Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?
I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
neither!
environmental activism, which is a celebration, a religion, has far worse impacts.
consider the approx 30,000 birds killed annually by the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project alone.
Or the numerous bird & bat deaths directly due to wind farms.
Ha, but when it come to human fatalities from things like environmental campaigns against DDT for malaria controll.
Or abject poverty forced on the third world & developing nations through more campaigns against cheap electricity,
look no futher than some rabid environmental campaigners to lay blame on.
Scum of the earth
Really don’t think one can use DDT mosquitoes and control in the same sentence.
The_observer said:
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
neither!
environmental activism, which is a celebration, a religion, has far worse impacts.
consider the approx 30,000 birds killed annually by the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project alone.
Or the numerous bird & bat deaths directly due to wind farms.
Ha, but when it come to human fatalities from things like environmental campaigns against DDT for malaria controll.
Or abject poverty forced on the third world & developing nations through more campaigns against cheap electricity,
look no futher than some rabid environmental campaigners to lay blame on.Scum of the earth
I don’t quite see how solar farms, wind farms and DDT fit into the ‘celebration’ criterium..
And no need to sign your name at the botom, the forum puts your handle at the top…
Lol @ stumpy.
I quite like the idea of the environmental movement being a celebration, too. I celebrate when I see a bit of nature.
Much less joyousness to revisit a place I used to live which was productive farmland, and is now a big hole in the ground. I expect the taxpayer will now have to pitch in to remediate it.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/16/one-weird-trick-prevents-bird-deaths-solar-towers/
The_observer said:
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
neither!
environmental activism, which is a celebration, a religion, has far worse impacts.
consider the approx 30,000 birds killed annually by the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project alone.
Or the numerous bird & bat deaths directly due to wind farms.
Ha, but when it come to human fatalities from things like environmental campaigns against DDT for malaria controll.
Or abject poverty forced on the third world & developing nations through more campaigns against cheap electricity,
look no futher than some rabid environmental campaigners to lay blame on.Scum of the earth
You really need to have a Bex and a good lie down.
why that’d be the celebration of life all’n the proliferating many venture every day
another example of where environmentalism has negative effects
Is Global Warming Fear Killing Wild Bees and Raising Sea Level?
December 31, 2015
by Jim Steele
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University
A recent Guardian article “Wild bees on the decline in key US agricultural ecosystems” adds further support to my analysis that debunked an earlier claim by Kerr 2015 that climate change had been killing wild bees. I had argued that an agricultural trend where increasing acreage of natural and agricultural habitats have been increasingly converted to corn for silage and biofuels in addition to the importation of exotic European diseases.
Using corn for biofuel makes no sense in terms of CO2 reduction or energy efficiency, yet due to global warming hysteria government agencies have subsidized the spread of corn fields.
Corn is wind pollinated and provides no nectar resources for pollinators. Corn has been steadily replacing pollinator friendly wild plants and pollinator friendly agricultural plants like soybean.
Cornfields also require irrigation that has also increased the extraction of groundwater. Groundwater extraction has now been projected to raise sea level by 0.87 mm/year, accounting for 25% of the estimate current sea level rise.
According to the Guradian, “The study estimated that wild bee numbers diminished in 23% of the continental United States between 2008 and 2013 in a trend driven by conversion of their natural habitat into farmland including corn for biofuel production.”
The study followed a 2014 memorandum by Barack Obama creating a task force to study pollinator losses. The task force in May called for preserving wide swathes of pollinator habitats.”
Inappropriate biofuel subsidies are driven by CO2 alarmism. As I continue to warn, bad climate science will only lead to bad environmental stewardship!
The_observer said:
another example of where environmentalism has negative effectsIs Global Warming Fear Killing Wild Bees and Raising Sea Level?
December 31, 2015
by Jim Steele
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State UniversityA recent Guardian article “Wild bees on the decline in key US agricultural ecosystems” adds further support to my analysis that debunked an earlier claim by Kerr 2015 that climate change had been killing wild bees. I had argued that an agricultural trend where increasing acreage of natural and agricultural habitats have been increasingly converted to corn for silage and biofuels in addition to the importation of exotic European diseases.
Technically aany global change to the environment IS a change to the climate. Moron.
another example of where environmentalism has negative effects
well no, that isn’t correct. your first “example” was a load of rubbish.
Postpocelipse said:
Technically aany global change to the environment IS a change to the climate. Moron.
fuck off shit for brains
The_observer said:
Postpocelipse said:Technically any global change to the environment IS a change to the climate. Moron.
fuck off shit for brains
No. My brain shit is obscuring that option………
Whose Supported Policies Kill More People: ISIS…or Greenpeace?
December 8th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Approximately 200,000 people have died due to global terrorism in the last 10 years.
During the same time, many millions of people (mostly women and children) have died due to policies promoted by Greenpeace and other “green” organizations (e.g. anti-DDT, anti-golden rice, anti-fossil fuel).
I’ve said it before…I don’t really care where our energy comes from…as long as it is abundant and affordable. Until someone comes up with an alternative energy source with those two characteristics, humanity is stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source.
It’s not like the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior runs on solar energy.
Since poverty is the leading cause of premature death in the world, and fossil fuels have enabled the world to prosper and live longer, more comfortable lives, being against fossil fuels is, in my opinion, either misguided or evil.
Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth
By Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace
Greenpeace is in effect is in a war against every species on the planet.
The organization I founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.
When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.
Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.
By opposing the use of DDT inside the homes of children exposed to the anopheles mosquito that carries malaria, Greenpeace contributed to the deaths of 40 million people and counting, most of them children. It now pretends it did not oppose DDT, but the record shows otherwise. On this as on so many issues, it got the science wrong. It has the deaths of those children on what passes for its conscience.
By opposing fossil-fueled power, it not only contributes to the deaths of many tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom its campaigns deny affordable, reliable, clean, continuous, low-tech, base-load, fossil-fueled electrical power: it also denies to all trees and plants on Earth the food they need.
Paradoxically, an organization that calls itself “Green” is against the harmless, beneficial, natural trace gas that nourishes and sustains all green things. Greenpeace is against greenery. Bizarrely, it is opposed to returning to the atmosphere a tiny fraction of the CO2 that was once present there.
personally i see helium balloons being more environmentally damaging. not just for the fact that they pollute the environment but that not only but also helium on earth is a diminishing resource. ask any scientist.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate
SR is always good for a read.
The_observer said:
Since poverty is the leading cause of premature death in the world, and fossil fuels have enabled the world to prosper and live longer, more comfortable lives, being against fossil fuels is, in my opinion, either misguided or evil.
Funny how the first people who will be wiped out in the event of serious CC are those in poor countries. Since we have what we need here and all those poor people are obviously getting in our way, I now agree that we should find a means to wipe them out that has a non-liability clause written into it(even if that clause is artificially designed by arsehats).
Happy?
Reveals a dark secret of the ideological environmental movement.
The movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor,
desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people’s most basic human rights, denying
them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were
vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.
No fucking balloons or fireworks happening in their villages dickheads
wouldn’t worry about arguing Postie. the first example has been shown up as rubbish so anything after that can bee ignored.
…well that descended quickly.
i’ve been nice. it’s my new years resolution. be nice. treat everyone who may not be intellectually sound with compassion and understanding.
ChrispenEvan said:
i’ve been nice. it’s my new years resolution. be nice. treat everyone who may not be intellectually sound with compassion and understanding.
ChrispenEvan said:
i’ve been nice. it’s my new years resolution. be nice. treat everyone who may not be intellectually sound with compassion and understanding.
I have 2. The first is to value time more. The other is to educate T_O and change his views before this year ends. One cancels the other out but what are resolutions for if not wasting?
Postpocelipse said:
ChrispenEvan said:
i’ve been nice. it’s my new years resolution. be nice. treat everyone who may not be intellectually sound with compassion and understanding.
I have 2. The first is to value time more. The other is to educate T_O and change his views before this year ends. One cancels the other out but what are resolutions for if not wasting?
>The first is to value time more.
you’d need to know what time is first, tell me.
my other resolution was not to bullshit so much but i think i’ve munted that one already.
time is that stuff that stops everything happening at once.
ChrispenEvan said:
time is that stuff that stops everything happening at once.
not at all bad starting point
would that include everything that is happening at once
transition said:
ChrispenEvan said:
time is that stuff that stops everything happening at once.
not at all bad starting point
would that include everything that is happening at once
…stops everything happening at once AND in exactly the same place. It is a property of exclusion.
transition said:
ChrispenEvan said:
time is that stuff that stops everything happening at once.
not at all bad starting point
would that include everything that is happening at once
of course.
>…stops everything happening at once AND in exactly the same place. It is a property of exclusion.
i’d sort of agree with that.
in what sense is the excluded real? Physical.
transition said:
>…stops everything happening at once AND in exactly the same place. It is a property of exclusion.i’d sort of agree with that.
in what sense is the excluded real? Physical.
I was referring to the exclusion principal and in that sense it is a physical property.
Postpocelipse said:
transition said:
>…stops everything happening at once AND in exactly the same place. It is a property of exclusion.i’d sort of agree with that.
in what sense is the excluded real? Physical.
I was referring to the exclusion principal and in that sense it is a physical property.
yes, got that, but had you not written that above, for example, is the world that you didn’t write that and I didn’t write this in response real too. Does that possibility have to exist somewhere for this sentence to exist. And where is that somewhere. Was it obliterated by having wrote this, or not.
transition said:
Postpocelipse said:
transition said:
>…stops everything happening at once AND in exactly the same place. It is a property of exclusion.i’d sort of agree with that.
in what sense is the excluded real? Physical.
I was referring to the exclusion principal and in that sense it is a physical property.
yes, got that, but had you not written that above, for example, is the world that you didn’t write that and I didn’t write this in response real too. Does that possibility have to exist somewhere for this sentence to exist. And where is that somewhere. Was it obliterated by having wrote this, or not.
That which does not occur but can remains as potential. That which cannot occur is never available.
>That which does not occur but can remains as potential. That which cannot occur is never available.
does something of an atlternate reality like, for example, you didn’t write the above sentence travel along with having written the sentence
doesn’t not having done this or that feature in some way with every moment of what is done/happening.
transition said:
>That which does not occur but can remains as potential. That which cannot occur is never available.does something of an atlternate reality like, for example, you didn’t write the above sentence travel along with having written the sentence
doesn’t not having done this or that feature in some way with every moment of what is done/happening.
What is not done is a feature of decision making and exists there as potential………..
Postpocelipse said:
transition said:
>That which does not occur but can remains as potential. That which cannot occur is never available.does something of an atlternate reality like, for example, you didn’t write the above sentence travel along with having written the sentence
doesn’t not having done this or that feature in some way with every moment of what is done/happening.
What is not done is a feature of decision making and exists there as potential………..
Personally I believe the bible ref, “each man has but one life” is an early reference ruling out alternative multiverses based on alternate choices.
>What is not done is a feature of decision making and exists there as potential………..
what part of it (that potential) originates of the physical forces, or interactions of, in this world (universe), and does the decision making (of the human mind) have any component that might be understood as distinct in any way separate from the physical forces that presumably generated or happened upon the human mind.
Could evolution happen upon one new trick, a new force.
idea being, that consciousness is a new (or another – it may exist elsewhere) force in the universe. Not to be overstating it, it maybe tiny.
if it is a force then there should be a boson as a force carrier.
ChrispenEvan said:
if it is a force then there should be a boson as a force carrier.
I think I’d have to agree.
Postpocelipse said:
ChrispenEvan said:
if it is a force then there should be a boson as a force carrier.
I think I’d have to agree.
Perhaps the ego could be considered a boson.
Ham and djon mustard sandwiches today, washed down with a mug of hot black tea.
I’m slowly working my way through this leg of ham.
Peak Warming Man said:
Ham and djon mustard sandwiches today, washed down with a mug of hot black tea.
I’m slowly working my way through this leg of ham.
i think that is going to impact the environment drastically…
don’t do it…
Peak Warming Man said:
Ham and djon mustard sandwiches today, washed down with a mug of hot black tea.
I’m slowly working my way through this leg of ham.
Any milk in the tea?
dv said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Ham and djon mustard sandwiches today, washed down with a mug of hot black tea.
I’m slowly working my way through this leg of ham.
Any milk in the tea?
Not in this thread no.
I see the Observer is off to an early start in 2016. Sounds like he got some books for Christmas (probably free copies from other grateful deniers), plus an extra big cherry-picker.
Happy new year Observer and be careful you don’t get sunburnt.
The_observer said:
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
neither!
environmental activism, which is a celebration, a religion, has far worse impacts. …
mollwollfumble said:
The_observer said:
Divine Angel said:
Which celebration has the biggest environmental impact- the average fireworks show vs releasing hundreds of helium balloons?I’m thinking fireworks in the short term but balloons in the long term as they clog waterways and injure/kill animals.
neither!
environmental activism, which is a celebration, a religion, has far worse impacts. …
To create a really serious environmental impact it has to be a deliberate killing, like a war, scrub clearance for agriculture, or deliberate use of insecticides and herbicides.
plastic bags/ plastic in the envirnoment etc
even chernobyl blowing up wasn’t a deliberate thing