Connect with us

Science & Tech

90 Per Cent of Plastic Waste Polluting Earth’s Oceans Comes From Asia and Africa

So why are westerners being lectured?

Published

on

Despite westerners being lectured by climate activists like Greta Thunberg, a study has found that around 90 per cent of plastic waste polluting earth’s oceans comes from Asia and Africa.

During her U.S. tour, Thunberg cited “horrifying pictures of plastic in the oceans,” as one of the primary reasons why Americans should listen to her.

However, researchers at Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research discovered that a small number of rivers account for the vast majority of plastic pollution and none of them are located in western countries.

“The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88-95 percent of the global load into the sea,” Dr. Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist who led the study, told the Daily Mail. “The rivers with the highest estimated plastic loads are characterized by high population – for instance the Yangtze with over half a billion people.”

Out of the top ten rivers that produce the most pollution, eight are in Asia and two are in Africa. The Yangtze River in China and the Ganges River in India were responsible for the most plastic pollution.

While westerners are being told to alter their lifestyles and have fewer children to save the planet, virtually nothing is being said about or to the people in the countries responsible for the vast majority of pollution.

This is probably one of the main reasons why many in the west remain skeptical about the true motives of the environmentalist movement.

As we reported earlier, only 38 per cent of Americans believe global warming is man made.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Science & Tech

Scientific Study Claims Liberals Are Having Fewer Male Babies Because…

Published

on

Steve Watson

Orange Man Bad.

A new peer reviewed scientific study has suggested that Liberals in Canada are having fewer male babies because they are too traumatised about Donald Trump becoming the US President.

That’s right, Orange man is so bad it caused NPC babies to come out all girly.

The study, published in the scientific journal BMJ Open, claims that Trump’s election can be associated with a temporary shift in the sex ratio of newborn babies, but only in politically liberal areas, and not in conservative territories.

The author of the study Ravi Retnakaran told Wired that he got the idea for the test from reading about how stressful events, such as 9/11, had affected the sex ratio of newborns.

“I felt this apprehension in society that immediately harked back to September 11,” Retnakaran, a clinician at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, said, adding “And that’s when the light dawned in my head, and I wondered if [Trump’s election] could have the same sort of effect on the sex ratio.”

The study analysed all births in Ontario before Trump’s election, immediately after, and over six months later. The lowest ratio of boys to girls was recorded in March 2017, but only in liberal locales of Ontario, and not conservative parts.

“We were looking for a very specific signal,” Retnakaran noted, adding “The stratification we did based on liberal-leaning parts compared to conservative-leaning surprised us because we didn’t know if that would be there or not.”

Fertility expert Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield commented that “Maybe this research says more about liberals in Ontario. Maybe they should chill out more.”

Noting that while the study only establishes correlation, not cause, Pacey  did concede of Canadian liberals that “if their stress hormones went up in the same way that people react badly to terrorist attacks, then I can see this mechanism operating.”

So there you have it, something else crazy Liberals can blame on Trump. Although being responsible for more girls being brought into the world is probably something the President would be very proud of.

Continue Reading

Science & Tech

Athiest Dawkins Says ‘Eugenics Would Work’

Published

on

Steve Watson

“Facts ignore ideology”

In a set of rather bizarre tweets on Sunday, notorious atheist Richard Dawkins argued that eugenics, the practice of selective breeding supported by the Nazis, would work perfectly well if applied to humans, because it works on animals.

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” Dawkins wrote.

“Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology,” he added.

Okaaaay, Mein Führer.

Sensing that his comments would generate immediate backlash and Hitler comparisons, Dawkins clarified that he wasn’t advocating for eugenics, merely acknowledging that it would be a very effective practice.

“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he said.

“I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.” Dawkins explained.

Dawkins has previously made his thoughts on eugenics clear, writing that he suspects “that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.”

“Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular.” Dawkins continued, adding “The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.”

“But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as ‘these are not one-dimensional abilities’ apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.” Dawkins urged.

“In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase.” Dawkins further asserted.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?” the evolutionary biologist stated.

Dawkins’ latest considerations on eugenics quickly opened up a torrent of disbelief.

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, was one of the first to respond:

Others joined in:

Continue Reading

Science & Tech

NBC News Promotes Convenience of Getting a Microchip in Your Hand

“The process is simple and swift.”

Published

on

NBC News celebrated the prospect of “millions” of people getting a microchip implanted in their hand as a likely future outcome.

The segment is introduced by pointing out that people who have taken the chip do not need to carry keys, ID, credit cards or money.

It points out that embedding microchips in humans has long been a feature of dystopian fiction like Black Mirror, but that in Sweden “the microchips are already here.”

The piece also celebrates how the same contactless technology has “made cash pretty much obsolete in Sweden.”

A woman is seen receiving an implanted microchip while commenting, “I thought it would be fun, right?”

“The process is simple and swift, a pinch of the skin and in a matter of seconds the chip is inserted – the transformation is completely, the reporter Sarah Harman breezily comments as a man receiving the implant says he felt no pain.

In a half-hearted stab at objectivity, the piece then features two brief interviews from Swedes who offer lukewarm opposition.

With 5,000-10,000 people having already been chipped in Sweden, a biohacker then predicts that “millions of people will find it very valuable” to get chipped in the future.

“Human microchipping may be our future but in Sweden it’s already a reality,” concludes Harman.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Trending