Focusing On Plastics Is A “Dangerous Distraction From Climate Change” Or Something

Interesting. Plastic pollution is an actual real environmental problem. Regardless of whether you focus on it coming big time from India and China, there are lots of measures that we in the 1st world can do to reduce our own plastic pollution. Reusing bottles. Recycling them and other plastics. Not throwing them on the side of the road. We use a ton of plastics, and a lot of it is not good for the real environment. I’m usually not a big fan of Government, but, say, things like those plastic microbeads, I’m fine with banning them. Same with the plastic 6 pack holders for canned drinks. I reuse plastic bags. I could keep going on and on, because I am an environmentalist, and this is the kind of thing that makes me nuts about the Cult of Climastrology

Anti-plastic focus ‘dangerous distraction’ from climate change

The anti-plastic “fervour” sweeping across the UK is weakening the fight against climate change, the founder of an organic food company has said.

Guy Singh-Watson, a prominent green entrepreneur and campaigner, said more focus should be put on cutting carbon.

PM Theresa May has pledged to ban all avoidable plastic waste by 2042.

Environmental experts have said that the anti-plastic movement showed the public could be “mobilised” for action on green issues.

There has been growing awareness of the damage caused by single-use plastics after TV series Blue Planet II highlighted the issue last year.

But Mr Singh-Watson, founder of Riverford Organic Farmers, which supplies about 47,000 boxes of vegetables to homes in the UK each week, said demonising plastic could do more harm than good.

He said: “The fervour – the almost religious fervour – of some of our customers in (being) anti-plastic can actually create problems.

“Plastic is not in itself an evil material, it is the fact that we use so much of it.

“The biggest environmental challenge facing our planet is climate change – and anything that distracts attention from that is potentially dangerous.”

Nope. Hell nope. The envirornment doesn’t care about a meager 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850, regardless of causation. It does care when you trash it with actual pollution. These people need to piss off, and realize that they are, in fact, a cult.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

26 Responses to “Focusing On Plastics Is A “Dangerous Distraction From Climate Change” Or Something”

  1. Jethro says:

    The environment doesn’t care about a meager 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850, regardless of causation.

    The environment is incapable of caring about anything. The “meager” 1.5F increase in global temperatures is extraordinary for the Holocene, but not for long, as it will be 3 or 4F (or 7F according to the tRump admin). The causation is clear, unless the Denier Cult has come up with an alternative explanation.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Scientists have come up with alternative theories Jeffery. This has been pointed out and documented to you many times.

      But you hate people and ideas that are contrary to yours that you keep saying “no other theories exist” despite the fact that other theories do exist.

      All the left has is hate.

    • Nighthawk says:

      The causation is clear

      Ah yes, that ever reliable, solid scientific method of correlation = causation.

      unless the Denier Cult has come up with an alternative explanation.

      Natural variation.

      • Zachriel says:

        Nighthawk: Ah yes, that ever reliable, solid scientific method of correlation = causation.

        Actually, climate science is based on causative mechanisms, such as the greenhouse effect.

        Nighthawk: Natural variation.

        A little vague there. What mechanism do you propose that accounts for the warming of the surface and troposphere, but cooling of the stratosphere?

  2. Jl says:

    “1.5 F increase since 1850”. Yes, very scary seeing as we were coming out of the little ice age. What would one expect it to do, drop? Still waiting for the evidence to show that, according to the scam, 1850-1950 was natural, and from then on, not.

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: Still waiting for the evidence to show that, according to the scam, 1850-1950 was natural, and from then on, not.

      The most direct evidence of an increase in the greenhouse effect is the warming surface and troposphere while the lower stratosphere cools. Another way to approach the problem is to calculate how much the greenhouse effect should change the temperature on the ground, something that was done over a hundred years ago by Svante Arrhenius and others. Still another way is to account for all inputs and outputs the climate system, then model the system with and without human factors.

      • Jl says:

        “Calculate how much the greenhouse effect should change temperature on the ground.” Except that they don’t know what the change “should” be, so it couldn’t be done. And the “human factors” are simply assumptions, also.

        • Zachriel says:

          Jl: “Calculate how much the greenhouse effect should change temperature on the ground.” Except that they don’t know what the change “should” be, so it couldn’t be done.

          Have no idea what you mean. The greenhouse effect is a physical mechanism having to do with the absorption and reemission of infrared radiation. You might start by calculating the graybody temperature of the Earth, and compare it to the actual surface temperature.

          Jl: And the “human factors” are simply assumptions, also.

          The addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is an observation, not an assumption.

          • Jl says:

            “Another way to approach the problem is to calculate how much the greenhouse effect should change the temperature on the ground…”. And I said the “how much” hasn’t been done or proved, which means no one can tell for sure natural vs. AGW warming. The evidence for the magnitude of human impact on the climate is entirely model-based and direct measurements of the impact have not been made

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: And I said the “how much” hasn’t been done or proved,

            Of course it has. You would know that if you calculated (or looked up) the graybody temperature of the Earth, then compared it to Earth’s actual surface temperature. Or don’t you believe in basic physics?

            Jl: which means no one can tell for sure natural vs. AGW warming.

            Baby steps.

            Jl: The evidence for the magnitude of human impact on the climate is entirely model-based and direct measurements of the impact have not been made.

            Newtonian Mechanics is a model. The question is whether the model accurately reflects observations. While how heat is distributed through the climate system is chaotic, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are well understood. Certain molecules of the atmosphere; water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane; interact in the infrared spectrum, which slows the transfer of heat to space, warming the surface and lower troposphere while cooling the lower stratosphere.

  3. Mangoldielocks says:

    One of the preeminent climate scientists of our times. In fact he was a co-author of the 2007 IPCC UN report on Climate change. He has like 10 PHD’s and has been in the field of climate science for 35 plus years just had an interview where he said climate change is a hoax.

    The problems are legion but he said:

    1. If global warming was occurring the stratosphere temperatures should be much, much higher. They had actually only risen 1/10th of 1 degree since 1970.
    2. If the worlds ecosystem was so sensitive that 100 PPM of CO injected into the atmosphere would cause such a deadly catastrophic outcome then you and I would not be talking today.
    3. Their are 31 models used in the prediction of climate change. They are bought and paid for by numerous countries. Each of these models are skewed by the scientists to predict an outcome they desire. Meaning they make value x and value y much to great and value a and value b much less influential then it is. The result is The science is not science but rather a predictive model that yields the outcome they are desiring.
    4. The Russian scientists in the Antarctic have heavily studied Global warming and their predictive model is disregarded because it shows a relatively flat global warming in regards to the other 30 other models. Their conclusion is they have used modeling that rightfully imputs the proper values to arrive at a conclusion. They have offered their work to the other 30 models but each modeling group refuse to look at their results.
    5. The planet is warmer. There is no doubt of this. In the 1920’s the planet warmed substantially. in the 1970’s it cooled. In the 1990’s it began warming again. In 2014 a giant El Nino ended the current hiatus of warming. The point being that the earth is always warming and cooling but in general it is more cooler now than it was 18,000 years ago when large amounts of heat forced the ice age to end.

    6. He concluded by saying that at one time he was a true believer but he could see the scramble by his colleagues for the government dollars to find a consensus that the UN could then use to further destabilize the world and create its open borders, borderless society. One has to remember that most of those put in charge at the UN are from Bangledesh, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Mynamar etc. and as such why would you not be working overtime to embezzled funds from the wealthy, turn the world into a giant candy shop so that those third world nations In which they represent can visit the candy store and eat for free.

    • Zachriel says:

      Unnamed preeminent climate scientists of our times: 1. If global warming was occurring the stratosphere temperatures should be much, much higher. They had actually only risen 1/10th of 1 degree since 1970.

      If global warming were occurring due to an increase in the greenhouse effect, then the lower stratosphere would be *cooling*. And that is what we observe.

    • Jethro says:

      mango,

      The “preeminent” climate scientist with some 10 PhDs doesn’t seem to understand the basics of climate science. Can you identify the “scientist”, or is there a reason to keep the identity secret – perhaps fear of an “angry mob” of climate scientists?

      it (Earth) is more cooler now than it was 18,000 years ago when large amounts of heat forced the ice age to end

      The Earth is not “more” cooler now than it was 18,000 years ago. In fact, the Earth was several degrees C cooler during the previous glacial period. Was ‘18,000’ a typo?

      • formwiz says:

        The “preeminent” climate scientist with some 10 PhDs doesn’t seem to understand the basics of climate science

        But Jeffery does.

        • Jethro says:

          Jeffery seems to understand that the stratosphere is cooling not warming.

          He seems to understand that 18,000 years ago was during the latest glacial period.

          He seems to understand the greenhouse gas sensitivity does not predict that an increase in 100 ppm CO2 would kill all life on Earth.

      • Zachriel says:

        Jethro: In fact, the Earth was several degrees C cooler during the previous glacial period.

        What’s interesting about the end of the last glacial period is that it has been tied directly to an increase in naturally occurring atmospheric CO2.
        https://phys.org/news/2015-08-ice-age-greenhouse-gas-factor.html

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Uh not really. The first comment or nailed it.


          Ultron1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 21, 2015
          Very poor study. It is not clearly stated if the rise of CO2 was before the ice started to melt or the CO2 level has risen along as ice melted.
          And this article didnt mention what has caused the rise of CO2 long before humans had started to increase it.
          It also opens important question, if CO2 was really the starter of ice melting, was the start of glacial period also marked by decreased CO2 level or was there other cause for start of glacial period?

          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Zachriel says:

          Forgot the citation: Shakun et al., Regional and global forcing of glacier retreat during the last deglaciation, Nature Communications 2015. They eliminated changes in insolation as the cause of glacier retreat. By refining the timeline, they demonstrated “a global pattern of broadly synchronous retreat that was largely coincident with the rise in CO2.” They also showed this effect to be consistent with transient climate models.

  4. Jl says:

    Except that there was widespread glacial retreat with much lower CO2 early last century. So not correlated with CO2. https://realclimatescience.com/disappearing-glaciers/

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: Except that there was widespread glacial retreat with much lower CO2 early last century.

      You apparently didn’t read the cited study. There are many mechanisms involved in glacial retreat.

  5. Jl says:

    Yes, there are. Which means no evidence it’s simply a CO2 correlation.

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: Which means no evidence it’s simply a CO2 correlation.

      We can’t make you read the study. They showed a correlation, but also showed it was consistent with transient climate effects. This largely eliminated other causes of global glacier retreat, even though other mechanisms had regional effects.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5123 access attempts in the last 7 days.