All this green talk got me wondering about what it would take to "restore our Earth " (whatever that means ) . I think it is a whole lot of Malthusian nonsense .

Restore our Earth proposed to focus on " natural processes, emerging green technologies, and innovative thinking that can restore the world’s ecosystems. In this way, the theme rejects the notion that mitigation or adaptation are the only ways to address climate change. "
Toolkit | Earth Day 2021: Restore Our Earth | Earth Day (https://www.earthday.org/toolkit-earth-day-2021-restore-our-earth/)

To what condition should the Earth be restored to ? Humans have impacted the earth environment for over 5,000 years and probably more (I based that on when agrarian society roughly began) .

Do we want to restore the earth to pre-industrial revolution ;a time when human life expectancy was less than 30 years ? Today the average life expectancy is over 70 years .Median age has increased from 21.5 in 1970 to 30.9 in 2020.

Maybe go back to the 1970s where 8.4/100,000 people died from famine compared to 0.5/100,000 in the last decade?

Do we wish to reverse some of the positive gains to the human condition that advances have made ? Death rates from air pollution per 100,000 declined from 111.3 in 1990 to 63.8 in 2017.Deaths from poor people burning dung, crop waste, charcoal, and coal for heat and cooking- has declined from 5.8% to 2.9 % over that same period .
Human emissions of ozone depleting gasses have declined from 215,000 tons in 1961 to 155,000 tons in 2014. (Natural emissions are about 165,000 tons annually.)Deaths from polluted water has declined from 4.5 percent in 1990 to 2.2 percent in 2017 Death from unsafe sanitation has declined from 31.4/100,000 to 10.7/100,000 .

So restore the earth to when ?????????? ...a time where humans were smaller ,poorer per capita and had a shorter life expectancy ??????
My own sense is the the environmentalists believe humans are the plague that has to be eradicated .

All this green talk got me wondering about what it would take to "restore our Earth " (whatever that means )

Pretty simple. It means to stop polluting the environment. Why is that so hard to understand?

Reminds me of how some people can't understand "Black Lives Matter". They think it means ONLY black lives matter, when it obviously refers to the careless and murderous killing of unarmed blacks by cops.

Pretty simple. It means to stop polluting the environment. Why is that so hard to understand?

if it was that simple . you mean simplistic .

Like JFKerry telling the climate conference that not only do we need to go carbon neutral ; but we need "to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."

Again ,no thought process there . Carbon dioxide is an essential gas . But let's rush to it because Greta and All Out Crazy say we only have a few years left

"And that means we need the innovative technologies to do that, or to be able to know that we can store it and – or turn it into something. We haven’t discovered that yet."
John Kerry's Closing Remarks at Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate - United States Department of State John Kerry Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate Day One Closing Remarks (https://www.state.gov/john-kerry-virtual-leaders-summit-on-climate-day-one-closing-remarks/)

Like JFKerry telling the climate conference that not only do we need to go carbon neutral ; but we need "to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."Could the context have referred to EXCESS carbon dioxide? Too much can cause all life on earth to die.

John (a private jet is the only choice for someone like me ) should lead by example . Maybe he can start by sucking all the Co2 from his jet .

What level of C02 in the atmosphere is excessive ? During the Ordovician period atmospheric CO2 concentration was at 3000 to 9000 ppm! Still the average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today's temps .

There were also higher concentrations during the Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods.

The assumption is that Co2 levels are the only drivers of climate change . It is not . I can think of at least 3 other non-anthropological reasons that the climate changes ...volcanic activity ; solar cycles ; El Nino in the Pacific .

John (a private jet is the only choice for someone like me ) should lead by example

Legitimate point. But not really germane.


The assumption is that Co2 levels are the only drivers of climate change

No one has made that assumption. It gets publicity because it is relatively easy for the average person to understand.


I can think of at least 3 other non-anthropological reasons that the climate changes ...volcanic activity ; solar cycles ; El Nino in the Pacific .

That does not eliminate man-made causes.

"to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."That was a really funny comment and reflects perfectly the non-thinking approach to so many subjects. There is, at present, no technology available or even conceivable which could "suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere" in anything that even comes within sight of meaningful amounts. He might as well have suggested we "suck the excess heat out of the atmosphere", or that we simply cool off the sun in some marginal amount. And in an age of beyond reckless spending and deficits, with no solution in sight for any of that, to propose these kinds of massive spending programs would be laughable if not for the fact that he, and other liberal dems like him, actually take all of this seriously.

It's beyond incredible.

It's beyond incredible.

"And in terms of innovation, there are great possibilities, I think, and I’ve been amazed by the number of countries that are already really chasing after green hydrogen, blue hydrogen. And hydrogen, I think, is something that makes a lot of us salivate a little bit. "

Hydrogen is an attractive fuel in that the only product of combustion is water. Now coming up with lots of hydrogen?? There’s the rub, and water vapor is a green house gas itself.

Tomder --

How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making? Also, ordinary run-of-the-mill scientists in agreement?

How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making?Very simple. The basic premise (the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making?) is not true.


If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.


2. How do we know the 97% agree?
To elaborate, how was that proven?
Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com (http://www.skepticalscience.com/), a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html):
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=1bb7e5623f9f


The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) What We Know (https://whatweknow.aaas.org/) site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."

That is far, far removed from your "catastrophe" addition.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

The catastrophe is that many people believe this new religion

All too true.

Tomder --

How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making? Also, ordinary run-of-the-mill scientists in agreement?









When did science become something of consensus? Can a skeptic get funding to do research ? Consensus is the business of politics. Think the Goracle who in 2006 made a fortune by claiming the earth sea levels would rise by 20 feet in the near future . Still waiting . The sea levels have not significantly changed since then. (he also admitted that he used his influence as a climate guru to promote ethanol . He later admitted to that being a hoax to prop up corn producers. )



Science only needs one person to be right and then the consensus becomes irrelevant even if the 'great majority' disagree .
I have seen consensus proven wrong too many times . Galileo is too easy . How about all that consensus in the 1970s that said that a coming ices age was the result of anthropologic activity ?


Remember when that hole in the ozone layer was going to lead to human extinction ?


'We want action now !'is the battle cry . What action ? That is less clear . ]Nobody ever seems to articulate very well what the action entails except it involved more tax and spend ;more power to the leviathan ,with more control over citizens and how they live their lives . The pattern is the same . The left seizes on the idea that we are in crisis and then acts the way Rahm Emanuel advised ..... don't let a crisis go to waste .


The catastrophe is that many people believe this new religion

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.943431266.5683/raf,750x1000,075,t,FFFFFF:97ab1c12de.jpg

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/162332317_4213095608710063_2517204838132321082_n.j pg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=HOB_33pGoC4AX9y0ox_&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=1d05c48010b4872e441f8902598ea547&oe=60A9FB21

When did science become something of consensus?

Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it. A theory is proposed after research (sometimes years) is tested, and is tested again. The testing goes on until science is satisfied the theory is correct. The tests may have been done thousands of times yielding the same result until a consensus is formed. That's how science becomes science.

Your idea of consensus is more like a political compromise. That is NOT scientific consensus. You may also be confusing consensus with prediction based on observation. Predictions are never 100% but they are never 0% either. One prediction that is coming true is the rise in sea level.

Sea level rise is significant over the last 25 years and is the result of global warming leading to future (not very distant) catastrophic coastal flooding affecting 300 million people. Global warming melts glaciers (observed) and water expands as temperatures increase taking up more volume (proven science). The attached Forbes article below estimates this starting to occur by 2050.



'We want action now !'is the battle cry. Nobody ever seems to articulate very well what the action entails except it involved more tax and spend ;more power to the leviathan ,with more control over citizens and how they live their lives . The pattern is the same . The left seizes on the idea that we are in crisis

I appreciate your including this last paragraph. It tells me what I suspected all along. The opposition comes from the right-wing and it is not about science at all, it is about politics. I needed to see it in black-and-white, which you have done. Thank you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2019/10/30/shocking-new-maps-show-how-sea-level-rise-will-destroy-coastal-cities-by-2050/?sh=2c305b40456c

Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific, or the incredibly enormous sea of discarded plastic near the Philippines? And there are too many more sites to count! Animals (birds and large fish) get trapped in discarded fishing nets and plastic bags, land mammals get their heads stuck in the mouths of mostly empty and discarded glass and plastic jars.

We are killing this Earth!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GBJjKaX7u8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yomf5pBN8dY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCmYUQ1Q88

the petrochemical industries are to blame, every product should be sold with a requirement to be recycled

Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific, or the incredibly enormous sea of discarded plastic near the Philippines?One of the great exaggerations on the planet. There are some patches of plastic, but hardly the entire area. At any rate, what does that have to do with climate change?

One of the great exaggerations on the planet.

The Pacific patch is between 275,300 and 698,000 square miles depending on how it is measured. Texas is about 270,000 square miles. The patch is three times the size of France.

One of the great exaggerations on the planet. There are some patches of plastic, but hardly the entire area. At any rate, what does that have to do with climate change?
Sorry to disappoint you -- not an exaggeration.

Please google how all that trash and plastic is affecting the climate. I'd give you links but you will trash them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UynITtG7HLE

And in most of it, there is no plastic. People try to conjure up images of solid masses of large plastic materials. That simply is not true.


Garbage patches aren’t a solid patch. The name conjures images of a floating landfill in the middle of the ocean, with miles of bobbing plastic bottles and rogue yogurt cups. While it's true that these areas have a higher concentration of plastic than other parts of the ocean, much of the debris found in these areas are small bits of plastic, or microplastics, smaller than 5mm in size that are suspended throughout the water column. The debris is more like flecks of pepper floating throughout a bowl of soup, rather than a skim of fat that accumulates or sits on the surface. Microplastics are nearly ubiquitous today in the marine environment and may come from larger pieces of plastic that have broken down over time, from fleece jackets or plastic microbeads added to face scrubs. The impacts of these microplastics on marine life is an area of active research.

https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html


I'd give you links but you will trash them.In other words, you have no links. Thankfully, I do.

Are garbage patches really islands of trash that you can actually walk on?

Nope! Although garbage patches have higher amounts of marine debris, they’re not “islands of trash” and you definitely can’t walk on them. The debris in the garbage patches is constantly mixing and moving due to winds and ocean currents. This means that the debris is not settled in a layer at the surface of the water, but can be found from the surface, throughout the water column, and all the way to the bottom of the ocean. Not only that, the debris within the garbage patches is primarily microplastics, tiny plastic pieces less than five millimeters in size. Many of these microplastics are the result of larger plastic debris that has broken into small pieces from exposure to the sun, salt, wind, and waves. Others, such as microbeads from products like facewashes or microfibers from synthetic clothing, are already small in size when they enter the water. With such small debris items making up the majority of the garbage patches and the constant movement of this debris, it’s possible to sail through a garbage patch without even realizing it.


The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the size of Texas and you can see it from space!

Not so much. Since the garbage patches are constantly moving and mixing with winds and ocean currents, their size continuously changes. They can be very large, but since they’re made up primarily of microplastic debris, they definitely can’t be seen from space.

https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/debunking-myths-about-garbage-patches.html

Both of those links, you will notice, are from NOAA.

Did you look at the videos I posted?

I looked at two, neither of which was anything more than internet speculation. I told you what NOAA said. Believe TOMONEWS or believe the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There is no giant garbage patch. It cannot be seen from space. It is almost entirely micro sized plastic particles that are not concentrated. Believe what you will. Your choice.

In the U.S., trash is not dumped at sea so we are not the source of the problem one way or the other.

In the U.S., trash is not dumped at sea so we are not the source of the problem one way or the other.
I can't believe you looked at those videos and posted what you did. Like Doubting Thomas.

Yes, Americans dump their trash all over creation. On our trips to the hospital for my transfusions or blood draw appointments, trash lines the highways, is in the gutters. The strip malls' business owners regularly send employees outside to pick up the debris.

Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it. Science is about testable hypothesis that have duplicatable results . You don't get that from suspect data being entered into computers that spit out predetermined models . (ie East Anglia emails confirming that they used "Michael Mann's trick " to "hide the decline " when producing a graph showing a hockey stick like increase in global temps ) .

Yes, Americans dump their trash all over creation. On our trips to the hospital for my transfusions or blood draw appointments, trash lines the highways, is in the gutters. The strip malls' business owners regularly send employees outside to pick up the debris.That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean. Didn't you listen to your own video which stated that the offending nations were all from Asia?

If you listen to TOMONEWS rather than NOAA, then I can't help you.

This was an old trick the Excon used to use. When discussing climate change he would talk of all types of pollution and would avoid the discussion about climate change. Is there a relationship between plastics in the ocean and atmospheric temperature ? If there is then please explain how plastics in the ocean affect the atmospheric temperatures.

Perhaps they reflect sunlight

That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean.
The town you live in is squeaky clean of trash dumped along the streets and sidewalks? (My point was that humans are pigs!)


Didn't you listen to your own video which stated that the offending nations were all from Asia?
Yes, and much of that trash bobbles along the coasts of the Philippine Islands.

***What and Where Are Garbage Patches?

Garbage patches are large areas of the ocean where litter, fishing gear, and other debris - known as marine debris - collects. They are formed by rotating ocean currents called “gyres.” You can think of them as big whirlpools that pull objects in. The gyres pull debris into one location, often the gyre’s center, forming “patches.”

There are five gyres in the ocean. One in the Indian Ocean, two in the Atlantic Ocean, and two in the Pacific Ocean. Garbage patches of varying sizes are located in each gyre.

The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics (https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html), which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and California. It is the most well known patch. While some areas of the patch have more trash than others, much of the debris is made of microplastics (https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html) (by count). Because microplastics are smaller than a pencil eraser, they are not immediately noticeable to the naked eye. It’s more like pepper flakes swirling in a soup than something you can skim off the surface. You may come across larger items, like plastic bottles and nets, but it’s possible to sail through some areas of a garbage patch and not see any debris at all. Garbage patches are huge! It’s difficult to determine an exact size as the trash is constantly moving with ocean currents and winds.

The Impact of Garbage Patches on the Environment.

Garbage patches, especially the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, are far out in the middle of the ocean where people hardly ever go. Because they are so remote, it can be hard to study them.

Scientists rarely get to see the impacts of garbage patches on animals first hand. So far, we know that marine debris found in garbage patches can impact wildlife in a number of ways:


Entanglement and ghost fishing (https://blog.marinedebris.noaa.gov/snorkelers-looking-remove-marine-debris-find-surprise-and-something-great-happens): Marine life can be caught and injured, or potentially killed in certain types of debris. Lost fishing nets are especially dangerous. In fact they are often called “ghost” nets because they continue to fish even though they are no longer under the control of a fisher. Ghost nets can trap or wrap around animals, entangling them. Plastic debris with loops can also get hooked on wildlife - think packing straps, six-pack rings, handles of plastic bags, etc.
Ingestion (https://blog.marinedebris.noaa.gov/microplastics-megafauna): Animals may mistakenly eat plastic and other debris. We know that this can be harmful to the health of fish, seabirds, and other marine animals. These items can take up room in their stomachs, making the animals feel full and stopping them from eating real food.
Non-native species (https://blog.marinedebris.noaa.gov/marine-debris-invasive-species): Marine debris can transport species from one place to another. Algae, barnacles, crabs, or other species can attach themselves to debris and be transported across the ocean. If the species is invasive, and can settle and establish in a new environment, it can outcompete or overcrowd native species, disrupting the ecosystem.***
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html


That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean.
Especially read and memorize the Entanglement and Ingestion points above.

Especially read and memorize the Entanglement and Ingestion points above.

Excellent, WG! You saved me the time doing that.

Science is about testable hypothesis that have duplicatable results

Didn't I say that? You must have missed it. Here it is again ---

Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it. A theory is proposed after research (sometimes years) is tested, and is tested again. The testing goes on until science is satisfied the theory is correct. The tests may have been done thousands of times yielding the same result until a consensus is formed. That's how science becomes science.


You don't get that from suspect data being entered into computers that spit out predetermined models . (ie East Anglia emails confirming that they used "Michael Mann's trick " to "hide the decline " when producing a graph showing a hockey stick like increase in global temps

Anecdotes are not science.

So you simply reposted what I have already posted because...?

The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many (like Wondergirl) to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics (https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html), which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

So your idea that this so called "Garbage Patch" is an area of visible, serious plastic debris the size of Texas is thus shown to be a wild exaggeration which is basically untrue. Now is this something we should be concerned about? I would agree with that, but it is not the problem you have attempted to portray it as being, and not even close.

So you simply reposted what I have already posted because...?

The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many (like Wondergirl) to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics (https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html), which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

So your idea that this so called "Garbage Patch" is an area of visible, serious plastic debris the size of Texas is thus shown to be untrue.
Please reread my (and your) post about what's in the Pacific Ocean. Especially note: "You may come across larger items, like plastic bottles and nets, but it’s possible to sail through some areas of a garbage patch and not see any debris at all. Garbage patches are huge! It’s difficult to determine an exact size as the trash is constantly moving with ocean currents and winds."
And what about the videos I posted of very visible and identifiable trash on Philippine et al. beaches?

And I had asked, "Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific?" You even confirmed there's plastic in the ocean -- microplastics, yes -- but plastic that messes up marine life.

Once a cherrypicker, always a cherrypicker.

And what about the videos I posted of very visible and identifiable trash on Philippine et al. beaches?You mean like the one from that famous science sight, TOMONEWS? I already told you I watched two of them. They are using a robot voice to read prepared text. It's plainly just a collection of largely still photos glued together to make an internet video for a profit.

But like I said, you can believe TOMONEWS, or you can believe NOAA.

You mean like the one from that famous science sight, TOMONEWS? I already told you I watched two of them.
Watch the others. I dare you. How about this one (Mount Everest):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCmYUQ1Q88

I'll post more! Plan on a swim vacation on the Philippine coast or a hike up Everest.

More!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fCYB7kyRyYo

Worth a second viewing!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yomf5pBN8dY

It was on the weekend news -- a lake in the West, and a major water source for nearby cities and towns -- is going dry from overuse. One solution is to recapture and purify water from toilets et al., sewer water.

You do realize the topic is climate change?

should I post a video on how to change a flat tire???

I am sticking with NOAA.

You do realize the topic is climate change?

should I post a video on how to change a flat tire???

I am sticking with NOAA.
Yep. Climate change is happening also because we humans are such pigs and so uncaring about what we dump into and onto our beautiful world. All that plastic -- especially the manufacturing of it -- affects our climate.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/
And that's what I used too. Another NOAA quote: "Plastics are the most common form of marine debris. They can come from a variety of land- and ocean-based sources, enter the water in many ways, and impact the ocean and Great Lakes. Once in the water, plastic debris never fully biodegrades."
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/images/plastics-ocean-infographic

we humans are such pigsSpeak for yourself.


we dump into and onto our beautiful world. All that plastic -- especially the manufacturing of it -- affects our climate.Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.


And that's what I used too. Another NOAA quote: "Plastics are the most common form of marine debris. They can come from a variety of land- and ocean-based sources, enter the water in many ways, and impact the ocean and Great Lakes. Once in the water, plastic debris never fully biodegrades."And that relates to climate change not at all. As I've said before, I'm all for resolving the issue, but not at the expense of your shrill, over the top rhetoric.

Speak for yourself.
Did you watch the Everest video? Do you ever walk in urban and suburban areas and along trafficked roads? Take a paper garbage bag with you. Hey, go to a fast-food restaurant and observe people throwing wrappers out of their car windows as they leave the driveup and get back onto the main road. Humans are pigs.


Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.
Google "plastic manfacturing climate change" (minus the quote marks)

And that relates to climate change not at all. As I've said before, I'm all for resolving the issue, but not at the expense of your shrill, over the top rhetoric.
You didn't read this that I posted (and there are many other sites like it by other science people and groups):
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/

I'm just glad you haters, and deniers are a minority.

Did you watch the Everest video? Do you ever walk in urban and suburban areas and along trafficked roads? Take a paper garbage bag with you. Hey, go to a fast-food restaurant and observe people throwing wrappers out of their car windows as they leave the driveup and get back onto the main road. Humans are pigs.Climate change. We are talking about climate change. What your human pig brethren do is between you and them.



Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.


Google "plastic manfacturing climate change" (minus the quote marks)As I said, you have nothing, as it always is. You make the claim; you do the research to back it up.


You didn't read this that I posted (and there are many other sites like it by other science people and groups):
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...limate-change/ (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/)I will read it now...reluctantly.

I read it. It basically makes silly points such as, "Oh my goodness. We have to transport plastic and that releases CO2. We use it for packaging that has to be transported and that releases CO2." If we weren't using plastics for packaging, we could use cardboard which would have to be transported...and release CO2. At no point was any reasonable estimate made on how much the use of plastics contributes to climate change. Did you see that???

I should have known better. In fact, I did.

At no point was any reasonable estimate made on how much the use of plastics contributes to climate change. Did you see that???

I should have known better. In fact, I did.
You didn't see those percentages?

Nope. Neither did you.

Nope. Neither did you.
Reading comprehension again?

***Under a business-as-usual scenario in which policies continue to foster plastics production, the sector’s fossil fuel consumption will only increase. Today, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastics, according to the World Economic Forum. If this reliance on plastics persists, plastics will account for 20% of oil consumption by 2050.***
And a bit further in the article:
***Land disturbance also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction. Kelso said each mile of pipeline must be surrounded by a “right of way” zone of cleared land. About 19.2 million acres have been cleared for oil and gas development in the United States. Assuming just a third of the impacted land is forested, 1.686 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere as a result of clearing, authors of the CIEL report said.
“These figures really add up over time because you’re talking about millions of miles of pipelines in the United States,” Kelso said. “You have to clear cut. So you’re taking all of the carbon from the trees and from soils and removing that from the earth basically and introducing it to the atmosphere.”***

Oh come on. You're being completely foolish. The issue was this. "...At no point was any reasonable estimate made on how much the use of plastics contributes to climate change."

All your quote noted was the percentage of oil that goes into making plastic. That itself does nothing to add to climate change. The last paragraph was laughable. "So you're taking all of the carbon from the trees and from the soils and removing that from the earth and introducing it to the atmosphere." What? They are really attempting to make a point that the miniscule, tiny amount of land affected by pipeline construction has anything even approaching a significant effect on global warming? That's completely stupid.

And you're an educator? I weep.

Weep on, sister. Weep for yourself. You completely missed the most simple question by half a mile.

Weep on, sister. Weep for yourself. You completely missed the most simple question by half a mile.
Then YOU tell me the answer.

Then YOU tell me the answer.

He has no answer. He is what is called a contrarian. He'll oppose any point you have for his troll-like pleasure. He'll do this until the cows come home. It's fun when he's so wrong - like in this thread.

Weep on, sister. Weep for yourself. You completely missed the most simple question by half a mile.
Actually, you're asking the wrong question. You asked: "How much [does] the use of plastics [contribute] to climate change?"

I answered a much more important question: "How much does the manufacture of plastics contribute to climate change?"

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. You asked: "How much [does] the use of plastics [contribute] to climate change?"

I answered a much more important question: "How much does the manufacture of plastics contribute to climate change?"

To paraphase an old movie" frankly my dear, he doesn't give a damn"

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. You asked: "How much [does] the use of plastics [contribute] to climate change?"

I answered a much more important question: "How much does the manufacture of plastics contribute to climate change?"Actually, you answered neither. Your passage only alluded to how much petroleum goes into making plastic. That does not answer or even address the question. The only reference to greenhouse gases was completely speculative and even if true, would amount to a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of CO2 released into the atmosphere. The figure of nearly 2 bil tons over a period of many years must be seen in light of over 40 billion tons PER year as a total, so the figure, if accepted, basically has no meaning. Even worse, it assumes that all of the pipelines supply petrol only to plastics industries. That of course is laughingly untrue.


***Under a business-as-usual scenario in which policies continue to foster plastics production, the sector’s fossil fuel consumption will only increase. Today, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastics, according to the World Economic Forum. If this reliance on plastics persists, plastics will account for 20% of oil consumption by 2050.***
And a bit further in the article:
***Land disturbance also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction. Kelso said each mile of pipeline must be surrounded by a “right of way” zone of cleared land. About 19.2 million acres have been cleared for oil and gas development in the United States. Assuming just a third of the impacted land is forested, 1.686 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere as a result of clearing, authors of the CIEL report said.
“These figures really add up over time because you’re talking about millions of miles of pipelines in the United States,” Kelso said. “You have to clear cut. So you’re taking all of the carbon from the trees and from soils and removing that from the earth basically and introducing it to the atmosphere.”***

Ok I throw one into the mix regarding solving the "problem". remove all manufacturing from China's dirty industries, and avoid reestablishing them in any country signed up to the BRI. China is financing coal fired power stations in places like Pakistan

Ok I throw one into the mix regarding solving the "problem". remove all manufacturing from China's dirty industries, and avoid reestablishing them in any country signed up to the BRI. China is financing coal fired power stations in places like Pakistan

So it is a global problem?

No, as I have said for a long time, it is a northern hemisphere problem

No, as I have said for a long time, it is a northern hemisphere problem

Global warming is happening in both hemispheres, but more slowly in the South because of the greater land mass in the North. Ocean water warms slowly.

no tal the theory is AGW is caused by humans emitting CO2 from industry, to wit, burning of fossil fuels, if you quit this in the northern hemisphere problem solved. Now I don't believe this but I do know that the ocean absorbs CO2

No, as I have said for a long time, it is a northern hemisphere problem

Creeping south as we speak!


Global warming is happening in both hemispheres, but more slowly in the South because of the greater land mass in the North. Ocean water warms slowly.

And expanding industrialization!


no tal the theory is AGW is caused by humans emitting CO2 from industry, to wit, burning of fossil fuels, if you quit this in the northern hemisphere problem solved. Now I don't believe this but I do know that the ocean absorbs CO2

At least you're finally catching on and that's a start.

I caught on a long time ago. AGW is the basis of a new science based religion

This report illustrates how climate models are manipulated to get a predetermined result .



Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming.

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, by Steven E. Koonin | RealClearEnergy (https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/05/20/unsettled_what_climate_science_tells_us_what_it_do esnt_and_why_it_matters_by_steven_e_koonin_778065. html)


“Unsettled” is an authoritative primer on the science of climate change that lifts the lid on The Science and finds plenty that isn’t as it should be. “As a scientist,” writes Koonin, “I felt the scientific community was letting the public down by not telling the whole truth plainly.” Koonin’s aim is to right that wrong.

Also facts from Koonin's book
“The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years,”
“Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century,“
“Since the middle of the twentieth century, the number of significant tornadoes hasn’t changed much at all, but the strongest storms have become less frequent,“
The rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,
Instead of droughts, “the past fifty years have been slightly wetter than average”
Rather than famine, “in the fifty years from 1961 to 2011, global yields of wheat, rice, and maize … each more than doubled,”
(“Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.” by Steven E. Koonin.) Who is Koonin ? He was the 2nd Undersecretary of Energy and Climate in the emperor's regime .

The fact is AGW is not man made at all, it is a natural process and man's efforts will be unrewarded

"As one modeller confesses, 'it’s a real challenge to model what we don’t understand.' ”

Really?

And another. "Climate models can’t even agree on what the current global average temperature is. “One particularly jarring feature is that the simulated average global surface temperature,” Koonin notes, “varies among models by about 3°C, three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth century warming they’re purporting to describe and explain.' "

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, by Steven E. Koonin | RealClearEnergy

This book by Koonin has been thoroughly rebutted by 2007 Nobelist Dr. Gary Yohe. For Dr. Yohe's many achievements over 40 years see the below link from Wesleyan University. Too much to post here.

https://gyohe.faculty.wesleyan.edu/

For the rebuttal of Koonin's book see the next link below for the details specifically replying to the incorrect claims made by Koonin.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

I realize it's a lot to read and most of you won't bother, but it's available here anyway for those seeking the truth.

I read the article. It was largely a complaint that Koonin did not agree with the ideas Yohe has accepted. The only thing he managed to challenge on anything even approaching a successful level was sea level rise. That was then followed by this incredible statement. "His teaser for Chapter 7 is an equally troubling misdirection. He promises to highlight “some points likely to surprise anyone who follows the news—for instance, that the global area burned by fires each year has declined by 25 percent since observations began in 1998.” Global statistics are meaningless in this context."

So in other words, Koonin was right in what he said. As anyone who studies science knows, you cannot take localized information (from, in this case, California) and extrapolate that to the globe. That's exactly what Yohe tried to do.

If that article is the best the left wingers have, then Koonin wrote a great book.

Only a american would think what goes on in California is typical of the rest of the world

You're kidding yourself big time if you think that's true. You're anti-American hatred/bias is really incredible.

This report illustrates how climate models are manipulated to get a predetermined result .


From Scientific American - A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong. In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action


"Regardless of what Koonin has written in his new book, the science is clear, and the consensus is incredibly wide. Scientists are generating and reporting data with more and more specificity about climate impacts and surrounding uncertainties all the time. This is particularly true with regard to the exaggerated natural, social and economic risks associated with climate extremes—the low-probability, high-consequence events that are such a vital part of effective risk management. This is not an unsettled state of affairs. It is living inside a moving picture of what is happening portrayed with sharper clarity and more detail with every new peer-reviewed paper."

In the long quote above, there is not a single instance of the use of data to refute Koonin's very well cited book. It's just Yohe's opinions and a highly questionable statement about a consensus regarding catastrophic climate change supposedly being "incredibly wide". I'd love to see the data supporting that allegation. Is it not standard practice to refute data with data, and if that is not done then wouldn't it seem to indicate that the individual is not able to do so?

You're kidding yourself big time if you think that's true. You're anti-American hatred/bias is really incredible.
What you dont see the truth in what I say?

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’


Twelve scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Inaccurate (https://climatefeedback.org/article-tag/inaccurate/), Misleading (https://climatefeedback.org/article-tag/misleading/).


SUMMARY

A Wall Street Journal article (https://archive.is/mrIyB) published in April 2021 reviews Steven Koonin’s book ‘Unsettled’. In ‘Unsettled’, Koonin, a theoretical physicist and professor at New York University, expresses his views on climate science.

Scientists who reviewed the article found that it builds on a collection of misleading and false claims. The article goes on to review the melting ice sheet, sea rise, tornadoes, crop yields and wildfires.

Details of above and several scientists who write about Koonin's errors including charts are both treated extensively in the below link.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-Steven-koonin/

The Climate Feedback article seems to be a well-cited, data based review of Koonin's book. I think the forest fires aspect is still suspect. California, for instance, suffers a lot because of poor forest management. Still, the sea level rise and Greenland ice sheet answers seemed to be well documented.

You're learning!!

The Climate Feedback article seems to be a well-cited, data based review of Koonin's book. I think the forest fires aspect is still suspect. California, for instance, suffers a lot because of poor forest management. Still, the sea level rise and Greenland ice sheet answers seemed to be well documented.

You're learning!! but you are not, sea level rise is a myth, islands like Tuvalu are sinking, there has been no appreciable rise in sea level in Sydney harbour since records began in the early 1800
This is all a nonsense, fires in California are fuelled by tree species not AGW

Not according to this. https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Fig.1-SLR-RatesTime.jpg

fires in California are fuelled by tree species not AGW

There were fires in California before white people came to the continent . What the natives understood but the envirowackos do not is that there has to be forest management ;controlled fires and clearing of underbrush .

Indigenous Tribes Restore Prescribed Burns in California (nature.org) (https://www.nature.org/en-us/magazine/magazine-articles/indigenous-controlled-burns-california/#:~:text=Indigenous%20people%20have%20been%20pract icing,their%20traditional%20lands%20are%20vital.&text=The%20fires%20even%20support%20the%20life%20c ycles%20of%20salmon.)

Not according to this. https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Fig.1-SLR-RatesTime.jpgand what is that another J curve? Meaningless without a legend

Global mean (average) sea level rise by millimeters per year. It would not be much, just several inches over a century. I have no idea if it's worth worrying about or not.

Depends upon where it is, as I said according to some measurements it is a myth, like the rest of AGW which is based on modelling and averages taken from who knows where

Depends upon where it is, as I said according to some measurements it is a myth, like the rest of AGW which is based on modelling and averages taken from who knows where

Having eyes, they see not.

Very nice of Gov. Whitmer to be so understanding and forgiving of herself. It was also a relief to find out that she is, indeed, a human. I wonder what she thought we saw her as, some kind of super-human?

"Yesterday, I went with friends to a local restaurant," Whitmer said in a statement obtained by the paper. "As more people arrived, the tables were pushed together. Because we were all vaccinated, we didn’t stop to think about it. In retrospect, I should have thought about it. I am human. I made a mistake, and I apologize."

I can only imagine the outcry of the liberal press if Trump had done this.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigans-whitmer-apologizes-after-photo-emerges-on-social-media

It's no wonder that flawed humans trying their best are given much more leeway than lying, cheating, corrupt bullies with big nasty mouths.

TDS, Tal, TDS

Start to "restore our earth" by picking up the trash that lines our streets, sidewalks, and roadways.

Start to "restore our earth" by picking up the trash that lines our streets, sidewalks, and roadways.Or even be less prone to put it there to begin with, but that is a difficult task. Been tried for decades. I've often thought we should put the juvenile delinquents out there to pick it up, but legally you can't do that. Shame.

Or even be less prone to put it there to begin with, but that is a difficult task. Been tried for decades. I've often thought we should put the juvenile delinquents out there to pick it up, but legally you can't do that. Shame.
Yes, I was going to mention that, to NOT dump. On Wednesday on my way to the hospital, I was thrilled to see, for the first time, orange-vested workers carrying large white bags and picking up trash in the grassy spaces and in the gutters along the busy highway lined with strip malls and restaurants..

They used to do that around here, but the expense became too much of a burden, or at least so it was said. I always feel a little sad watching those men and especially the women. Sad to see lives in such a terrible place.

Sad to see lives in such a terrible place.
I don't understand.

Yes, I was going to mention that, to NOT dump. On Wednesday on my way to the hospital, I was thrilled to see, for the first time, orange-vested workers carrying large white bags and picking up trash in the grassy spaces and in the gutters along the busy highway lined with strip malls and restaurants..

don't know why this should be a revelation to you, for years we have had clean up days organised throughout the nation where armies of volunteers pick up the trash, we also have tidy towns competitions where towns compete for the title, I have a award from one of these campaigns for my garden presented by the Mayor

there is even one civic minded citizen in my city who goes around picking up the trash

it is called the 'tragedy of the commons . ' When everyone owns it ;no one does

there is even one civic minded citizen in my city who goes around picking up the trash
Excellent, 'Clete!

But only one citizen? It's a wonderful opportunity for Scouts, church groups, school groups, village clubs, neighborhoods. And that teaches everyone not to toss their trash just anywhere. Plus, more bins can be set outside and in parking lots.
-- and regularly emptied.

Excellent, 'Clete!

But only one citizen? It's a wonderful opportunity for Scouts, church groups, school groups, village clubs, neighborhoods. And that teaches everyone not to toss their trash just anywhere. Plus, more bins can be set outside and in parking lots.
-- and regularly emptied.
Oh that is don't anyway but you always get some dill who doesn't use the bin or throws something from the car

Oh that is don't anyway but you always get some dill who doesn't use the bin or throws something from the car
Police et al. should watch for those and nail them and then give them 50 hours of community service picking up trash.

BLM is just waiting for that to happen. Right circumstances...right time...right video. That’s all it would take.

BLM is just waiting for that to happen. Right circumstances...right time...right video. That’s all it would take.
I'm doing my part!

Sad to see lives in such a terrible place.



I don't understand.I just meant it's sad to see them in such a bad place in life.

I just meant it's sad to see them in such a bad place in life.
Picking up trash? I'd do it in a heartbeat if I were younger.

I was the volunteer and court-ordered community-service coodinator at the public library where I worked for 25 years. A more willing and hard-working group of people I'd never known before.

Not picking up trash. Being a prisoner in jail.

Not picking up trash. Being a prisoner in jail.
I always thanked them for their diligent work and reminded them how much they were helping their community.

Police et al. should watch for those and nail them and then give them 50 hours of community service picking up trash.

we don't need as much police patrol as you do, cop cars are usually stationary using radar traps or booze/drug inspections