GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

That is what is being said. Unless words have lost their meaning.

quote the user who wrote that.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

That is just not true.

Show me environmental sampling data showing improvement in toxic metrics.  To be extra clear I do not want to see emission data.  I want to see actual improvements in the environment. 

Do you have some fantasy that if you reduce the rate of pollution production the environmental levels immediately start to go down drastically?

I could try to explain this to you with calculus but I doubt you would understand. 

Try to conceptualize a 100,000L reservoir that has been receiving 1000L/ day of contaminated water at 100mg/L of toxic pollution from a factory.  The reservoir is well mixed and discharges an equal 1000L/day.  After many years of operation the reservoir stabilizes at 12mg/L of the toxin.

The local government says 12mg/L of toxin in the reservoir is unacceptable and sets a 5mg/L regulatory goal.  In response to this regulatory change the factory improves its process and its effluent is now improved by 40% (60mg/L in the effluent instead of 100mg/L). 

Answer how long you think it will take the reservoir to reach the 5mg/L goal with this 40% reduction in pollution?  If ever.

 

 

 

No, we have seen a commensurate reduction in atmospheric particulates in tandem with the drastic decline in toxic emissions.

Now you must show how that has led to a related decline in illnesses, otherwise your basic idea that there is a close relationship between illness and fossil fuels is pure wishful thinking.

People without advanced statistical training often confuse correlations, but if you cannot even show a correlation, there is no hope for your idea.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Did you see the Prez last night? Looks like the day of doom is coming for some politicians faster than we thought.

He had slow speech but still spoke more truth than trump.

Say what way day and what will happen so I can "mark your words."

 

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, we have seen a commensurate reduction in atmospheric particulates in tandem with the drastic decline in toxic emissions.

Now you must show how that has led to a related decline in illnesses, otherwise your basic idea that there is a close relationship between illness and fossil fuels is pure wishful thinking.

People without advanced statistical training often confuse correlations, but if you cannot even show a correlation, there is no hope for your idea.

Who is "we." I see no data presented here man.

I don't have to show anything - you are the one going against the mainstream science.

Can you do the math on how long it would take for the pollution to resolve or not?

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

quote the user who wrote that.

You seem to have  a short memory.

Check the previous page,

"if 80 percent of the energy supply is transitioned  over a 40 or 50 year period will their the world descend into Chaos????

the answer is no........

That is the path that world is set  on"

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

You seem to have  a short memory.

Check the previous page,

"if 80 percent of the energy supply is transitioned  over a 40 or 50 year period will their the world descend into Chaos????

the answer is no........

That is the path that world is set  on"

Show it with a user name.  If it was you...

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Who is "we." I see no data presented here man.

Can you do the math on how long it take pollution to resolve or not?

You were the one who claimed to have data...show us the correlation between toxic emissions and illness. Otherwise you are just as helpless as Old Joe.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Show it with a user name.  If it was you...

It was not me, have you lost the ability to scroll back one page? You and old Joe need some good help.

I should really give you a rest. Let me know when you have some data to support your wild statements, otherwise, I am wasting my time waiting for your efforts to produce some substance.

Edited June 29 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You were the one who claimed to have data...show us the correlation between toxic emissions and illness. Otherwise you are just as helpless as Old Joe.

I already showed that.  Do you really deny that something labelled as "toxic" doesn't cause illness?

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=PM+2.5+

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

It was not me, have you lost the ability to scroll back one page? You and old Joe need some good help.

why would I do that for you?

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, we have seen a commensurate reduction in atmospheric particulates in tandem with the drastic decline in toxic emissions.

 

Who is "we" and where is the data showing improvements in the environment - not emission reduction data.

Can you do the math presented?  The environment does not heal itself overnight.

If you promote persistent pollutants like CFC's the environment will never recover for all intents and purposes.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It was not me, have you lost the ability to scroll back one page? You and old Joe need some good help.

I should really give you a rest. Let me know when you have some data to support your wild statements, otherwise, I am wasting my time waiting for your efforts to produce some substance.

Yeah, having nothing to support your claims must get tiring.

I present evidence on the regular.

Practice your math and get back to me.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=fossil+fuel+PAH+health

 

 

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

show us the correlation between toxic emissions and illness.

There you go!

Do you need me to show you how cigarettes are bad for your health too?

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

23 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

He had slow speech but still spoke more truth than trump.

Say what way day and what will happen so I can "mark your words."

 

Okay, here is your man explaining the national debt, 

"When fielding a question about the national debt, his answer was incomprehensible as he seemed to be trying to argue for super-rich Americans paying more taxes. "We'd be able to help make sure that all those things we need to do—childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the—with, with, with the COVID. Excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with—look, if—we finally beat Medicare.""

 

https://time.com/6993760/joe-biden-debate-disaster-democratic-panic/

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Okay, here is your man explaining the national debt, 

 

 

Biden is not my man.  I never wrote that, ever.   I am just anybody but trump.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

"When fielding a question about

 

Did trump answer any questions?

Frankly there was no debate as both ignored the questions.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

12 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=fossil+fuel+PAH+health

 

 

No, you really are missing the point...show us data correlating toxic emissions levels with the incidence of illnesses.

That would imply that if toxic emissions and atmospheric particulate levels decline, we should see a decline in the incidence of those illnesses.

That is just standard epidemiological procedure.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, you really are missing the point...show us data correlating toxic emissions levels with the incidence of illnesses.

That would imply that if toxic emissions and atmospheric particulate levels decline, we should see a decline in the incidence of those illnesses.

That is just standard epidemiological procedure.

Look at the papers presented.  You can't get data from the future bud - we can only learn from the past.

Show me the data where the particulate levels have declined.

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Did trump answer any questions?

Frankly there was no debate as both ignored the questions.

This was different, not trying to avoid a question, but just unable to conceptualize an answer to a basic question about the national debt.

Do you believe that Joe's answer was remotely related to the national debt?

Read again what the man said.

"...a question about the national debt, his answer was incomprehensible as he seemed to be trying to argue for super-rich Americans paying more taxes. "We'd be able to help make sure that all those things we need to do—childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the—with, with, with the COVID. Excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with—look, if—we finally beat Medicare.""

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Look at the papers.  You can't get data from the future bud - we can only learn from the past.

Show me the data where the particulate levels have declined.

Show me the study which correlates toxic particulate levels with those illnesses, otherwise you are just wasting space here and blabbing about nothing.

Of course this is about past and present data, arranged in a time series correlation, that is obvious.

Edited June 29 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

This was different, not trying to avoid a question

 

The "debate" was a joke.  You are posting in the wrong thread.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Show me the study which correlates toxic particulate levels with those illnesses, otherwise you just wasting space her and blabbing about nothing.

I already did. 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Very first page of the papers I showed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30771627/

Towards a fuller assessment of benefits to children's health of reducing air pollution and mitigating climate change due to fossil fuel combustion

"We distinguish between C-R functions for endpoints having a causal or likely relationship (PTB, LBW, autism, asthma development) with the pollutants for incorporation into primary analyses and endpoints having a suggestive causal relationship with the pollutants (IQ reduction, ADHD) for secondary analyses.

Conclusion: We have identified C-R functions for a number of adverse health outcomes in children associated with air pollutants largely from fossil fuel combustion. Their incorporation into expanded assessments of health benefits of clean air and climate mitigation policies will provide an important incentive for preventive action."

Edited June 29 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

17 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

There you go!

Do you need me to show you how cigarettes are bad for your health too?

You seem to be having trouble with basic epidemiology. Show us a time series with changes in toxic particulate levels correlated with illness...that is how it works.