DailyDirt: Out With A Whimper

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Our planet's environment is in a delicate balance with the ecosystem that's largely invisible. We have a thin ozone layer protecting everything from harmful UV rays. Plants seem to be doing a great job of supplying breathable oxygen. It's a bit concerning when human activity throws off something in the atmosphere on a large scale, but we might be able to do something about it. The first step, though, is admitting that we have a problem. After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acid rain, algae, cfcs, climate change, environmental damage, hfcs, montreal protocol, nitrogen oxide, ozone hole, pollution, sulfur dioxide

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2016 @ 11:59pm

    Ok, so maybe global warming will "heal itself" too? Anyone remember when people were worried about the next ice age?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2016 @ 5:05am

    Re: The latest news - the blank sun will give us a

    (wait for it) (wait for it) a mini ice age by the turn of the decade.

    By and by, anyone know where all the transition forms are?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Dog, 2 Jul 2016 @ 10:30am

    Oh god,don't tell me techdirt is jumping on the climate hysteria bandwagon?

    The CAWG (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis has never been elevated to theory since not a single climate model has ever been validated which they openly admit in every single IPCC report:


    Conflating the minuet effect that CO2 has on the atmosphere with the environment (except for a slight increase in plant growth) is yet another example of how politicized science has become since most of the time it's to gain access to the seemingly endless climate funds.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Skeeter, 2 Jul 2016 @ 11:38am

    To be old enough

    Wow, I remember 1978 like it was yesterday. Many in post-2000 that are 'most-respected-climatologists' now, were (if old enough), yelling 'NEXT ICE AGE IN 10-YEARS!' then. Of course, as a nation, we spent over 200-years worried about 'hell freezing over' far more than it taking over, too. (if you want 'research', then you might want to look up the efforts of Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt and others who planned as late as 1920 to create 'carbon generation plants' to do nothing more than burn coal to fill the skies with smoke, to 'warm the planet').

    That we decided, as a nation, to scare each other with 'global warming' before 'global cooling' only tells me that given a century, we'll probably claim to succeed so well at 'cooling', than then we'll have to turn to 'warming it' then, all under the actual guise of PROFIT GENERATION EFFORTS. What a total scam, and yet the sheep can't see it for what it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Dog, 2 Jul 2016 @ 1:42pm

    Well, actually it was non-climatologists that were screaming bloody murder back in the 70s...

    Nevertheless, conflating environmental destruction with the CAWG hypotheses has never been validated. Yet they keep insisting it to be true despite every one of their predictions failing starting with Mann's Hockey Stick climate model which completely fell apart after post-hiatus 1998 when global average tempruatures and CO2 rates officially deviated from one another. Yet alarmist extremists still insist on using it as a valid point of reference.

    All the while they actively combat skeptics aka 'deniers' for questioning the mainstream narrative (only to fail and be investigated themselves such as Rico21) and claim that we're all corrupted by the oil and gas industries despite the fact that the creators of the industries have divested everything in fossil fuels followed by investing,such as the Rockefellers, everything into so-called renewables despite the fact that it produces 60 thousand times more waste and releases toxins into the atmosphere that are 30,000 times more potent than co2:

    www.solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cel l_Production_A_Primer.html

    Shall I go on? The rabbit hole goes even deeper...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Skeeter, 4 Jul 2016 @ 8:04pm


    It is easily summarized like this:

    Humans do nothing, dare act on nothing on any significant scale, unless there is either power or wealth to drive it. Thus, with this grand underlying rule (whether it is architecture, technology, government, or what have you), you simply have to ask, 'if this is a fixed rule for mankind, where is the power or wealth to be gained in 'renewable energy'?

    The answer is what you stated, Dog. With an 'alternative' this unique, this nasty and this resource-intensive, it means you must have wealth and power to initially play, knowing that eventually, you'll have to clean up the mess you made, which will take extensive investments to support such a large-scale structure-effort. Thus, you have answered the 'Renewable Energy' equation perfectly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)


Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.