Quote:
Originally Posted by imwjl
Bob, yes that was really interesting to me when that occurred but I've also caught the story used by pundits as a red herring so not sure of the intent here. It did take a little longer, and it left more localized damage. I was fascinated by all that.
That is not the specific plastics problem where that is showing up in unrelated discoveries. Moving from sky to below....
|
My father worked directly with the folks who did the environmental study that turned up the physical data that the earth had cleaned itself within two years.*
I presented that, yes an atmospheric cataclysm, as encouragement that the earth has a way of metabolizing the pollutants man puts into its systems. Also, as a note that the popular attitude towards the status of the earth and its challenges can be absolutely
wrong. Remember that our
entire environmental system of agencies and industries, completely interconnected, depends for its funding upon there being an urgent need for their services. Think about that for a minute. Were there no emergency, there would be no funds. How neutral and objective do you suppose they can be?
Bob
* This was based upon the snow deposition in the polar zones. The method was, and still is, considered reliable for dating and tracking the pollution in the atmosphere. The reason that it didn't get reported much and was questioned was because it provided evidence against the popular narrative.