All Things Environment

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

runrussellrun wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:34 pm
OCanada wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:09 am Why do you say the CBF has a massive footprint? Curious
The wedding funtion hall. (Merrill) Also the Brock center. The Geothermal and composting toilets are close to the idea.....but........do you need electricity for the pumps?

But, since you asked, does the CBF own any motorboats? The events carbon footprint? Rod & Reef slam - guess I could use my sisters sailboat instead of towing down my Whaler, but I only see powerboat or kayak divisions.
Your comment was about a "massive carbon footprint". Your definition of "massive" must be different than ours.

I see all sorts of efforts to reduce carbon footprint, you see that they nevertheless have a carbon footprint and call that "massive". Uhh uhh. Got it.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
Listen, if you want to go carry signs and shout epithets at environmental groups yelling back at you, that's your right.

But I don't hear any "environmental Nazis" here on this forum. Why yell here?

You keep ascribing motivations to others that just aren't based in fact.
They're based in anger.
You don't need to be a "door mat"; just dial back the anger and vitriol.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:59 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
Listen, if you want to go carry signs and shout epithets at environmental groups yelling back at you, that's your right.

But I don't hear any "environmental Nazis" here on this forum. Why yell here?

You keep ascribing motivations to others that just aren't based in fact.
They're based in anger.
You don't need to be a "door mat"; just dial back the anger and vitriol.
Hey brother I dialed it back for you... environmental extremists is my new terminology. I disagree there are a number of environmental extremists here. Every time I post anything from Dr Roy Spencer at least a few make it very plain what a jerk he is. If you disagree with them in any way, shape or form they will make it very clear how ignorant they think you are. They are not about to dial it back or respect my right to have a different opinion. I hope you can be fair and maybe pay closer attention to some of the things being said by the environmental extremists. I expect you to hold them to the same standards you are holding me to.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... for-skept/ I guess MD if some of the extremists get their way people such as myself will just flat out be considered criminals. Does that work okay for you?
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:09 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:59 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
Listen, if you want to go carry signs and shout epithets at environmental groups yelling back at you, that's your right.

But I don't hear any "environmental Nazis" here on this forum. Why yell here?

You keep ascribing motivations to others that just aren't based in fact.
They're based in anger.
You don't need to be a "door mat"; just dial back the anger and vitriol.
Hey brother I dialed it back for you... environmental extremists is my new terminology. I disagree there are a number of environmental extremists here. Every time I post anything from Dr Roy Spencer at least a few make it very plain what a jerk he is. If you disagree with them in any way, shape or form they will make it very clear how ignorant they think you are. They are not about to dial it back or respect my right to have a different opinion. I hope you can be fair and maybe pay closer attention to some of the things being said by the environmental extremists. I expect you to hold them to the same standards you are holding me to.
Great. Much better term.
Descriptive of what bothers you. And indeed such "environmental extremists" do exist.

But I'd also suggest that Spencer has so little credibility, due to his own phonying of data, that stating that reality doesn't make one (necessarily) an "environmental extremist". You don't need to be an extremist to insist on honest data (on both sides).

That also doesn't make you or anyone else who cites Spencer "ignorant" unless that word is used benignly as simply not fully informed. Of course, if you persist in suggesting he's credible despite being aware of his flawed analysis, then you're inviting push back.

Back to "environmental extremists", I'd just suggest that you consider that there are lots of folks who think environmental issues are important, who are not "extremists".
User avatar
holmes435
Posts: 2357
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:57 am

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by holmes435 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:39 am
holmes435 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:15 pmI was alive and kicking butt 30 years ago.

I REPEAT

Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago? Anything at all?

What major energy companies were selling and still sell plastic bags?

Simple questions.
You may have been alive but I highly question the kicking butt part. :P I don't know how else to frame my answer so that it seeps into your noggin. I will try one more time and I will type extra slowly for you. :D 30 years ago for some UNKNOWN REASON the entire country decided to switch from paper grocery bags to these ratty arse plastic bags. It obviously had nothing to do with environmental Nazis of that era whining and complaining about the destruction of our forests. Collectively one morning all these grocery chains woke up and had the same vision... WOW!!! lets switch to these obnoxious plastic bags. It was truly amazing that in complete unison, with no other outside influences all these grocery stores made the same decision at the same time. Mr Holmes maybe you should discuss this case with Watson? If it was not the environmental Nazis of 30 years ago... what gremlins were responsible? Maybe it was Captain Kangaroo and Mr Green Jeans? Maybe it was Mr Rogers? Maybe it was Darth Vader? This collective switch from paper to plastic must be one of the greatest mysteries on the planet. It happened yet no one knows how. :roll:

I asked you two simple questions that you absolutely refuse to answer or can't answer. Got it.

Do you really have no clue why supermarkets switched to plastic bags?

The main reason is simple - good old fashioned capitalism - plastic bags are cheaper. There were some other reasons consumers liked them, such as they had handles when paper bags didn't.

As far as the environmental nut jobs? Here's an article from the LA times from 1986 - Supermarket Dilemma : Battle of the Bags: Paper or Plastic?

Here's a good quote from some of those environmental nazis from 30 years ago pushing plastic bags:

'"This is an issue that brings you face to face with the serious consequences of polluting the environment," said Barry Commoner, a leading environmentalist and director of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College. "It raises the issue of public, democratic control of production decisions. In other words, does society really need plastic bags?"

Environmentalists generally object to plastics of all kind because the material is not biodegradable and remains molecularly intact, Commoner said. Plastic products can sometimes give off toxic fumes when burned, and plastic trash can injure birds and other animals that get entangled in it or mistake plastic for food.'


ExxonMobil is a major manufacturer of plastic bags and they make a lot of money off of them. They put millions of dollars into pushing those bags back then.

I'm not sure where you get your far out ideas from, I'd certainly like to know if you can answer the questions I asked :roll:
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 14443
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by youthathletics »

holmes435 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:22 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:39 am
holmes435 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:15 pmI was alive and kicking butt 30 years ago.

I REPEAT

Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago? Anything at all?

What major energy companies were selling and still sell plastic bags?

Simple questions.
You may have been alive but I highly question the kicking butt part. :P I don't know how else to frame my answer so that it seeps into your noggin. I will try one more time and I will type extra slowly for you. :D 30 years ago for some UNKNOWN REASON the entire country decided to switch from paper grocery bags to these ratty arse plastic bags. It obviously had nothing to do with environmental Nazis of that era whining and complaining about the destruction of our forests. Collectively one morning all these grocery chains woke up and had the same vision... WOW!!! lets switch to these obnoxious plastic bags. It was truly amazing that in complete unison, with no other outside influences all these grocery stores made the same decision at the same time. Mr Holmes maybe you should discuss this case with Watson? If it was not the environmental Nazis of 30 years ago... what gremlins were responsible? Maybe it was Captain Kangaroo and Mr Green Jeans? Maybe it was Mr Rogers? Maybe it was Darth Vader? This collective switch from paper to plastic must be one of the greatest mysteries on the planet. It happened yet no one knows how. :roll:

I asked you two simple questions that you absolutely refuse to answer or can't answer. Got it.

Do you really have no clue why supermarkets switched to plastic bags?

The main reason is simple - good old fashioned capitalism - plastic bags are cheaper. There were some other reasons consumers liked them, such as they had handles when paper bags didn't.

As far as the environmental nut jobs? Here's an article from the LA times from 1986 - Supermarket Dilemma : Battle of the Bags: Paper or Plastic?

Here's a good quote from some of those environmental nazis from 30 years ago pushing plastic bags:

'"This is an issue that brings you face to face with the serious consequences of polluting the environment," said Barry Commoner, a leading environmentalist and director of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College. "It raises the issue of public, democratic control of production decisions. In other words, does society really need plastic bags?"

Environmentalists generally object to plastics of all kind because the material is not biodegradable and remains molecularly intact, Commoner said. Plastic products can sometimes give off toxic fumes when burned, and plastic trash can injure birds and other animals that get entangled in it or mistake plastic for food.'


ExxonMobil is a major manufacturer of plastic bags and they make a lot of money off of them. They put millions of dollars into pushing those bags back then.

I'm not sure where you get your far out ideas from, I'd certainly like to know if you can answer the questions I asked :roll:
Serious question, does your last post not explain that money is that factor in policy decision making, regardless of the outcome. A 3rd grader could have told everyone that paper will not harm the environment, is bio-degradable, and the sea animals will not think its a jelly fish to eat. So as it relates to the thread title, is it also not conceivable that we are yet again getting BS'd and coerced into a policy fight due in most part to money making big business?

You said it best in red above.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by cradleandshoot »

quote=holmes435 post_id=37193 time=1554045726 user_id=354]
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:39 am
holmes435 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:15 pmI was alive and kicking butt 30 years ago.

I REPEAT

Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago? Anything at all?

What major energy companies were selling and still sell plastic bags?

Simple questions.
You may have been alive but I highly question the kicking butt part. :P I don't know how else to frame my answer so that it seeps into your noggin. I will try one more time and I will type extra slowly for you. :D 30 years ago for some UNKNOWN REASON the entire country decided to switch from paper grocery bags to these ratty arse plastic bags. It obviously had nothing to do with environmental Nazis of that era whining and complaining about the destruction of our forests. Collectively one morning all these grocery chains woke up and had the same vision... WOW!!! lets switch to these obnoxious plastic bags. It was truly amazing that in complete unison, with no other outside influences all these grocery stores made the same decision at the same time. Mr Holmes maybe you should discuss this case with Watson? If it was not the environmental Nazis of 30 years ago... what gremlins were responsible? Maybe it was Captain Kangaroo and Mr Green Jeans? Maybe it was Mr Rogers? Maybe it was Darth Vader? This collective switch from paper to plastic must be one of the greatest mysteries on the planet. It happened yet no one knows how. :roll:

I asked you two simple questions that you absolutely refuse to answer or can't answer. Got it.

Do you really have no clue why supermarkets switched to plastic bags?

The main reason is simple - good old fashioned capitalism - plastic bags are cheaper. There were some other reasons consumers liked them, such as they had handles when paper bags didn't.

As far as the environmental nut jobs? Here's an article from the LA times from 1986 - Supermarket Dilemma : Battle of the Bags: Paper or Plastic?

Here's a good quote from some of those environmental nazis from 30 years ago pushing plastic bags:

'"This is an issue that brings you face to face with the serious consequences of polluting the environment," said Barry Commoner, a leading environmentalist and director of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College. "It raises the issue of public, democratic control of production decisions. In other words, does society really need plastic bags?"

Environmentalists generally object to plastics of all kind because the material is not biodegradable and remains molecularly intact, Commoner said. Plastic products can sometimes give off toxic fumes when burned, and plastic trash can injure birds and other animals that get entangled in it or mistake plastic for food.'


ExxonMobil is a major manufacturer of plastic bags and they make a lot of money off of them. They put millions of dollars into pushing those bags back then.

I'm not sure where you get your far out ideas from, I'd certainly like to know if you can answer the questions I asked :roll:
[/quote]
Whoever manufactured those bags was irrelevent when the decision was made. The decision was made because the powers that be claimed the use of paper bags was depleting our forests of trees. That is the reason that was stated for the change at the time. I apologize that I can't type slow enough for you to understand. :P I get it now it was all a conspiracy on the part of big oil to destroy the planet. :roll:
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by cradleandshoot »

holmes435 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:22 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:39 am
holmes435 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:15 pmI was alive and kicking butt 30 years ago.

I REPEAT

Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago? Anything at all?

What major energy companies were selling and still sell plastic bags?

Simple questions.
You may have been alive but I highly question the kicking butt part. :P I don't know how else to frame my answer so that it seeps into your noggin. I will try one more time and I will type extra slowly for you. :D 30 years ago for some UNKNOWN REASON the entire country decided to switch from paper grocery bags to these ratty arse plastic bags. It obviously had nothing to do with environmental Nazis of that era whining and complaining about the destruction of our forests. Collectively one morning all these grocery chains woke up and had the same vision... WOW!!! lets switch to these obnoxious plastic bags. It was truly amazing that in complete unison, with no other outside influences all these grocery stores made the same decision at the same time. Mr Holmes maybe you should discuss this case with Watson? If it was not the environmental Nazis of 30 years ago... what gremlins were responsible? Maybe it was Captain Kangaroo and Mr Green Jeans? Maybe it was Mr Rogers? Maybe it was Darth Vader? This collective switch from paper to plastic must be one of the greatest mysteries on the planet. It happened yet no one knows how. :roll:

I asked you two simple questions that you absolutely refuse to answer or can't answer. Got it.

Do you really have no clue why supermarkets switched to plastic bags?

The main reason is simple - good old fashioned capitalism - plastic bags are cheaper. There were some other reasons consumers liked them, such as they had handles when paper bags didn't.

As far as the environmental nut jobs? Here's an article from the LA times from 1986 - Supermarket Dilemma : Battle of the Bags: Paper or Plastic?

Here's a good quote from some of those environmental nazis from 30 years ago pushing plastic bags:

'"This is an issue that brings you face to face with the serious consequences of polluting the environment," said Barry Commoner, a leading environmentalist and director of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College. "It raises the issue of public, democratic control of production decisions. In other words, does society really need plastic bags?"

Environmentalists generally object to plastics of all kind because the material is not biodegradable and remains molecularly intact, Commoner said. Plastic products can sometimes give off toxic fumes when burned, and plastic trash can injure birds and other animals that get entangled in it or mistake plastic for food.'


ExxonMobil is a major manufacturer of plastic bags and they make a lot of money off of them. They put millions of dollars into pushing those bags back then.

I'm not sure where you get your far out ideas from, I'd certainly like to know if you can answer the questions I asked :roll:
you want to know where i get my far out ideas? Spoken from one of the extremists who believe we can predict what the planet will do in 100 years. :lol:
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:25 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:09 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:59 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
Listen, if you want to go carry signs and shout epithets at environmental groups yelling back at you, that's your right.

But I don't hear any "environmental Nazis" here on this forum. Why yell here?

You keep ascribing motivations to others that just aren't based in fact.
They're based in anger.
You don't need to be a "door mat"; just dial back the anger and vitriol.
Hey brother I dialed it back for you... environmental extremists is my new terminology. I disagree there are a number of environmental extremists here. Every time I post anything from Dr Roy Spencer at least a few make it very plain what a jerk he is. If you disagree with them in any way, shape or form they will make it very clear how ignorant they think you are. They are not about to dial it back or respect my right to have a different opinion. I hope you can be fair and maybe pay closer attention to some of the things being said by the environmental extremists. I expect you to hold them to the same standards you are holding me to.
Great. Much better term.
Descriptive of what bothers you. And indeed such "environmental extremists" do exist.

But I'd also suggest that Spencer has so little credibility, due to his own phonying of data, that stating that reality doesn't make one (necessarily) an "environmental extremist". You don't need to be an extremist to insist on honest data (on both sides).

That also doesn't make you or anyone else who cites Spencer "ignorant" unless that word is used benignly as simply not fully informed. Of course, if you persist in suggesting he's credible despite being aware of his flawed analysis, then you're inviting push back.

Back to "environmental extremists", I'd just suggest that you consider that there are lots of folks who think environmental issues are important, who are not "extremists".
So Dr Spencers PhD is not shiny enough for you? I could not disagree with you more. I have read tons of what he has published. Sadly I have to admit a lot of his research is way above my pay grade. He knows his stuff and your claim that he lacks credibility is asinine at best. That does not mean he is right or wrong. His research is very detailed and he has been doing it for a very long time. He is as qualified much more so than you or I to his opinions. I think you would be better served to actually READ what Dr Spencer has to say. Have you actually gone to his web site and opened up your mind and read what he has to say. I think you might be surprised. One thing for certain 100% he is as credible on this subject as any other scientist. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ I hope you take a few moments and read this article from Dr Spencer. Then get back to me and explain where he is wrong. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/ one extra tidbit from the research of a madman.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
holmes435
Posts: 2357
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:57 am

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by holmes435 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:49 pm Whoever manufactured those bags was irrelevent when the decision was made. The decision was made because the powers that be claimed the use of paper bags was depleting our forests of trees. That is the reason that was stated for the change at the time. I apologize that I can't type slow enough for you to understand. :P I get it now it was all a conspiracy on the part of big oil to destroy the planet. :roll:
You don't have to apologize, you just have to show me some evidence that backs up your absurd statement. That's what I've been asking for this entire time, four times now. The decision was made because plastic bags were and are cheaper, and consumers eventually liked them more than paper bags. No big conspiracy or powers that be guiding things.

Again, I have one simple question. Let's throw out who manufactures the plastic bags and anything else. I'll type it equally slow for you.

Here's my question again - Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago?

News stories, studies, anything? You typing as slowly as you possibly can won't make me believe your words, backing up your statement with facts will. I even gave you a news story with environmentalists going on the record of being against the switch. Literally the opposite of what you claim.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32144
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

holmes435 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:46 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:49 pm Whoever manufactured those bags was irrelevent when the decision was made. The decision was made because the powers that be claimed the use of paper bags was depleting our forests of trees. That is the reason that was stated for the change at the time. I apologize that I can't type slow enough for you to understand. :P I get it now it was all a conspiracy on the part of big oil to destroy the planet. :roll:
You don't have to apologize, you just have to show me some evidence that backs up your absurd statement. That's what I've been asking for this entire time, four times now. The decision was made because plastic bags were and are cheaper, and consumers eventually liked them more than paper bags. No big conspiracy or powers that be guiding things.

Again, I have one simple question. Let's throw out who manufactures the plastic bags and anything else. I'll type it equally slow for you.

Here's my question again - Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago?

News stories, studies, anything? You typing as slowly as you possibly can won't make me believe your words, backing up your statement with facts will. I even gave you a news story with environmentalists going on the record of being against the switch. Literally the opposite of what you claim.
We have three national chain supermarkets in our town. All the same company. One of the three did away with plastic bags 5-6 years ago..... All the same supermarkets. My guess is the community wanted to do away with the plastic bags. Its the 0.5% crowd..... 1% > 0.5% for those that need help.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:25 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:09 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:59 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:08 am Hey cradle, I do now understand the irony you were suggesting.
If accurate, it would indeed be an example where good intentions backfired and are being reversed.

However it seems, from your rhetoric, that you don't actually understand the current policy correction.
At least that's how I read your first post, and you keep doubling down.
The 5 cents is intended to encourage people to do what you now say your wife did many ears ago.
Don't pay the 5 cents.

Holmes asks a direct question though.

But you say what you say with such anger and vitriol that it's difficult to consider your arguments as reasonable. Cool off the insults and name calling and make your points without ranting. That'll help.
Does that also include the vitriol, hatred and anger from all of the environmental extremists( I toned it down for you) that mock people that disagree with them and call them deniers? Do they just get a pass in your book? I am angry because in this instance if you don't make a stand the powers that be will try and steamroll right over you. The first step in becoming a doormat is to lay down and let everybody walk all over you. That is something I will never do. I am sorry if that bothers you but sadly I am not as eloquent in my verbiage as most folks on this forum are. I may not speak as well as most but I speak from my heart. Maybe someday I will become more diplomatic in my tone.

I will start when the extremists begin to recognize I have a right to disagree with them and respect that not everyone views this issue the same as they do. Does that work for you? I will try and dial it back, but I make no promises. BTW the 5 cents personally does not bother me in theory. What bothers me is that NYS institutes the change in such a manner that it makes them money. If you have been paying attention that is a theme I repeat frequently. It is less about saving the planet and more about using the issue to make money. I seem to be one of the few people here that seems to be of that opinion.
Listen, if you want to go carry signs and shout epithets at environmental groups yelling back at you, that's your right.

But I don't hear any "environmental Nazis" here on this forum. Why yell here?

You keep ascribing motivations to others that just aren't based in fact.
They're based in anger.
You don't need to be a "door mat"; just dial back the anger and vitriol.
Hey brother I dialed it back for you... environmental extremists is my new terminology. I disagree there are a number of environmental extremists here. Every time I post anything from Dr Roy Spencer at least a few make it very plain what a jerk he is. If you disagree with them in any way, shape or form they will make it very clear how ignorant they think you are. They are not about to dial it back or respect my right to have a different opinion. I hope you can be fair and maybe pay closer attention to some of the things being said by the environmental extremists. I expect you to hold them to the same standards you are holding me to.
Great. Much better term.
Descriptive of what bothers you. And indeed such "environmental extremists" do exist.

But I'd also suggest that Spencer has so little credibility, due to his own phonying of data, that stating that reality doesn't make one (necessarily) an "environmental extremist". You don't need to be an extremist to insist on honest data (on both sides).

That also doesn't make you or anyone else who cites Spencer "ignorant" unless that word is used benignly as simply not fully informed. Of course, if you persist in suggesting he's credible despite being aware of his flawed analysis, then you're inviting push back.

Back to "environmental extremists", I'd just suggest that you consider that there are lots of folks who think environmental issues are important, who are not "extremists".
So Dr Spencers PhD is not shiny enough for you? I could not disagree with you more. I have read tons of what he has published. Sadly I have to admit a lot of his research is way above my pay grade. He knows his stuff and your claim that he lacks credibility is asinine at best. That does not mean he is right or wrong. His research is very detailed and he has been doing it for a very long time. He is as qualified much more so than you or I to his opinions. I think you would be better served to actually READ what Dr Spencer has to say. Have you actually gone to his web site and opened up your mind and read what he has to say. I think you might be surprised. One thing for certain 100% he is as credible on this subject as any other scientist. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ I hope you take a few moments and read this article from Dr Spencer. Then get back to me and explain where he is wrong. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/ one extra tidbit from the research of a madman.
Cradle, wow he has a PhD?
Ohh my, how did I miss that?
I guess he doesn't phony his data...huh?

No, he is not "as credible on this subject as any other scientist"...I prefer the ones that don't phony the data, doesn't matter what their conclusions may be.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

holmes435 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:46 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:49 pm Whoever manufactured those bags was irrelevent when the decision was made. The decision was made because the powers that be claimed the use of paper bags was depleting our forests of trees. That is the reason that was stated for the change at the time. I apologize that I can't type slow enough for you to understand. :P I get it now it was all a conspiracy on the part of big oil to destroy the planet. :roll:
You don't have to apologize, you just have to show me some evidence that backs up your absurd statement. That's what I've been asking for this entire time, four times now. The decision was made because plastic bags were and are cheaper, and consumers eventually liked them more than paper bags. No big conspiracy or powers that be guiding things.

Again, I have one simple question. Let's throw out who manufactures the plastic bags and anything else. I'll type it equally slow for you.

Here's my question again - Do you have anything to back up your claim the environmental Nazis were advocating the switch to plastic bags 30 years ago?

News stories, studies, anything? You typing as slowly as you possibly can won't make me believe your words, backing up your statement with facts will. I even gave you a news story with environmentalists going on the record of being against the switch. Literally the opposite of what you claim.
Exactly.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Thanks TLD.

cradle, before you buy into Spencer's ideologically driven 'beliefs', check out how his data work has been found to be so flawed. Bad data typically leads to faulty conclusions. Or at least no credibility.
runrussellrun
Posts: 7380
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by runrussellrun »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:54 am
runrussellrun wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:34 pm
OCanada wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:09 am Why do you say the CBF has a massive footprint? Curious
The wedding funtion hall. (Merrill) Also the Brock center. The Geothermal and composting toilets are close to the idea.....but........do you need electricity for the pumps?

But, since you asked, does the CBF own any motorboats? The events carbon footprint? Rod & Reef slam - guess I could use my sisters sailboat instead of towing down my Whaler, but I only see powerboat or kayak divisions.
Your comment was about a "massive carbon footprint". Your definition of "massive" must be different than ours.

I see all sorts of efforts to reduce carbon footprint, you see that they nevertheless have a carbon footprint and call that "massive". Uhh uhh. Got it.
How does the beer, wine and ice arrive at the Merrill wedding facility? How do they keep things cold? How do they cook the meals? What heats the water to wash the linens and dishes ? What transports all of these items. Any public transportation? Is there a charging station for the pretends tesla? :D Do they hire only acoustic bands and accapella dj's. Lots to think about and what the impact of running a facility NOT having one friggin thing to do with the cbf's mission statement.

for another thread, but Property taxes paid on the Merrill wedding facility? :lol: How about excise taxes on CBF vehicles/boats? (depreciated too?)
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32144
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Moderation. It's not all or nothing and you know that.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

runrussellrun wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:40 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:54 am
runrussellrun wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:34 pm
OCanada wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:09 am Why do you say the CBF has a massive footprint? Curious
The wedding funtion hall. (Merrill) Also the Brock center. The Geothermal and composting toilets are close to the idea.....but........do you need electricity for the pumps?

But, since you asked, does the CBF own any motorboats? The events carbon footprint? Rod & Reef slam - guess I could use my sisters sailboat instead of towing down my Whaler, but I only see powerboat or kayak divisions.
Your comment was about a "massive carbon footprint". Your definition of "massive" must be different than ours.

I see all sorts of efforts to reduce carbon footprint, you see that they nevertheless have a carbon footprint and call that "massive". Uhh uhh. Got it.
How does the beer, wine and ice arrive at the Merrill wedding facility? How do they keep things cold? How do they cook the meals? What heats the water to wash the linens and dishes ? What transports all of these items. Any public transportation? Is there a charging station for the pretends tesla? :D Do they hire only acoustic bands and accapella dj's. Lots to think about and what the impact of running a facility NOT having one friggin thing to do with the cbf's mission statement.

for another thread, but Property taxes paid on the Merrill wedding facility? :lol: How about excise taxes on CBF vehicles/boats? (depreciated too?)
I really shouldn't bite as discussing such with you often feels like a black hole, but here goes.

Would any other facility have had a lower carbon footprint for a given event?

Would, instead, most any other facility have a higher carbon footprint?

The word "massive" should be reserved for those with higher, not the lowest.

Why the vitriol?
Is your issue that CBF does not do enough? Doesn't 'protect the Bay' successfully enough?
Can you point to another organization that does more for the Bay?
runrussellrun
Posts: 7380
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Post by runrussellrun »

MDLax wrote:

I really shouldn't bite as discussing such with you often feels like a black hole, but here goes. Why the vitriol? :roll:

Would any other facility have had a lower carbon footprint for a given event? Pussers Pub, the Local Elks/VFW or the Cloisters Castle aren't in the save the bay business, nor publish AGW/CC article.

Would, instead, most any other facility have a higher carbon footprint? Does the Pan Mass challenge take endorsements from cigar bars? Guess you are ok with the CBF running a fishing derby for power boats. Or the WWF (world wildlife fund) sponsoring a deer hunt.

The word "massive" should be reserved for those with higher, not the lowest. Like a leach or lamprey, keep on focusing on perhaps an improper adjective. Unneccesary, how's that?

Why the vitriol? A noun and over the topism that "deniers" speak of. To critique, at all, this topic or organization is hate speech? Got it.

Is your issue that CBF does not do enough? Doesn't 'protect the Bay' successfully enough? No, they do NOT do enough. Let's be clear, can YOU provide a list of what they have done to increase the water quality of the bay from an F to a D+?

Can you point to another organization that does more for the Bay? Do more for the Bay? CBF has lost it's way. Supporting junk like this is insanity. (below)

https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom ... ation.html

(ANNAPOLIS, MD)—Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker issued this statement after Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh announced her city is suing energy companies for allegedly knowingly contributing to climate change which increases costs for local governments:

"This is time for bold action to slow climate change, and to save the Chesapeake Bay. We support Mayor Pugh and the people of Baltimore.

"Climate change threatens our remarkable progress reducing pollution throughout the Bay region. More intense storms will increase polluted runoff, flood Baltimore basements with sewage, and destroy small businesses like those in Ellicott City. Some scientists estimate rising waters could inundate Tangier Island, Smith Island, Hampton Roads, and thousands of acres of environmentally-critical tidal wetlands.

"The efforts needed to aid the Chesapeake's recovery are the same that will save our planet: reduce coal plant and vehicle emissions, protect forests, plant trees, and more. The status quo is untenable. Bravo Mayor Pugh."


When I belonged (80"s) and donated to the CBF, climate change wasn't part of it's mission statement. When DID they start including statements about AGW/CC? CBF is just keeping up with the Jones'. I would be SHOCKED if you answered my question about what the CBF has done to clean up the bay. It should easy, b/c there's just SO much. :roll: Wonder what the $70 million is invested in? Harvard rain forest killing companies?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”