They Knew: Smoking Gun Discovered

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: rnaa

Food manufacturers are responsible for all the poop in the world!

Prove me wrong!

LOL, but I will take that challenge:

Politicians are also responsible for the poop in the world!

a reply to: interupt42

Agreed!

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: rnaa

Food manufacturers are responsible for all the poop in the world!

Prove me wrong!

LOL, but I will take that challenge:

Politicians are also responsible for the poop in the world!

I thought politicians were responsible for all the HOT AIR in the world.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So, I take it none of you bother with recycling, then, right?

Is it against your principles to reduce your waste, reuse or repurpose items if possible, or recycle them if not??

How many pounds of food do you throw away? How many plastic bottles are you responsible for discarding?

What do you do with old electronics?

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS???? It is real. It is YOUR FAULT if this planet becomes uninhabitable.

This is what none of the "environmentalists" want to really talk about. I got my degree in environmental science and I was a black sheep... they actually gave me a black sheep award when I graduated from the small program. They all talk about alternative energy and recycling but what they don't talk about, because it would mean drastic changes to the American lifestyle, is reducing the overall consumption of energy. We can recycle and use efficient energy, but the bottom line is that with the emerging economy in China and the rise in consumption in third-world countries, we need to CONSUME less. Not something Americans want to hear and the "environmentalists" are afraid to say it because they want their message to resonate with the mainstream.

We need to use less energy, total energy, to change things. That isn't a message that's easy to push so the "environmentalists" avoid that topic. No matter how efficient we get with our energy use the best answer is still using less energy. The generation of people graduating with environmental science degrees in 2015 do not understand that technology is a very comlpicated answer to a simple question. How do we reduce our impact on the environment? The answer isn't buying a Prius or installing solar panels... the answer is to use less. The reduce part of reduce, reuse, recycle, has really taken a back seat and it should be the most important part.

originally posted by: boomerdude
So, what effect did catalytic converters have on this data?

It allowed for the continued waste of 80% of our fuel.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
How about the millions of engineers that went to collage to learn that gasoline is only flammable in a vapor form mixed with oxygen yet they all design cars that drink liquid gas by the pound and never allow for proper vaporization.

Any semi-modern car with individual electronic fuel injectors atomize fuel very well and this is supplements economy with power to be usable along with aptomized head and intake geometry and the compression aids atomization to a stoeceometric ratio for combustion. Not to mention even more modern high pressure direct injection and DOHC 4 valve per cylinder over stroke (more stroke than) bore .5 liter per cylinder engines and you have about the peak of power versus economy. You'll notice many European cars like BMW and Mercedes are going to 4.0 liter V8s turbocharged for optimal power vs. effeceincy.

As far as the original topic it's no surprise that specialists knew about the increase in emissions what's dubious is it's actual effect in the real ecosystem that sees natural rises and and valleys in the atmosphere's composition.

All you Global Warming Deniers out there that have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry's lobbying, misinformation campaigns, self serving attacks on the scientific community and public education in general, please read that page from 1979 and recognize what it means: the fossil fuel industry has been actively lying for at least 35 years AND THEY DON"T GIVE A D@MN as long as they can keep the economy addicted to fossil fuel, and they don't have to take their holidays in Tuvalu.

So 'science' is above reproach now.

When science can no longer be questioned, It becomes about beliefs, and those beliefs more akin to a religion.

Seems to me the people who are science 'deniers' are those that push global warming.

Thus the church of climatology was born. The ironic part there is. The science now has a religious endorsement.

Global warming just can't or just doesn't want to distinguish their religious views from their 'scientific' views.

To repeat: global warming advocates are the science deniers.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

They all talk about alternative energy and recycling but what they don't talk about, because it would mean drastic changes to the American lifestyle, is reducing the overall consumption of energy.

We can recycle and use efficient energy,

Yep! Did you know that the solar tech in North Africa could power the ENTIRE WORLD with their panel-works?

but the bottom line is that with the emerging economy in China

and the rise in consumption in third-world countries, we need to CONSUME less. Not something Americans want to hear and the "environmentalists" are afraid to say it because they want their message to resonate with the mainstream.

Hey. I hear ya, but at least recycling and reducing waste and consumption do SOMETHING.


Every little bit, you know.

I just donated to Bernie Sanders' campaign.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: rnaa

Food manufacturers are responsible for all the poop in the world!

Prove me wrong!

LOL, but I will take that challenge:

Politicians are also responsible for the poop in the world!

Visuals usually help!

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
There is a theory that nicotene makes smoking tobacco addictive. It is a theory that is questioned by a very very large number of scientists.

Probably the stupidest comment I have ever seen, someone would have to be good to lie to themselves THAT much in believing that nicotene isn't addictive.

Oh it's you, the guy defending his weakness with absurd arguments that only other people also lying to themselves would addear to.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

To me the real question isn't if it does something, the question is does it do enough?

If I fell off a cliff I could flap my arms and that would be something, but I'm still going to be a red stain on the bottom of the cliff.

Solutions are only solutions if they solve a problem. Recycling and reusing are just sticks in the mud trying to change the flow of a river. I get upset because the "environmentalists" keep trying to push this idea that efficiency and recycling will save us. They won't. Reducing energy consumption isn't a popular idea, but it's the only one that works.

a reply to: rnaa


SURPRISE!!!!!


Not really.

Bravo! Well said, and please keep advocating for our Good Mother Earth.

This is also taking it's toll on our oceans. Let's see what good the Earth is to humans without those.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: rnaa

This is a failure of everyone, not just them.

We all would have revolted if they stopped production and use, then switching to what back then would be cost destructive to every economy.
We all wanted our cars, cheap easily accessable products, affordable energy, etc.
The responsibility is on everyone.

What?

I think you've missed the point entirely. These companies have been actively conducting a disinformation campaign to discourage movement away from their products. They also spend millions a year lobbying government to maintain subsidies that give them a competitive advantage in terms of profitability and to further stifle competition by other means (e.g. the push for laws that penalize people installing solar).

When it comes to promoting disinformation, the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have turned to some of the very same people an organizations — the Heartland Institute for example — for their propaganda needs.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Not sure if you're arguing with my point or against it.

In any case, the general (at least the intelligent and educated) consensus is that we need to do something.



Now.

originally posted by: muse7
Most companies are run by psychopaths that don't give a damn about others let alone the earth. All that matters to them is $$$..

The fact that we haven't made a noticeable change over to wind and solar energy just goes to show all of the disinformation that big oil and big coal companies spread in order to keep us hooked on their poisonous products

You mean the same wind energy that takes massive deisel engines to run ? lol

Do you know , that a wind turbine could spin non stop for its ENTIRE life span , and it would NEVER offset the amount of pollution and carbon it took to make it?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Not sure if you're arguing with my point or against it.

In any case, the general (at least the intelligent and educated) consensus is that we need to do something.


Now.

I like being confusing

I'm with your point to a degree, but I don't want us to stop there and I think it's a fatal flaw in the "environmentalists" handbook.

We should do something, but after we do something we should do more. Recycling and reusing is good, using less is better. I think the recycle and reuse part should be secondary to the reduce. If we consume less we output less, the most simple route to reducing environmental impacts.

I spend a good part of my day confused, you're in good company.

a reply to: neo96

When science can no longer be questioned?

Typical right-wing strategy; invent a fictional narrative of mistreatment, adopt a victim mentality. What you're complaining about is actually an inherent aspect of collective decision making. All things equal (all opinions aren't but for the sake of simplicity let's pretend they are), minority opinions aren't given the same consideration and WHY WOULD THEY BE? You want 50% of the consideration for 3% of the opinion.

The only minority embraced by fanatical right-wingers is the tiny minority of scientific opinions that agrees with their political programming.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Typical Left-wing strategy; invent a fictional narrative of mistreatment, adopt a victim mentality

My thoughts of climate change exactly.

Glad we agree.

a reply to: neo96

Its cause us crazy conservatives hate the environment!

You know the ones who actually use the land, farm the land, know how to live off the land......

WE HATE IT , WE HATE the earth and nature.......

Funny that Id wager more conservative earth haters actually spend more time in nature then those liberals screaming at us from concrete buildings in cities they never leave