Is pollution bad?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is air pollution bad?

I have never met anyone that sees a smog covered city in China and says, "Wow, that's beautiful" or "Wow, that's what we need to strive towards."


Is polluting the ocean bad?

I have never met anyone that sees garbage floating in the ocean and says, "Wow, that's beautiful" or "Wow, we should definitely go swimming here."

Is polluting the land with garbage bad?

I have never met anyone who goes to the landfill and says, "Wow, this is beautiful" or "Mmm, where does the buffet line start?"

I have never met anyone who has travelled to the third world and seen garbage alongside the road for countless miles and have them say, "Wow, this is beautiful" or "Why can't we have ditches filled with garbage back in the first world?"




Can we PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE??

Can policy makers and politicians stop talking about climate change and recognize that it would be beneficial to us, the world and future generations if we limited the amount of pollution we make?

Can scientists stop publishing papers that are fodder for an alarmist media that over-hypes the conclusions of climate models? No one can predict the future accurately. Tomorrow a meteor could wipe out half of Western Europe, thus destroying any hypothetical model made about the future state of the Earth's climate system. Tomorrow a super volcano could erupt in Chile and thus void the hypothetical model made about the future state of the Earth's climate system. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't study it, it is always interesting to learn more about the world of climatology and Earth's weather systems…I'm just saying that it shouldn't be the only reason why pollution (air, water and land) should be limited.



Environmentalism has been hijacked by the climate change debate.



I don't really care if climate change is true or not true. It is irrelevant to the fact that we should try to limit the amount of pollution we create as individuals and as a society.

 

[Strathos]

So... pollution is a problem, therefore climate change is not?

What?

 

[Paradoxum]

Sounds a bit like you are anti-research and anti-science... telling scientists stop publishing papers. I think we should make decisions based on the evidence, not ignore it because ignorant people deny the evidence.

I do agree that reducing pollution is good itself though.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So... pollution is a problem, therefore climate change is not?

What?

I never said climate change was or wasn't a problem. I'm saying that the climate change debate has hijacked the widely accepted truth that all forms of pollution are bad (including carbon dioxide) for a variety of reasons.

One of those reasons may or may not be climate change, but when you are talking to someone denying climate change, the truth or falsity should not factor into policy makers decisions about limiting pollution (including carbon dioxide).

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Sounds a bit like you are anti-research and anti-science... telling scientists stop publishing papers.

Did you read my post? I specifically said scientists should continue contributing to the body of knowledge about climatology and Earth's atmospheric systems but the media is largely to blame for making scientists' claims into alarmist doomsday scenarios. (Popular science magazines such as Discover and National Geographic are to blame for this too, the scientific articles themselves are rarely alarmist in and of themselves).

I think we should make decisions based on the evidence, not ignore it because ignorant people deny the evidence.

One of the problems in the climate change debate is that not everyone you talk to is going to agree that we should make decisions based on evidence, or they will say that your evidence is invalid for reason X,Y, and Z. At this point you reach a stalemate and policy is not put forward because of the stalemate. No policy is put forward meaning no change is enacted and everyone loses. I am saying, can we not break the stalemate?

I am saying can we not all agree that pollution is bad and that we should all collectively work towards less pollution (in all forms: air, land and water)?

 

[kevinmaynard]

Is air pollution bad?

I have never met anyone that sees a smog covered city in China and says, "Wow, that's beautiful" or "Wow, that's what we need to strive towards."


Is polluting the ocean bad?

I have never met anyone that sees garbage floating in the ocean and says, "Wow, that's beautiful" or "Wow, we should definitely go swimming here."

Is polluting the land with garbage bad?

I have never met anyone who goes to the landfill and says, "Wow, this is beautiful" or "Mmm, where does the buffet line start?"

I have never met anyone who has travelled to the third world and seen garbage alongside the road for countless miles and have them say, "Wow, this is beautiful" or "Why can't we have ditches filled with garbage back in the first world?"




Can we PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE??

Can policy makers and politicians stop talking about climate change and recognize that it would be beneficial to us, the world and future generations if we limited the amount of pollution we make?

Can scientists stop publishing papers that are fodder for an alarmist media that over-hypes the conclusions of climate models? No one can predict the future accurately. Tomorrow a meteor could wipe out half of Western Europe, thus destroying any hypothetical model made about the future state of the Earth's climate system. Tomorrow a super volcano could erupt in Chile and thus void the hypothetical model made about the future state of the Earth's climate system. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't study it, it is always interesting to learn more about the world of climatology and Earth's weather systems…I'm just saying that it shouldn't be the only reason why pollution (air, water and land) should be limited.



Environmentalism has been hijacked by the climate change debate.



I don't really care if climate change is true or not true. It is irrelevant to the fact that we should try to limit the amount of pollution we create as individuals and as a society.

Your point is well laid out and easy to understand. Anyone pretending not to understand is trolling.

 

[Nickybobby]

Is pollution bad? No, it's wonderful. Pollution is awesome and amazing. Pollution will help us reduce the overpopulation of this planet by all species. We should do more to promote pollution.

Seriously, what kind of question/poll is this?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is pollution bad? No, it's wonderful. Pollution is awesome and amazing. Pollution will help us reduce the overpopulation of this planet by all species. We should do more to promote pollution.

Seriously, what kind of question/poll is this?

I think you missed the point….

 

[Paradoxum]

Did you read my post? I specifically said scientists should continue contributing to the body of knowledge about climatology and Earth's atmospheric systems but the media is largely to blame for making scientists' claims into alarmist doomsday scenarios. (Popular science magazines such as Discover and National Geographic are to blame for this too, the scientific articles themselves are rarely alarmist in and of themselves).

You said, "Can scientists stop publishing papers that are fodder...". I don't think scientists should be told to hold back information. Maybe that wasn't your overall intention, but I thought it worth bringing that bit up.

Maybe the media you have seen over-emphasises, but I think over my lifetimes I've been given pretty accurate information... that the climate will likely increase in heat, and this lead to at least some problems, and at least some deaths (human and animal).

One of the problems in the climate change debate is that not everyone you talk to is going to agree that we should make decisions based on evidence, or they will say that your evidence is invalid for reason X,Y, and Z. At this point you reach a stalemate and policy is not put forward because of the stalemate. No policy is put forward meaning no change is enacted and everyone loses. I am saying, can we not break the stalemate?

If we have to to contend with ignorant people then sure, we should find some compromise. My problem is that it seemed like you might (or might not) be attacking publication of research.

I am saying can we not all agree that pollution is bad and that we should all collectively work towards less pollution (in all forms: air, land and water)?

We can agree it is bad, but I wonder if some people would be willing to change things for a bit of pollution.