Microplastics in the sea

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
For the past two decades, much of the hysteria about global warming — later re-labeled “climate change” — has been based on the so-called “hockey stick” graph produced by Michael Mann. The graph, shown below, has been used by the IPCC, the media and governments to push global warming hysteria to the point of mass mental illness, where Democrat presidential candidates claim humanity only has 12 years remaining before a climate apocalypse will somehow destroy the planet.

But the hockey stick graph is a fraud. A man-made computer software algorithm generated it, and the algorithm is rigged to produce a hockey stick shape no matter what data were entered. Like everything else found in the rigged world of “climate science,” the hockey stick graph was a fraud the day it was generated.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-...ick-graph.html

M'kay, so Mann has responded, you can see that on an update on the WUWT story about this. tldr - it's not the smackdown you were dreamin' of. Sorry.

But wow, thanks for the link to "naturalnews". Not for the story, but for a chance to find out about THESE bad boys:



Gotta get me some!
Not to mention the Organic Emergency Survival Bucket

Denier sites have better ads, there's no denying that!

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

M'kay, so Mann has responded, you can see that on an update on the WUWT story about this. tldr - it's not the smackdown you were dreamin' of. Sorry.

But wow, thanks for the link to "naturalnews". Not for the story, but for a chance to find out about THESE bad boys:



Gotta get me some!
Not to mention the Organic Emergency Survival Bucket

Denier sites have better ads, there's no denying that!

You may not like or agree with Mike Adams but have you ever met him? I have and while you may laugh at his Organic Emergency Survival Bucket I have 2 as they are water tight and each package is Mylar Vac sealed just in case.

SeaQuest OE II

[Epicurean]

Call me skeptical that sending waitresses to jail for passing out straws will do anything to help rid the oceans of microplastics but instead is intended to get politicians elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I believe that most straws, as well as single use plastic containers, end up in land fills where, away from the sun's UV they sleep peacefully in a non-disintegrative state. I hazard a guess further that most ocean-dwelling microplastic comes from things like fabric staple yarn settling in with the wind, then breaking down.

But what about all the micro plastics from filling, sanding, glassing, and painting fiberglass boats? Sails are mostly plastic. In the current intersectional environmental hierarchy I don't imagine boat owners, mostly older, white, male, and (perceived) rich rank very high. So, if you advocate banning plastics, be careful what you wish for. We may become an endangered species. I remember when my boat was considered “landfill” if I anchored. It's not hard for me to visualize a politician advocating banning boats to arrest climate change.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Epicurean

Call me skeptical that sending waitresses to jail for passing out straws will do anything to help rid the oceans of microplastics but instead is intended to get politicians elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I believe that most straws, as well as single use plastic containers, end up in land fills where, away from the sun's UV they sleep peacefully in a non-disintegrative state. I hazard a guess further that most ocean-dwelling microplastic comes from things like fabric staple yarn settling in with the wind, then breaking down.

But what about all the micro plastics from filling, sanding, glassing, and painting fiberglass boats? Sails are mostly plastic. In the current intersectional environmental hierarchy I don't imagine boat owners, mostly older, white, male, and (perceived) rich rank very high. So, if you advocate banning plastics, be careful what you wish for. We may become an endangered species. I remember when my boat was considered “landfill” if I anchored. It's not hard for me to visualize a politician advocating banning boats to arrest climate change.

Careful being a voice of reason is heresy.

SeaQuest OE II

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Epicurean

Call me skeptical that sending waitresses to jail for passing out straws will do anything to help rid the oceans of microplastics but instead is intended to get politicians elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I believe that most straws, as well as single use plastic containers, end up in land fills where, away from the sun's UV they sleep peacefully in a non-disintegrative state. I hazard a guess further that most ocean-dwelling microplastic comes from things like fabric staple yarn settling in with the wind, then breaking down.

But what about all the micro plastics from filling, sanding, glassing, and painting fiberglass boats? Sails are mostly plastic. In the current intersectional environmental hierarchy I don't imagine boat owners, mostly older, white, male, and (perceived) rich rank very high. So, if you advocate banning plastics, be careful what you wish for. We may become an endangered species. I remember when my boat was considered “landfill” if I anchored. It's not hard for me to visualize a politician advocating banning boats to arrest climate change.

That's a silly alarmist thing, if I've ever heard one. With all due respect to the opinion. I don't think alarmism is helpful to anyone - unless the intention is to generally misrepresent the facts. It's a serious issue. You're making a point that waitresses are arrested for straws?

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

That's a silly alarmist thing, if I've ever heard one. With all due respect to the opinion. I don't think alarmism is helpful to anyone - unless the intention is to generally misrepresent the facts. It's a serious issue. You're making a point that waitresses are arrested for straws?

Unless you are the waitress or waiter who is cited/arrested? Then the issue is very serious.

SeaQuest OE II

[Exile]

Yeah, it must just be all those vested, greedy industrialists & their highly paid lobbyists destroying the credibility of modern day environmentalists and their "progressive" brethren. Why are people so seduced by such superficial nonsense?

[Hardhead]

With regard to the engaging concern for waitresses in San Fransisco, and other scary issues raised - no one is talking about banning fiberglass boats, car bumpers, or old white guys, at all.

That would be unrealistic. Some of us (me basically) are talking about a simple and common sense matter - a Commerce clause specification that all single-use packaging, sold in the US - meet a requirement that it either be biodegradable, within a reasonable period to time, or be largely inert. The US economic markets drive the entire world market. Many other countries are receptive to the specification, and several have made formal measures on this issue.

You're smart, and realize that banning fiberglass boats, etc., is unrealistic, and would not ever happen. It actually sounds alarmist.

As far as clothing yarn derived from crude oil - if that were proven to be the major cause of every living thing on earth being force-fed growing concentrations of microplastics, that are - in reality, an un-natural product of ethene gas that is "molecularly “cracked”—its carbon and hydrogen atoms rearranged—to form ethylene, the main building block of plastic." --- then, maybe it's an issue that should be addressed. American cotton farmers would love to be able to sell more natural fibers. I'd speculate science and industry could accomplish all kinds of things, with a profit motive to do so.

The logical fallacies of appealing to extremes, and slippery slope, are usually argued when the facts aren't on your side. People should be able to have issues of human health taken somewhat seriously - and mocking the issue plays into a stereotype of a bully. Most people think bullies are full of crap, and don't trust them with their best interests. A serious look at the issue is important. Why wouldn't it be?

[TigerPaws]

Hardhead,

If you believe so strongly in your solution then you should take your proposal to the halls of Congress in DC. Write up your proposal and personally take it to the halls of power and see what you can do.

Then stay in DC and work with whoever will listen to you.

SeaQuest OE II

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yeah, it must just be all those vested, greedy industrialists & their highly paid lobbyists destroying the credibility of modern day environmentalists and their "progressive" brethren. Why are people so seduced by such superficial nonsense?

As a reaction to the opposite side of the spectrum. Why do you think? A scheme for an eventual one-world government? A lot of politically active people like to make that argument.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

As a reaction to the opposite side of the spectrum. Why do you think? A scheme for an eventual one-world government? A lot of politically active people like to make that argument.

Not nearly so conspiratorial or thought through. I assume the stated justification is to bring attention to the issue, create awareness, etc. But then these same proponents are seemingly mystified when such ideas are not taken seriously and even ridiculed. You may be right in placing some blame on industry, conservatives, whatever, but the modern environmentalist movement also has itself to blame.

On the other hand, I don't dismiss your idea of national legislation/regulation and view it as a serious idea. But I don't think it'll ever achieve the consensus needed for passage based on plastic straw bans in liberal bastions like California. The US may be responsible for production & demand, but it is not part of the disposal problem. Imo, bans on plastic straws are facile feel-good measures that won't make any difference whatsoever, and risk distracting & minimizing the seriousness of the actual problem.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Hardhead,

If you believe so strongly in your solution then you should take your proposal to the halls of Congress in DC. Write up your proposal and personally take it to the halls of power and see what you can do.

Then stay in DC and work with whoever will listen to you.

SeaQuest OE II

That's credible advice, and the way the system should work in theory. I guess if I was really motivated, that's what I'd do. I usually don't get too stirred up about issues like this. I read about it, and it's become a pet hobby spouting off about it. I don't mean to offend anyone personally.

Microplastic contamination seems to be something more serious than the normal, run of the mill, environmental news.

I'd like to see people make up their own minds about it - and not be fed the party line as their first, and second, thoughts. Maybe you and I can team up, and head down to DC together. I can see you are coming around on the issue...

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not nearly so conspiratorial or thought through. I assume the stated justification is to bring attention to the issue, create awareness, etc. But then these same proponents are seemingly mystified when such ideas are not taken seriously and even ridiculed. You may be right in placing some blame on industry, conservatives, whatever, but the modern environmentalist movement also has itself to blame.

On the other hand, I don't dismiss your idea of national legislation/regulation and view it as a serious idea. But I don't think it'll ever achieve the consensus needed for passage based on plastic straw bans in liberal bastions like California. The US may be responsible for production & demand, but it is not part of the disposal problem. Imo, bans on plastic straws are facile feel-good measures that won't make any difference whatsoever, and risk distracting & minimizing the seriousness of the actual problem.

I appreciate your thoughts. I don't place blame on anyone, or anything, for the growing issue of microplastic contamination, at all. I believe zero blame is appropriate for the manufacturers of single-use plastic packaging, and zero blame is appropriate on the big oil companies. They’ve truly done nothing wrong. They are acting rationally and legally. (Except flooding lobbyist money into DC – if you believe flooding money into politics is bad)

I’m also not aware of anyone else blaming them, or anyone specifically. Unless pointing out the facts of an issue are, in some way, blaming anyone. Plastic manufacturers make plastic. No blame from me – or anyone who has any brains. Plastic is legal, and it should be - when sold as a durable good.

IMO, any blame for the problem of microplastics will come in the future - to those who ignore it. Specifically, those who scream hysterically on the media that any government sanctioned action is an attack on American values, or an attack on freedom, or that it's an attack on capitalism or the 1%, or that any remedy would require socialism -- those are solely the figures deserving of any blame.

I do sincerely think part of the whole "problem" with the environmentalist message, as it has been described as being “presented” - is that many who feel that way have been fed a steady diet of right wing news. They tend to hear ridiculous portrayals of the "environmentalist" positions, repeated 2nd hand - by so many of the media’s popular "opinion leaders." The “appeal to extremes” fallacy, and the “slippery slope” arguments are overwhelming, and sickeningly pervasive. They are effective. Once that person in question takes a prolonged, serious look at the issue - they often believe there may actually “be something to it.” This comes as a shock to them. That person then recalls the ridiculous "environmentalist" positions - as they have been portrayed to them originally - primarily by right wing news media. They frequently feel they might have given some credibility to the issue originally - if it had been presented differently. But Fox news, as a common example, had shown a bunch of nuts, painted with body paint, and chanting around a drum. A popular media personality perhaps ran a 5 minute segment to “explain” what the environmentalist positions really are – filling in some careful observations, for example. Before anyone objects - I’ve been a Fox news watcher for over 15 years, and I speak from personal experience. Arguments to the contrary, would frankly, not be credible. As they proudly state – they are #1 in “news” in the United States.

I'd submit the single-use plastic packaging disposal problem is never going to be solved. Solving the disposal problem, even in the US, is not realistic. Biodegradable or inert, single-use packaging, is however, realistic. Look at the shelves of any store from the 1950’s. Look at your young adult life. Look at a milk carton. Sure, there are environmental impacts to cellulose extraction - as one alternative example. Everything in life is a trade-off. Pervasive microplastic contamination has to be balanced against the next best alternative. Notions that biodegradable packaging would destroy the economy are made up by people who don't believe in the strengths capitalism - and don't want to compete anymore - really.

If the opposition is not an economic argument, what would it be? A human health argument?

[Exile]

I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on the role of the popular press in distorting important issues of our times, mostly by playing to peoples' preexisting biases. There are, of course, responsible journalists & opinion writers out there, but you have to dig well below the popular sources such as Fox, CNN, and network nightly news. As a proportion of the total adult population, how many people make the effort or have the time? I can't recall if it was this thread or another, but GordMay recently presented some useful research on the influence on the human mind from mere repetition/saturation, and how that alone can convince regardless of merits or truth.

My only comment is that this phenomenom is definitely not confined to only one side of the political divide. As you point out when it comes to environmental issues, people are truly "shocked" -- as opposed to merely expressing disagreement -- when confronted with facts about a variety of well-publicized issues, but I've noticed that reaction countless times from people on both sides of the political divide on a wide variety of different issues. But this type of reaction supports your point (which I agree with) that relying on biased media sources not only exacerbates bias confirmation, but also leaves far too many people uninformed, regardless of their political predispositions.

Like the broad political consensus that lead to bipartisan passage of the Clean Air & Water Acts in the early 1970s, I'm (tentatively) hopeful that the huge problems single-use plastics have created will have much broader appeal than other environmental issues (e.g. climate change) which are more amorphous and therefore ripe for politicization. Especially, as you suggest, it's the plastics industry itself which winds up producing alternatives on the scale that is needed. But to accomplish this, it will take less moralizing & politicization, and more civil discussions amongst people who share the same goals but who may differ on the means of getting there.

Whether it's perception caused by biased media or it's reality, the modern environmentalism movement is closely associated with the political Left, and often with fringe elements as we've witnessed here in this thread. Imo, this may prove to be the biggest obstacle to cleaning up the planet. Ordinary people are simply tired of all the divisiveness & turmoil coming from the political class and its sycophants over the last 2-3 decades, and frustrated with the unintended consequences of partisan ideas & legislation coming out of the US Congress, regardless of who's to blame.

[john61ct]

The idea that this problem was not well known by the industry long before it came to the attention of the public and media is laughable.