• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Insects Are Dying En Masse

At what, if any, point did that stop? Has it really or just got a higher chimney?

That's just it, none of us were ever at risk unless something major happened. It was all routed to the atmosphere, what wasn't scrubbed out. The levels to the atmosphere were far higher than what would be allowed today. This was back in the 70's.
 
That's just it, none of us were ever at risk unless something major happened. It was all routed to the atmosphere, what wasn't scrubbed out. The levels to the atmosphere were far higher than what would be allowed today. This was back in the 70's.
I only saw one guy get sick working with PTFE extrusion material, He used a mask when leaning in under the vent hood
to adjust the extrusion head, but had a pack of cigarettes in his top pocket.
Right after that, he lit up a cigarette, and promptly hit the ground like a sack of potatoes.
After the ambulance picked him up, someone mentioned that the tobacco, likely absorbed and concentrated
the out gassing from the extrusion.
 
That's just it, none of us were ever at risk unless something major happened. It was all routed to the atmosphere, what wasn't scrubbed out. The levels to the atmosphere were far higher than what would be allowed today. This was back in the 70's.

Again, what has changed other than a higher chimney?

Are we looking at a prime candidate?
 
I only saw one guy get sick working with PTFE extrusion material, He used a mask when leaning in under the vent hood
to adjust the extrusion head, but had a pack of cigarettes in his top pocket.
Right after that, he lit up a cigarette, and promptly hit the ground like a sack of potatoes.
After the ambulance picked him up, someone mentioned that the tobacco, likely absorbed and concentrated
the out gassing from the extrusion.

This green activision should be far more focused on stuff like that. It would be useful then.
 

Again, what has changed other than a higher chimney?

Are we looking at a prime candidate?

I posted it just to see what Goof et. al. would say.

The workers were safe, the output in the atmosphere diluted sufficiently.
 
I hope all the mosquitoes and cockroaches die out. Disgusting little critters.
 
I posted it just to see what Goof et. al. would say.

The workers were safe, the output in the atmosphere diluted sufficiently.

I suspect the toxin you might have been exposed to was mercury.

Just spitballing here from your posts.
 
". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. . . ."

Michael Crichton
CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003

If you reject scientific consensus in favor of the opinion of a single scientist, why should someone else not do the same with a different scientist who disagrees with you?
 
I posted it just to see what Goof et. al. would say.

The workers were safe, the output in the atmosphere diluted sufficiently.

Yeah, the diluted suficently bit is my issue.

There may be a situation of total toxic overload where all the tiny bits of various toxins add up to reduce the health of the insects. Not even directly killing them just a slow degrading of their ability to continue.
 
If you reject scientific consensus in favor of the opinion of a single scientist, why should someone else not do the same with a different scientist who disagrees with you?

It is generally good to discuss the actual ideas and evidence. Not just count who has the most eminent guy to pray to.
 
It is generally good to discuss the actual ideas and evidence. Not just count who has the most eminent guy to pray to.

Agreed. But consensus is not evidence of fraud. You can't outright reject something solely because there is scientific consensus on it. Consensus isn't proof of course, but it is strong evidence in favor of an idea. Extraordinary claims (claims in opposition to consensus) require extraordinary evidence.
 
Agreed. But consensus is not evidence of fraud. You can't outright reject something solely because there is scientific consensus on it. Consensus isn't proof of course, but it is strong evidence in favor of an idea. Extraordinary claims (claims in opposition to consensus) require extraordinary evidence.

Who has rejected anything on such a basis (other than Nightmare and his sock puppet)?

Would you be willing to walk through the numbers on Greenland's ice mass balance with me? If you are unable to see how they could possibly match those of the offical NASA levels and show the opposite would you be willing to change your mind?
 
If you reject scientific consensus in favor of the opinion of a single scientist, why should someone else not do the same with a different scientist who disagrees with you?

They are perfectly free to do so. Then we let the data decide.
 
Who has rejected anything on such a basis (other than Nightmare and his sock puppet)?

Would you be willing to walk through the numbers on Greenland's ice mass balance with me? If you are unable to see how they could possibly match those of the offical NASA levels and show the opposite would you be willing to change your mind?

There we go.

A plumber knows more about Greenland’s ice mass that the people (PhD level) at NASA specifically trained and tasked to understand it.

5d37f3f929a5ab41d084dec92a843dcd.jpg
 
Insects Are Dying En Masse, Risking ‘Catastrophic’ Collapse Of Earth’s Ecosystems

180828204911_1_540x360.jpg




Catastrophic damage to the food chain will occur if insect populations keep dying off. Wild bumblebees have almost disappeared in the United States.

Related: Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers

Bumblebee listed as endangered species for first time

Really?? I see plenty of them emerge every spring. There are plenty of bees (including bumble bees) working the flowers during the summer. These are wild bees. We have no beekeepers operating in the immediate vicinity here. Beekeepers generally don't keep bumble bees at all anyway. The entire colony dies off every year except for lone fertilized queens, which bury themselves to hibernate through the winter.

There are plenty of ladybugs, mantis, beetles, ants, grasshoppers, and bees. It is not possible to measure how many there are, making such 'reports' nothing but random numbers. It IS possible to see there doesn't seem to be any significant change in the varieties and numbers of insects though. Plants need them. They are still there. Birds need them. They are still there. They still live in every cubic inch of soil.

I call it government BS.
 
Can we somehow apply this to mosquitos? Disappearing habitat and climate change would be my guess as to the big causes.

Heh. Well, we try. We spray against them, we drain their breeding places as best we can, we use repellents to keep them away, and still they keep biting.
 
More than likely Monsanto than global warming, as Insects have been around since it was a lot warmer.

Nah. More than likely pure government BS. Monsanto produces pest resistant crop seed, and pesticide manufacturers do kill insects, but there are PLENTY more of those pests to replace those that were killed, and they breed fast. Despite the size of modern farms, there are still plenty of places for these pests to breed and grow. Locust storms still happen. The actually live and breed in the very fields they might totally destroy someday. Ants live in every field too. So do many other insects. No matter how we spray or treat the fields, if the crop is still edible, the insects are there. The only way to kill them is to sterilize the soil. Of course then you have no crop at all.
 
You may be right, while the cause is unclear, I think it is likel not global warming, as we are still well within the bees normal temperature range.

Since bees survive the seasonal changes from below freezing to 100 deg F temperatures, a couple of degrees of 'global warming' isn't going to affect them any.
While the cause of colony collapse is not yet fully understood, a variety of theories have been put forth. Parasites, fungi, or even just the act of moving hives around by beekeepers, which shocks the hive.
 
Nope, for once, the climate is the minor issue.
Monoculture and factory farming, and extensive overuse of a wide variety of dangerous pesticides.
Those are the major issues. If it was just a massive increase in temp and carbon, the insects would adapt, and rather quickly.

They pollinate what we grow, they eat what dies, they eat what we plant, they are on the other end of several chains that we've been polluting.
We've been destroying their immune systems with things that they seem unable to fight back against.

But they are still there, and in large numbers.
 
Back
Top Bottom