Beekeeping Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 · (Edited)
ok so we agree agent orange is nasty stuff..made by guess who..monsanto and they make round up...with all the class action lawsuits for toxic chemicals going back decades, I find it funny monsanto has been left alone..hmmm..I guess they paid off the right people...heres a link for you to read if you choose...let me know if you think its "fake" news...since it includes some government scientists results...



https://blog.biostarus.com/dioxin-and-roundup/

https://www.epa.gov/dioxin/learn-about-dioxin

this is why no big lawsuits..lack of scientific data..hmm I wonder why again.. http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/


here monsanto does a little PR work..a drop in the bucket of money from monsanto.. asbestos companies paid billions and monsanto pays millions.just add it to the price of business.. https://www.rt.com/usa/171312-monsanto-nitro-settlement-office/
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
Agent orange was nasty. And Roundup spraying of roadsides is responsible for a lot of losses of monarchs and other butterflies and pollinators.

I want those manhattan guys to spend a few years in North Texas watching our weather mess up. We had a pattern of precipitation and seasons that was disrupted in about 2005 by a massive drought followed by 6 or 7 inches of rain and we haven't had a normal year since. Cool wet summer, now when we should be getting rain a few of us got a sprinkle but it's bone dry here. My mourning doves are nearly gone, displaced by a south texas species that has moved up. I grow my tomatoes in buckets now, so I can protect them from flooding or move them to shadier spots in summer. I think climate change is real, the ice is thicker on antarctica, where only 2 penguin chicks survived this year due to new ice, parents couldn't get to and from the sea feeding area fast enough, ice in the arctic is disappearing. Either the poles are going to flip or slip sideways, not our fault, or raising ocean temperatures are causing the changes, our fault. Take your pick, we are in trouble. Personally I'd like cleaner air, and I will not buy a new vehicle that is brand new until I can afford an electric vehicle that suits my needs. My 1975 chevy doesn't pollute that much more than a 2017 chevy. And it's uncomfortable enough I don't do unnecessary driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Monsanto was one of three companies that made agent orange - but it hasn't been sold for decades. But you are wrong about them avoiding liability - internationally, Monsanto has paid out a lot of money in a number of cases (both court-ordered and settled cases), and has footed the bill of a number of cleanup and monitoring programs at contaminated manufacturing & storage sites. But most liability has fallen on the govs who used it, largely because of how it was used (indiscriminately and in huge amounts), which seems about right to me.

There is lots of data on glysphosphate - nearly 2600 studies - most conducted by independent groups, not monsanto/other produces. "Your" blog post is lying to you about that.

Roundup *does not* contain dioxins and isn't even vaguely close in its structure, nor are doxins used or produced in its synthesis. And while blogs like your link like to try and make that link, reality is far more boring. Dioxins are a common product of fires (both of plants, and of trash) and most modern cases of environmental contamination are a result of burning trash. Small amounts were present in some old farming chemicals (silvex as one example), but all of these have been banned (at least, in the developed wold) since the mid-1980's. Most dioxin contamination these days are due to industrial runoff (paper plants are particularly bad for this) and fires.

B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
And Roundup spraying of roadsides is responsible for a lot of losses of monarchs and other butterflies and pollinators.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989778

I didnt say roundup contained dioxins, im saying it is just as bad in the end result..
Hi, glad to see this discussion is ongoing. I am surprised more have not joined. I am jumping in again.
I believe the main ingredient in Agent Orange is 2-4D. 2-4D is still a major ingredient in other popular herbicides for home and farm.
I believe I have read there is more pounds of herbicides used by home owners than farmers. That is so hard to believe. If it is true, home owners are unregulated and not trained.

As far as the case for Climate Change, I do not understand how one can believe industry is poisoning our food supply but does not want to help our air and atmosphere. What if there is no CC, isn't it still be advisable to work for cleaner air? They go hand in hand. Why not promote something that is working to rally the world. If you bad mouth CC you are not promoting improving our air. Look at the bigger over all gain. If your ideology does not agree with those promoting CC please rethink that. The bottom line is a cleaner planet whether there is CC or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
the world is about 4.6 billion years old, we are here maybe 100,000 years if that, the world has gone through many extinctions of whatever was living on earth and now we are here...so the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling whether we are here or not..if common sense pollution control is used then ok, but its just s money grab now and if the powers to be are so worried about the planet why dont they regulate china and all those countries spewing all kinds of nastys into the atmosphere.????? why because there is no money in china and all the big business get stuff made cheap over in china, so they get a free pass and we pay the price$$$$.. again its who you listen to on climate change that everything we do does or doesnt make much impact on climate change..how do you know this isnt a 10 million, or 100 million year cycle???? and then there is the manipulation of the weather by the government( oooh conspiracy theory time) google harrp and chem trails....interesting reading..where there is smoke there is fire...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
There isn't always fire Bob. I do not have a degree in science but I was a science major in high school. I'll work on the things I can change and chem trails and Haarp may or may not be fantasy, but air pollution is real. I live near 2 highways in Dallas Fort Worth.

I will eventually be putting solar panels and a Tesla battery on my house. Maybe not this house, may move first so I have held off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
ill agree there is pollution, but the powers to be are more interested in making money than cleaning up the earth...with that said...whatever any country puts up in the atmosphere circles and effects us...so the countries with the worst pollution have the least regulation because there is no money to be made..here in the USA when they tack on another 5 to 10 thousand bucks onto your car and truck saying it will run cleaner does not help the cause...by the time you add up all the pollution it cost to manufacture all the anti pollution stuff you havent really saved anything in the long run, but some rich globalist selling all the anti pollution stuff made a fortune.. solar and wind have alot more to come in technology to make it cost effective, how about all the wildlife those wind mills kill each year..lots of birds and bald eagles from what I have read..everything comes at a cost..and what do we do with all the old batteries from the solar and electric cars? its still toxic waste to deal with...think about this..if a tree dies in the woods and rots or is burned for fuel it gives off more or less the same methane gas that goes up to the atmosphere..so burning all the dead wood would save burning lots of oil and coal and save double on any emissions..but not enough money in that for companies to collect and process the wood, also if the forests were cleaned up , all these giant forest fires would be avoided.. and how much pollution is going skyward with the forest fires?? there is common sense anti pollution measures to be taken without over taxing the people, but this is and has been more of a money grab than a fight on pollution..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
How much are you spending on taxes on clean energy? Texas doesn't seem to have any clean energy taxes, we burn coal for electricity, we frack and let the methane cloud float over Texas Oklahoma, New Mexico where it sits low. and I just haven't seen any of these taxes. Around here if we want something we buy it and we are buying a lot of solar and a lot of wind so we don't end up looking like Gary Indiana. But the oil companies are here and they pump frack water under ground and cause us to have earthquakes if they hit a fault, and we do have a lot of ozone and methane sort of days
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
every time I fill my tank almost half the cost of gasoline are taxes..lol
I dont know where they go, but they do go fast..right out of my pocket..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
According to Capitol Tires, 18.4 cents per gallon is the federal gas tax, 15.44 cents is for the highway fund. 2.86 cents per gallon is to fund mass transit, 0.1 cents per gallon is for leaking underground storage. Every state has different gas taxes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
According to Capitol Tires, 18.4 cents per gallon is the federal gas tax, 15.44 cents is for the highway fund. 2.86 cents per gallon is to fund mass transit, 0.1 cents per gallon is for leaking underground storage. Every state has different gas taxes
my state of new york must be very creative with taxes, we also pay town and county tax in the price if gasoline and taxes with all kinds of nifty sounding names..who knows where they go.... http://wivb.com/2017/07/10/fuel-taxes-and-fees-add-to-the-price-of-a-gallon/
gas-calculator.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
so the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling whether we are here or not..
But nowhere in the ~4 billion year long geological record has warming occurred at the rate it is occurring now. What we are experiencing now is unprecedented.Moreover, the fact that (natural) change has occurred in the past in no way abrogates our moral responsibility for what we are doing in the present.

why dont they regulate china and all those countries spewing all kinds of nastys into the atmosphere.
Actually, China has made more progress in bringing their CO2 emissions under control than your country. 24% of their electricity is from renewables (US is ~13%), and their capacity currently under construction will bring that upto ~33% (with a goal of 50% by 2050). The US doesn't even have a goal. Canada is 66% renewables.

????? why because there is no money in china and all the big business get stuff made cheap over in china
Actually, the Chinese economy is worth roughly the same as the US economy. The amount of money to be made there is immense.

so they get a free pass and we pay the price$$$$..
LOL, spending billions to clean up their energy infrastructure = free pass; undermining renewables to keep coal alive (US approach) = "paying the price".

how do you know this isnt a 10 million, or 100 million year cycle????
Paleoclimate records. The warming we see is unprecidented, and runs opposite the trends we should be seeing given long-term trends in the phenomena which determine natural global temperatures - e.g. solar output, volcanic activity, etc.

B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
SG, so how do scientists prove what happened( cool or warm cycles) from hundreds of millions of years ago?


Actually, China has made more progress in bringing their CO2 emissions under control than your country. 24% of their electricity is from renewables (US is ~13%), and their capacity currently under construction will bring that upto ~33% (with a goal of 50% by 2050). The US doesn't even have a goal. Canada is 66% renewables.

then why when china had the olympics they had to shut down manufacturing for months to try and get the air quality close to good enough for the athletes to compete and whenever you se pictures of china everyone is wearing face masks?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
China has a lot of cars, and after the Olympics, they really started tackling their air pollution issues. They are making progress, we are subsidizing coal by virtually giving it away from our national parks, monuments and BLM land at 1 cent a ton to the coal companies. (I need to check that, that's an old number and it may not be right but it probably is)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
SG, so how do scientists prove what happened( cool or warm cycles) from hundreds of millions of years ago?
There is a huge area of science that reconstructs paleoclimate data from geological data, ice cores, tree rings, etc (obviously, at different time scales with differing temporal resolution). Rather than write a novel on it, here's a few primers:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-reconstruction
https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

Long story short, reconstructions of past climates are readily done, extending back millions (even billions) of years, and these reconstructions are widely accepted and considered scientifically robust.

then why when china had the olympics they had to shut down manufacturing for months to try and get the air quality close to good enough for the athletes to compete and whenever you se pictures of china everyone is wearing face masks?
Particulate pollution is not a green house gas; you're comparing apples to oranges. China doesn't have the particulate controls on pollution we do in the west; so their air quality is on-par with, as one example, Chicago in the 1970's. Chicago has much better air quality today than in the 1970's - and emits far more CO2.

B
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
Thank you B. I think we all have better air quality now, but the ocean is more acidic and mercury laden.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Man, you go away for a few days and the thread takes off. My apologies is I miss a "major" point...out of laziness I'm just going to refer to post #'s rather than quote.


/post 12
Your claim of global warming as a scam is a pretty good indication that you are not basing your opinions on facts or science, and are full-on into quackery. The data is clear, and the consensus among scientists is absolute.

Bryan
You were doing pretty well defending your points until the above.
'Absolute' implies 100 % agreement.
Please don't insult our intelligence with such a stupid, unproveable statement.
Unless, of course, you have written confirmation from EVERY scientist who has studied 'global warming' and EVERY ONE of them agrees that it is a proven fact.
Ball is in your court..................
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
I am sticking with anecdotal evidence. Until last Thursday, November 2nd, Texas has never had a 90 degree day in November. Thursday was 94, yesterday was 92, today was 94. Never in recorded temperature history, has this occurred before. the last few years have been wild. You can't get honey when it doesn't rain. You can get bee-processed sugar water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
You were doing pretty well defending your points until the above.
'Absolute' implies 100 % agreement.
Please don't insult our intelligence with such a stupid, unproveable statement.
Unless, of course, you have written confirmation from EVERY scientist who has studied 'global warming' and EVERY ONE of them agrees that it is a proven fact.
Ball is in your court..................
I stand behind my "absolute agreement" statement, as that is an accurate description of the status in the field.

Its is also an easily provable statement, and has been proven time-and-time again. The consensus within climatology papers is absolute - 100% of papers which discuss the source of current climate warming identify the primary factor as anthropogenic (human) causes. When climatologists are surveyed, the consensus is 97%-100% agreement, depending on exactly what question is asked. A breif-ish summary can be found here.


Denialist organisations spend a lot of money and time trying to spread dis-information on the extent of agreement among scientists with regards to their certainty regarding the cause of global warming. Sadly, their disinformation seems to have made it too you.

Bryan
 
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top