Australian Politics Forum - The fallacy of the Greens

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › The fallacy of the Greens

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 ... 43

The fallacy of the Greens (Read 67634 times)

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #465 - May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm

lee wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 4:10pm:

They say as little as 270 millionth of a gram can kill you. It doesn't matter if that is over a lifetime or when you take your first smoke. Roll Eyes

We are talking about ffs causing illness over years of exposure.

Quote:

And yet you were the one who highlighted carcinogenic.

poor dumb Lee: "highlight" doesn't mean an exclusive cause of illness.

Quote:

But they still have pollution problems. SO what you mean is that life expectancy is increasing depite the high levels of PM2.5. Roll Eyes

No I mean life expectancy will increase as it has done over the last decade, as ffs become a smaller proportion of the economy.

Quote:

And PM2.5 is only located within that square mile? Did they put up a big fence? Grin

poor dumb Lee: no I mean the slum will have the same 2.5 pollution as the rest of the city, regardless of eg, lack of diesel cars in the slum.

Quote:

You are the one trying to prove PM2.5 is a killer. Roll Eyes

And you are one trying tp prove your idiocy...

listen up: 2.5 PM, plus poisonous gases etc.

Quote:

But you only mentioned PM2.5. Now all you have to do is list the other "ff -related illnesses". With citation of course. Roll Eyes

Your idiocy proven. PM2.5 is ONE issue, whereas ALL filthy ff pollution - visible and invisible - is a problem to be eradicated.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/activity/visible-and-invisible-pollutants/

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #466 - May 8^th, 2023 at 6:05pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

We are talking about ffs causing illness over years of exposure.

No, we are talking death for a small amount, once. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

poor dumb Lee: "highlight" doesn't mean an exclusive cause of illness.

Who said it was exclusive? You couldn't even point to one case. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

No I mean life expectancy will increase as it has done over the last decade, as ffs become a smaller proportion of the economy.

Oh, less FF will make people live longer? Strange that life expectancy over the last 100 years has increased because of FF. You know heating, cooling, cooking. And of course the big one FF used in agriculture. Making more food available. But I guess without FF poor people can simply starve. I mean it is only reducing FF usage. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

poor dumb Lee: no I mean the slum will have the same 2.5 pollution as the rest of the city, regardless of eg, lack of diesel cars in the slum.

And the life expectancy has gone up. You do know dung fires are burning FF? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

And you are one trying to prove your idiocy...

listen up: 2.5 PM, plus poisonous gases etc.

So now it is not PM2.5 as you originally touted but poisonous gases. Which gases? What levels? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

PM2.5 is ONE issue, whereas ALL filthy ff pollution - visible and invisible - is a problem to be eradicated.

But you haven't shown anything about PM2.5 other than another statistical type study. Remember, correlation is not causation? Roll Eyes

Under your mantra we would have to get rid of all eucalypts. Terpenes are less than PM2.5. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #467 - May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm

lee wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:05pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

We are talking about ffs causing illness over years of exposure.

No, we are talking death for a small amount, once. Roll Eyes

proving your idiocy again...conservative world view crippling your capacity for analysis

Fossil fuels harm health, short and long term.

Quote:

Who said it was exclusive? You couldn't even point to one case. Roll Eyes

ditto, see above.

Quote:

Oh, less FF will make people live longer? Strange that life expectancy over the last 100 years has increased because of FF.

That has been due to increased productivity notably in the developed world, DESPITE filthy fossils.

Quote:

And the life expectancy has gone up. You do know dung fires are burning FF? Roll Eyes

We need to compare developed countries OTOH, and undeveloped/developing countries, OTO.

Quote:

So now it is not PM2.5 as you originally touted but poisonous gases. Which gases? What levels? Roll Eyes

both and... oh never mind, you don't have the mental capacity to deal with the health issues.

Quote:

Under your mantra we would have to get rid of all eucalypts. Terpenes are less than PM2.5. Roll Eyes

Idiocy resulting from desperation. Trees don't poison the atmosphere.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #468 - May 8^th, 2023 at 7:46pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

proving your idiocy again...conservative world view crippling your capacity for analysis

The EPA is a USA government source. It is their claim. That you can't rebut is telling. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

ditto, see above.

So no proof. Just as I suspected. Roll Eyes

.
thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

That has been due to increased productivity notably in the developed world, DESPITE filthy fossils.

NOT DESPITE... BECAUSE OF. Fossil fuels do the work of many. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

We need to compare developed countries OTOH, and undeveloped/developing countries, OTO.

So tell us ONE where life expectancy is dropping from FF use. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

both and... oh never mind, you don't have the mental capacity to deal with the health issues.

Both? But you haven't even provided a case for PM2.5 except statistical studies. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

Trees don't poison the atmosphere.

Trees emit PM2.5. That's your argument. PM2.5 is BAD. Roll Eyes

So we know you don't do science. You don't do logical thinking. How sad to be you. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #469 - May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm

lee wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 7:46pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

proving your idiocy again...conservative world view crippling your capacity for analysis

The EPA is a USA government source. It is their claim. That you can't rebut is telling. Roll Eyes

running experiments to find out whether PM2.5 is deadly, when such experiments are not comparable to/replicable in real world conditions.

Quote:

So no proof. Just as I suspected. Roll Eyes

"Proof" to 'survival of the fittest' market ideologues is an oxy-moron. Everyone knows ff exhaust fumes are deadly.

Quote:

NOT DESPITE... BECAUSE OF. Fossil fuels do the work of many. Roll Eyes

See....ffs "do the work of many" BUT are poisonous as well. Oops.

Quote:

So tell us ONE where life expectancy is dropping from FF use. Roll Eyes

Poisons kill people.... oh..never mind, crippled conservative mind.

Quote:

except statistical studies. Roll Eyes

News flash: people want clean., non-poisonous air....

Quote:

Trees emit PM2.5. That's your argument. PM2.5 is BAD. Roll Eyes

Crippled brain stuff, trees don't emit poisonous gases, whether PM2.5 or any other form of poison.

Quote:

So we know you don't do science. You don't do logical thinking. How sad to be you. Roll Eyes

Crippled brain, supporting ff poisoning the air. Sad.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #470 - May 9^th, 2023 at 2:43pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

running experiments to find out whether PM2.5 is deadly, when such experiments are not comparable to/replicable in real world conditions.

That's right. More than in real; world conditions. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

"Proof" to 'survival of the fittest' market ideologues is an oxy-moron. Everyone knows ff exhaust fumes are deadly.

And yet you haven't been able to show it. A model is not proof of anything. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

See....ffs "do the work of many" BUT are poisonous as well. Oops.

You haven't shown the poisonous part. You couldn't even show the claimes carcinogenic part. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

Poisons kill people.... oh..never mind, crippled conservative mind.

And? Show the study that says FF poisons are killing people. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

News flash: people want clean., non-poisonous air....

You haven't shown anything poisonous. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

Crippled brain stuff, trees don't emit poisonous gases, whether PM2.5 or any other form of poison.

Actually terpenes can be very toxic. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

Crippled brain, supporting ff poisoning the air. Sad.

Is that your best comeback? You aren't very good at this are you? Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #471 - May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm

lee wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 2:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 1:04pm:

running experiments to find out whether PM2.5 is deadly, when such experiments are not comparable to/replicable in real world conditions.

That's right. More than in real; world conditions. Roll Eyes

Impossible: real world means over an individual's lifetime.

Quote:

And yet you haven't been able to show it. A model is not proof of anything. Roll Eyes

Google ffs poison the atmosphere: I'll assist you:

" When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain. Major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions include: Cars and trucks. Coal-fired power plants.

and

Nitrogen oxides (NO2, N2O4, N2O3 and N2O5) are irritating to the upper respiratory tract and lungs even at low concentrations. Only one or two breaths of a very high concentration can cause severe toxicity.

Quote:

You haven't shown the poisonous part. You couldn't even show the claimes carcinogenic part. Roll Eyes

I'll let you google ff carcinogens; the poisons are noted above.

Quote:

And? Show the study that says FF poisons are killing people. Roll Eyes

"toxicity....."
Quote:

You haven't shown anything poisonous. Roll Eyes

the crippled brain can't read the research, as shown by your comment below:

Quote:

Actually terpenes can be very toxic. Roll Eyes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402865/

'Forest bathing' has beneficial effects on human health via showering of forest aerosols as well as physical relaxation. Terpenes that consist of multiple isoprene units are the largest class of organic compounds produced by various plants, and one of the major components of forest aerosols.

The "very toxic" terpenes - if they exist - are obviously produced in laboratories, in toxic quantities. Note: even vitamins are toxic, in excessive quantities.

Quote:

Is that your best comeback? You aren't very good at this are you? Roll Eyes

...the 'drover's dog' could do it, up against your brain blinded by ideology......

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #472 - May 10^th, 2023 at 12:55pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

Impossible: real world means over an individual's lifetime.

And PM2.5 is supposed to kill in a person's first smoke. So their lifetime should be until maybe the second drag. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

" When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain. Major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions include: Cars and trucks. Coal-fired power plants.and

Nitrogen oxides (NO2, N2O4, N2O3 and N2O5) are irritating to the upper respiratory tract and lungs even at low concentrations. Only one or two breaths of a very high concentration can cause severe toxicity.

I will ask again at what level? At what level will death occur. At what level has death occurred? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

I'll let you google ff carcinogens; the poisons are noted above.

And yet you can't find them otherwise you would have shown them. Just like the NOx's.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

"toxicity....."

Toxicity is not death. At what level is the toxic effect deadly?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

the crippled brain can't read the research, as shown by your comment below:

Quote:
Actually terpenes can be very toxic. Roll Eyes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402865/

'Forest bathing' has beneficial effects on human health via showering of forest aerosols as well as physical relaxation. Terpenes that consist of multiple isoprene units are the largest class of organic compounds produced by various plants, and one of the major components of forest aerosols.

The "very toxic" terpenes - if they exist - are obviously produced in laboratories, in toxic quantities. Note: even vitamins are toxic, in excessive quantities.

Even dilute terpenes. "Buyers Beware! Diluted Terpenes Could Be Turning Your Toke Toxic"

[url]https://labeffects.com/buyers-beware-diluted-terpenes-could-be-turning-your-toke
-toxic/ [/url]

You do understand the term "diluted"? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:

...the 'drover's dog' could do it, up against your brain blinded by ideology......

So you are a drover's dog. That explains a lot. Grin

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #473 - May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 12:55pm:

[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1653176030/471#471

And PM2.5 is supposed to kill in a person's first smoke. So their lifetime should be until maybe the second drag. Roll Eyes

According to who?

Quote:

I will ask again at what level? At what level will death occur. At what level has death occurred? Roll Eyes

At the current levels in built up urban areas.

Quote:

And yet you can't find them otherwise you would have shown them. Just like the NOx's. Roll Eyes

Correct - just like the NOx's shown above.

Quote:

Toxicity is not death. At what level is the toxic effect deadly? Roll Eyes

Er ...toxicity means injurious to health; the level which actually results in death is not the chief concern.....any injury to health is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402865/

Quote:

Even dilute terpenes. "Buyers Beware! Diluted Terpenes Could Be Turning Your Toke Toxic"

as opposed to terpenes produced in forests; I already commented on concentration (and threfore dilution), have you forgotten already...go easy on those vitamin pills....

Quote:

So you are a drover's dog. That explains a lot. Grin

No, the drover's dog could do it, where you can't...a pity.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #474 - May 10^th, 2023 at 2:56pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

According to who?

According to the EPA. Don't you read or comprehend what is written?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

At the current levels in built up urban areas.

So you can tell us how many then, not from statistical studies.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

And yet you can't find them otherwise you would have shown them. Just like the NOx's. Roll Eyes
Correct - just like the NOx's shown above.

So you agree, you can't show them. But still you BELIEVE. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

Quote:
Toxicity is not death. At what level is the toxic effect deadly? Roll Eyes

Er ...toxicity means injurious to health; the level which actually results in death is not the chief concern.....any injury to health is.

But you have been bleating about PM2.5 and poisonous gases killing people.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 5:21pm:

Quote:
You are the one trying to prove PM2.5 is a killer. Roll Eyes

And you are one trying tp prove your idiocy...

listen up: 2.5 PM, plus poisonous gases etc.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

Quote:
Even dilute terpenes. "Buyers Beware! Diluted Terpenes Could Be Turning Your Toke Toxic"

as opposed to terpenes produced in forests; I already commented on concentration (and threfore dilution), have you forgotten already...go easy on those vitamin pills....

So terpenes produced in forests are somehow ultra-diluted at source. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

No, the drover's dog could do it, where you can't...a pity.

As I said you are the drover's dog. Thanks for that. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15589
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #475 - May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 2:56pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

According to who?

According to the EPA. Don't you read or comprehend what is written? Roll Eyes

In an experiment; don't you understand real world versus experiment.

Quote:

So you can tell us how many then, not from statistical studies. Roll Eyes

\

Actually here's an experiment for you; lock yourself in your garage, and turn the car engine on.... (just kidding..."don't try this at home" etc...)

Quote:

So you agree, you can't show them. But still you BELIEVE. Grin

I agree researchers have revealed the toxicity of NOXs, among other toxins in ffs.

Quote:

But you have been bleating about PM2.5 and poisonous gases killing people. Roll Eyes

If you say so: but now I am pointing to research re ffs' toxicity, as well.

Quote:

So terpenes produced in forests are somehow ultra-diluted at source. Grin

Not all terpenes are toxic, but all ffs produce toxins.

Quote:

As I said you are the drover's dog. Thanks for that. Roll Eyes

If you say so... but it's sad you can't parse a sentence:

"the 'drover's dog' could do it, up against your brain blinded by ideology".

The drover's dog is the subject in that sentence, not me.

And btw still waiting for you to show some intellectual competence by replying to #33 in the 'Budget tonight 7.30' thread.

« Last Edit: May 10^th, 2023 at 10:51pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21394
Gender: male

Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #476 - May 11^th, 2023 at 2:42pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm:

In an experiment; don't you understand real world versus experiment.

The EPA used high dosages, much higher than real world dosages. You haven't even pointed to one death from your "real world" data. Models are not "real world". Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm:

Actually here's an experiment for you; lock yourself in your garage, and turn the car engine on.... (just kidding..."don't try this at home" etc...)

And that replicates "real world" data? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm:

I agree researchers have revealed the toxicity of NOXs, among other toxins in ffs.

And can't show the effects. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm:

If you say so: but now I am pointing to research re ffs' toxicity, as wel

You said so. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm:

Not all terpenes are toxic, but all ffs produce toxins.

So tell us which terpenes are not toxic? It is you claim, prove it. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21394 Gender:	Re: The fallacy of the Greens Reply #477 - May 11^th, 2023 at 2:45pm thegreatdivide wrote on May 10^th, 2023 at 10:39pm: And btw still waiting for you to show some intellectual competence by replying to #33 in the 'Budget tonight 7.30' thread. Why? Steve Keen, according to you is a whiz at everything.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby. Moderator Offline Australian Politics Posts: 121321 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The fallacy of the Greens Reply #478 - May 11^th, 2023 at 3:16pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Back to top	IP Logged