
• The EPA arbitrary arrived at its “reference dose” by dividing the Faroe Islands study level by 10, thus yielding an uber-precautionary level of 5.8 ppb.
  
• Alarms were sounded after a 2008 study of Floridians revealed mercury concentrations as high as 25 ppb. However, a study of 550-year-old mummies from Alaska revealed concentrations 5 times that level. Similarly, a study of tuna conducted between 1972 and 1998 showed declining mercury levels.
  
• The EPA’s main worry is for pregnant women who subsist on freshwater fish – a mythical social cohort. After investigating the matter for a quarter century, the EPA has yet to come up with a single case of a baby being developmentally disabled by mercury pollution.
  
• American coal-fired power plants are responsible for 3% of the mercury floating in American skies. Volcanoes, subsea vents, and geysers contribute almost all environmental mercury. Forest fires are another source of environmental mercury as trees extract mercury from the subsoil and release it during combustion.
  
• Mercury-scare stats, and other enviro-toxic tales, are often variations of the “no threshold fallacy.” By this illogic: If a substance has toxic potential, then large emissions of this substance, even in concentrations of a few parts per billion, must be surreptitiously poisoning people. In reality, such dilute concentrations do not harm anyone. A block of ice crashing onto a person’s head can be lethal, but snowflakes do not fracture thousands of skulls every year.

There is no mercury danger from coal fired power plants.

None.

 

[mamooth]

There is no mercury danger from coal fired power plants.

None.

Then why can't I eat the crayfish from my creek? How did all that mercury get into them?

Much of my state (Indiana) is like that. You can't eat the fish you catch. And it sure as hell isn't natural, since the streams weren't always mercury-contaminated.

USGS Professional Paper 1780: Mercury in Indiana watersheds: retrospective for 2001-2006
---
From a retrospective view, mercury concentrations in Indiana watersheds routinely exceeded criteria protective of humans and commonly exceeded criteria protective of wildlife. Atmospheric mercury wet deposition was a predominant factor, but not the single factor, affecting mercury in Indiana watersheds. Mercury in wastewater discharges and atmospheric mercury dry deposition apparently contributed a substantial part of the mercury yield from some watersheds.
---

Conclusion: Bri is being a UsefulIdiot again. His political cult told him to parrot this nonsense, so he did.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no mercury danger from coal fired power plants.

None.

Then why can't I eat the crayfish from my creek? How did all that mercury get into them?

Much of my state (Indiana) is like that. You can't eat the fish you catch. And it sure as hell isn't natural, since the streams weren't always mercury-contaminated.

USGS Professional Paper 1780: Mercury in Indiana watersheds: retrospective for 2001-2006
---
From a retrospective view, mercury concentrations in Indiana watersheds routinely exceeded criteria protective of humans and commonly exceeded criteria protective of wildlife. Atmospheric mercury wet deposition was a predominant factor, but not the single factor, affecting mercury in Indiana watersheds. Mercury in wastewater discharges and atmospheric mercury dry deposition apparently contributed a substantial part of the mercury yield from some watersheds.
---

Conclusion: Bri is being a UsefulIdiot again. His political cult told him to parrot this nonsense, so he did.

For one thing, the EPA sets ridiculously low standards for mercury. For another, how do we know the mercury in your area is from local coal fired power plants? How do you know the streams weren't always mercury contaminated? Mercury is a natural substance. Forest fires are a large source of mercury in the environment. Mercury can be leached out of the soil. Also, coal fired power plants aren't the source of mercury in waste water. Power plants don't discharge waste water.

Conclusion: you are a typical left-wing hack who is happy to serve as a useful tool in OBAMA's war on cheap abundant energy and parrot the regimes anti-capitalist propaganda..

 

[American_Jihad]

The Magical Thinking of the Left

January 3, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

The Supreme Court of Iceland has ordered a halt to road construction because of the environmental impact on the elves. Most of the modern world no longer believes in elves, fairies or gnomes; but environmentalists still do.

Members of the environmentalist terrorist group Earth Liberation Front refer to themselves as “elves” and to their acts of sabotage and vandalism as “elving” or “pixieing.” Environmentalist eco-pagans divided themselves into “fairies” and “trolls” with the fairies sticking to non-violence while the trolls were more apt to get physical.

...

The left likes to claim that it’s part of the reality-based community. But the reality that it’s based on exists only in the human imagination. The unreal left lives in an imaginary world of fantasy economics where money is infinite, in a world of fantasy science where cow flatulence is the greatest threat to mankind and in a world of imaginary politics where everything is possible if only they believe it is true.

A sufficiently advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic, but the left’s ideological eco-magic is no substitute for science.

The Magical Thinking of the Left | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Abraham3]

One does not need to sign onto the Global Warming is going to kill us all TEAM to understand that pollution is a bad thing.

the problem is.....a large fraction of people think CO2 is pollution!!

there are pollutants from burning fossil fuels but CO2 isnt one of them.

Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?

It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.

 

[Abraham3]

USMB Badlands ----> The Liberal Mind and how it's occupied
xXx Tell The Children The Truth xXx
WARNING---> xXx Muslim Sexual Perversion xXx & Islam a peaceful religion - B/S
MooHamMudd = Drunken Murdering Lunatic & Child Molesting BEAST
ACORN = American Communist Organization of Radical Negroids
CAIR = Criminal Association of Islamic Radicals
Progressive/Liberals = deviousness and sinisterism
SHOVE Political Correctness, Environmentalism, Multiculturalism & progressives!
ACLU = American Communist Liberal Union
ACA = American Communist Agenda aka ObongoCare
*******************************************

I'm surprised even USMB allows this level of religious and racial bigotry.

 

[bripat9643]

Dumb fuck, the primary source of lead and mercury are coal fired generation plants. Shut those down and you solve much of the GHG increase and, at the same time, almost completely shut down the primary source of lead and mercury in this nation.

Wrong, asshole. Natural sources are responsible for over 95% of mercury added to the environment.

 

[bripat9643]

One does not need to sign onto the Global Warming is going to kill us all TEAM to understand that pollution is a bad thing.

the problem is.....a large fraction of people think CO2 is pollution!!

there are pollutants from burning fossil fuels but CO2 isnt one of them.

Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?

If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.

It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.

CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.

 

[Abraham3]

the problem is.....a large fraction of people think CO2 is pollution!!

there are pollutants from burning fossil fuels but CO2 isnt one of them.

Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?

If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.

It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.

CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.

No one is directly adding water to the atmosphere. We are doing so indirectly by increased evaporation from increased temperatures.

CO2 is raising global temperatures. If you are unwilling to admit that, there is no point in talking to you at all.

 

[mamooth]

"Paranoid whackaloon political cultists of the right act like paranoid whackaloon political cultists. Film at 11."

 

[American_Jihad]

Think Progress Blames Winter Snow Storm on Global Warming​

“Of course, the atmosphere is now charged with more energy via extra heat and moisture than it used to have, so any storm that forms now has more fuel to work with.”

2.13.2014 |Jeff Dunetz

...

The progressive site claims that warming has charged the atmosphere with energy leading to stronger storms.

““This is just a strong winter storm,” Francis said. “Of course, the atmosphere is now charged with more energy via extra heat and moisture than it used to have, so any storm that forms now has more fuel to work with.”

And while Pax [the Weather Channel's name for this storm] brings frigid conditions to parts of the U.S., the global trend is clearly toward warming and several spots across the globe are grappling with unprecedented high temperatures. In Alaska, extremely unseasonable warm weather has destabilized the snowpack that’s there every year, causing a series of a dozen avalanches that buried roads 40 feet deep and hundreds of feet long last month.

The article uses examples of one month in Greenland and Brazil, and a different month in Russia while ignoring the long-term undeniable trend that the earth has not gotten any warmer for the past 16 years.

Think Progress Blames Winter Snow Storm on Global Warming | Truth Revolt

 

[ScienceRocks]

That radical environmentalism is why we have clean water, clean air, long life spans and more efferent per gallon cars.

So you want to argue against success?

 

[American_Jihad]

Gingrich Calls For John Kerry's Resignation Over Climate Change Comments ​

Caroline Schaeffer
February 18, 2014

John Kerry’s speech in Indonesia in which he called climate change a “weapon of mass destruction” and more dangerous than terrorism or poverty prompted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to question the Secretary of State’s sanity.

Gingrich took to Twitter to express his displeasure and disbelief.

The most direct reaction to kerrey’s global warming speech is to ask if he is completely out of touch with reality.
...

Gingrich Calls For John Kerry's Resignation Over Climate Change Comments | Independent Journal Review

 

[flacaltenn]

Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?

If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.

It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.

CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.

No one is directly adding water to the atmosphere. We are doing so indirectly by increased evaporation from increased temperatures.

CO2 is raising global temperatures. If you are unwilling to admit that, there is no point in talking to you at all.

Actually land use DOES add water vapor to the air.. Massive amounts in farming irrigation, dam projects, and actually, every time you cover the ground with asphalt or a concrete slab. Water vapor is also a primary byproduct of combustion due to fossil fuels..

 

[flacaltenn]

Gingrich Calls For John Kerry's Resignation Over Climate Change Comments ​

Caroline Schaeffer
February 18, 2014

John Kerry’s speech in Indonesia in which he called climate change a “weapon of mass destruction” and more dangerous than terrorism or poverty prompted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to question the Secretary of State’s sanity.

Gingrich took to Twitter to express his displeasure and disbelief.

The most direct reaction to kerrey’s global warming speech is to ask if he is completely out of touch with reality.
...

Gingrich Calls For John Kerry's Resignation Over Climate Change Comments | Independent Journal Review

This should happen right after Gingrinch apologizes for making out with Pelosi over Global Warming Awareness..

 

[bripat9643]

Fucking bullshit. The outflow of the Mississippi still has enough chemicals used in agriculture to cause a huge dead spot in the Gulf. We are still putting too much lead and mercury in the air from coal fired generation plants. And each advance in technology brings a whole new set of pollutants to be taken care of.

Without the environmentalists, our rivers would still be open sewers, and corperations would still poison our children with lead and mercury.

Good luck eliminating chemicals from agricultural runoff. Any attempt to do so would lead to mass starvation. Coal fired power plants don't put lead into the atmosphere. The amount of Mercury they emit is miniscule compared to natural sources, so where do you get this "too much" horseshit? That's the problem with environmentalists: they have a ridiculous perspective on what a reasonable amount of pollution is. To them, anything above zero is "too much," even if natural sources swamp manmade emissions.

 

[bripat9643]

That radical environmentalism is why we have clean water, clean air, long life spans and more efferent per gallon cars.

So you want to argue against success?

There's a economic principle called "diminishing returns." All the major improvements in the environment have already been implemented. Now everything the EPA does isn't worth the price. Its attempt to shut down coal fired power plants is a case in point. Any improvement in health won't be measureable. Their cost benefit analysis are a joke. They are outright fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

"Paranoid whackaloon political cultists of the right act like paranoid whackaloon political cultists. Film at 11."

AGW is a whackaloon cult.