Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You just set up a straw man argument. Your points have nothing to do with whether humans are affecting (and it's affecting not effecting) the climate. Your points are political, the climate is not.
.. global warming right now. I mean instantly.
Well maybe in weeks, months, years, decades, in a 100 years?
Biggest polluters are China, India and most developing nations. Everybody in or not? Does it matter?
How long did it take to get us into this problem? Just the period of the Industrial Revolution until today?
So we can see results in 100 years? To get out of the "problem?"
And if we shut everything down, would it matter?
How do we clean up the Co2 from the atmosphere?
Is Co2 the culprit?
How about the Sun and its effect on global warming?
And how will global warming effect plant growth? Will we have more O2 in the air?
Is there hard evidence of warming and freezing cycles on the planet over time?
And on and on. There are a million questions, unanswered.
How do you say "clueless"? We already know that Republicans are opposed to any taxes save for the ones that support the military-industrial complex and its never ending quest for the best weapons of mass destruction in the entire world. Republicans will pay taxes in order to support the killing of every last person on the planet, but they will see you in hell before they pay so much as a plugged nickel to prevent the 6th Great Mass Extinction of almost every species on the planet, including Homo sapiens. Thank you for underlining the fact that the Republican party's sole interests are wealth and power and the people be damned.
OK, just relax and have another cigarette. Now that you are feeling calmer, here is the last thing I'm going to look up for you. This information comes from Medlineplus, a service of the charlatans and liars at the National Library of Medicine. Since you are a doc who "reviewed the med lit on a daily basis for over 40 yrs," I assume you are familiar with the NLM? And you do know how to search medical publications using Medline? Or was medline after your time? At any rate, here is the information coming direct from the NLM to you:
What causes COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)?
The cause of COPD is usually long-term exposure to irritants that damage your lungs and airways. In the United States, cigarette smoke is the main cause. Pipe, cigar, and other types of tobacco smoke can also cause COPD, especially if you inhale them.
Exposure to other inhaled irritants can contribute to COPD. These include secondhand smoke, air pollution, and chemical fumes or dusts from the environment or workplace.
Rarely, a genetic condition called alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency can play a role in causing COPD.
Who is at risk for COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)?
The risk factors for COPD include:
Smoking. This the main risk factor. Up to 75% of people who have COPD smoke or used to smoke.
Long-term exposure to other lung irritants, such as secondhand smoke, air pollution, and chemical fumes and dusts from the environment or workplace
Age. Most people who have COPD are at least 40 years old when their symptoms begin.
Genetics. This includes alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, which is a genetic condition. Also, smokers who get COPD are more likely to get it if they have a family history of COPD.
Asthma. People who have asthma have more risk of developing COPD than people who don't have asthma. But most people with asthma will not get COPD.
Now, if you refuse to accept the findings generated by the National Library of Medicine and freely available on their Medline database, I can't help you. Your critique of the latest findings by medical researchers is about as valid as your critique of climate science - non existent.
First off, as soon as they say smoking "causes" COPD, you know they aren;t thinking logically....Eg- does eating sugar (hi calorie diet) cause DM? No....You can be assured that if you don't possess one of the many genotypes that cause DM, you can eat all you want with impunity because your physiology will never allow your BS to rise nor will you develop any of the consequencees of DM...OTOH, if you do have a prerequisite genotype, then the phenotype of DM (elevated BS +/- propensity for complications) will be allowed to develop...Does fertilizer cause plants to grow? No. It facilitates growth. ...Smoking does not cause COPD. It facilitates alveolar break down in susceptile subjects. Not everyone is susceptible, and if you are, you don't require smoking for it to develop.
Another point for the naive-- Risk factors.... People with hypertension, for instance, have a 4x higher risk of CAD/MI than those with normal BP-- but lowering the BP of hyppertensives does NOT improve their risk of MI....A risk factor is just something assciated with a disease, not necessarily a cause of even a facillitiator of disease. HTN, for instance, can be caused by narrowed arteries-arteriosclerosis as is CAD/MI, so both have a comon cause. Treating the BP doesn't repair the arteries. You can still have your MI.
Another area of fraudulent reporting is the "second hand smoke" thing-- take these numbers-- lungs move about 1L of air with each breath, and a bar room 30' x 30' x 10 ft is about 250,000L...Put a nonsmoking bartender working 40 hrs/wk and a continuous army of 20 chain smoking drunks in there..A little arithmetic and you'll see that the bar tender needs to work for about 1000 yrs before he's exposed to as much cigarette carcinogens as the 40 pack-yr smoker in his lifetime, only 15% of whom will get lung ca.
I could go on and on about the unethcal, fraudulent and duplicitous practices of medical research and reporting. It appears climatology is subject to the same temptations. Follow the money.
I am not a Republican; I have been a Democrat since 1975, when I turned 18; and
How do you know that your snake oil will accomplish anything? Do you care if small businesses are shuttered? Do you care that the attendees of the AGW confabs arrive on private jets?
You guys feel so great afflicting others with your restrictions and taxes, while you advocate virtue to the beat of Bon Jovi.
In the last 10 yrs, $3.8Trillion has been spent on investment in renewables-- and fossil fuel consumption as an energy source fell from 82% to 81%. ...At that rate, it will take 1000 yrs and 380 Trillion dollars to replace fossil fuels..Keep in mind that WORLD GDP is $75T/ yr--
"Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): "Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82." ... The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress."
I am not a Republican; I have been a Democrat since 1975, when I turned 18; and
How do you know that your snake oil will accomplish anything? Do you care if small businesses are shuttered? Do you care that the attendees of the AGW confabs arrive on private jets?
You guys feel so great afflicting others with your restrictions and taxes, while you advocate virtue to the beat of Bon Jovi.
Well, I guess you are blue on the outside and red on the inside.
The only "snake oil" I have on offer is the new generation of nuclear power plants. I think we should begin construction on these even as we remain mindful of the possible risks. For example, what on earth were the Japanese thinking to build the Fukushima power plant in an area with heightened vulnerability to tsunamis? People have been vilifying nuclear power for far too long. We can and have recovered from nuclear power plant disasters and we have learned from those experiences. But there is no easy way to recover from more than 2 degrees C of climate warming. If that happens, we will pay a very steep price and we will be paying it for a very, very long time.
I could post much more - perhaps I'll start a new thread on some of the better ideas I've come across in my research and reading. For now, suffice it to say that I have no interest in telling people what to do or shuttering small businesses. I would much rather help people to understand what is happening with the earth's climate. How they choose to use their knowledge is not anything I can control.
If people choose to fly on private jets that's between them and their own consciences. Me, I haven't been on a plane in over twenty years and I don't own a car. The house I live in was set up to burn propane for heat, but I prefer a wood burning stove. Heaven knows, with the ongoing drought in the Southwest there's plenty of dead trees to burn and clearing them out helps reduce the fire danger.
And I don't get your reference to Bon Jovi. I mostly listen to classical music and I don't pay much attention to cable TV. If Bon Jovi's beat makes their fans happy, then who am I to criticize? I tend to keep my debates to the Internet. IRL my motto is "Live and let live but LIVE!"
I will start believing in human's effecting the earth's climate when:
1) All yachts are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
2) All Private & Corporate aircrafts (Lears Jets, Gulf Streams, etc) are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
3) All Private property within 1 mile of a sea / ocean coastline is confiscated by the government and all the RICH ELITE are required to move at least one mile inland ......OBVIOUSLY to protect the naive owners from the rising sea levels.
4) Equitable / Equal distribution of energy. Why should rich elites get as much energy as they want to heat and cool multiple mansions while the rest of us are being warned of rationing of energy?
Notice my couple of examples highlight the hypocrisy of the ELITE LEFTIST that want to control the rest of us.
We are either in a crisis or we are not.
Would like to hear from others on what they see as blatant hypocrisy.
I had no idea that people thought that way.
I don't think it's within the scope of my abilities to help you. I'd like to, but I've found that either I'm not a good teacher, or, most are not good students.
Natural gas isn't quite as bad as the others, so that's at least the preferable fossil fuel for right now, but I think long term we need to shift our culture and society towards a power grid that doesn't involve burning long dead organic stuff that we dug up, and there's only so much of anyway (regardless of how much there is down there, surely it's finite). And cars and stuff need to be electric and powered off said grid.
Forty percent of our electricity is powered by oil and gas products.
Well, I guess you are blue on the outside and red on the inside.
The only "snake oil" I have on offer is the new generation of nuclear power plants. I think we should begin construction on these even as we remain mindful of the possible risks. For example, what on earth were the Japanese thinking to build the Fukushima power plant in an area with heightened vulnerability to tsunamis? People have been vilifying nuclear power for far too long. We can and have recovered from nuclear power plant disasters and we have learned from those experiences. But there is no easy way to recover from more than 2 degrees C of climate warming. If that happens, we will pay a very steep price and we will be paying it for a very, very long time.
I could post much more - perhaps I'll start a new thread on some of the better ideas I've come across in my research and reading. For now, suffice it to say that I have no interest in telling people what to do or shuttering small businesses. I would much rather help people to understand what is happening with the earth's climate. How they choose to use their knowledge is not anything I can control.
If people choose to fly on private jets that's between them and their own consciences. Me, I haven't been on a plane in over twenty years and I don't own a car. The house I live in was set up to burn propane for heat, but I prefer a wood burning stove. Heaven knows, with the ongoing drought in the Southwest there's plenty of dead trees to burn and clearing them out helps reduce the fire danger.
And I don't get your reference to Bon Jovi. I mostly listen to classical music and I don't pay much attention to cable TV. If Bon Jovi's beat makes their fans happy, then who am I to criticize? I tend to keep my debates to the Internet. IRL my motto is "Live and let live but LIVE!"
How many nuclear "disasters" have there been in the 70 yrs of nuclear power generation? Keep the magnitude of the problem in perspective.
In regards "recovering from" a 2degC rise in world temps, Lovelock, formulator of the Gaia Hypothesis, who is now someone you might call a Denier, has pointed out that the average temp of Singapore is 20degC-- 5 deg higher than the average world temp, and it's one of the mpst pleasant places top live on Earth....Keep the problem (if there even is one) in perspective.
Just because The Bambi Journal of Environmental Science Sunday Supplement to the NY Times says GW is a problem doesn't mean you should believe them.
How many nuclear "disasters" have there been in the 70 yrs of nuclear power generation? Keep the magnitude of the problem in perspective.
In regards "recovering from" a 2degC rise in world temps, Lovelock, formulator of the Gaia Hypothesis, who is now someone you might call a Denier, has pointed out that the average temp of Singapore is 20degC-- 5 deg higher than the average world temp, and it's one of the mpst pleasant places top live on Earth....Keep the problem (if there even is one) in perspective.
Just because The Bambi Journal of Environmental Science Sunday Supplement to the NY Times says GW is a problem doesn't mean you should believe them.
I agree. We are totally guessing at a solution to an entirely speculative problem.
Well, I guess you are blue on the outside and red on the inside.
No, I am a progressive, left-wing Democrat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
The only "snake oil" I have on offer is the new generation of nuclear power plants. I think we should begin construction on these even as we remain mindful of the possible risks. For example, what on earth were the Japanese thinking to build the Fukushima power plant in an area with heightened vulnerability to tsunamis? People have been vilifying nuclear power for far too long. We can and have recovered from nuclear power plant disasters and we have learned from those experiences.
Here we definitely agree. The problem, as I have pointed out, is that many of the "green advocates" really want to restrict economic growth, out of some misguided Puritanism. They figure that "letting the good times roll" is somehow a sin, whether to the earth, the underclass, or to their consciences, even if they continue to live well. Their consciences are salved by restricting others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
But there is no easy way to recover from more than 2 degrees C of climate warming. If that happens, we will pay a very steep price and we will be paying it for a very, very long time.
Then the world has been in a "whole lot of trouble" since the Ice Age or at the very least the end of the Younger Dryas. Excerpt from linked article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOAA article
The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000). Other proxy records,including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts (Brauer et al. 2008).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
I could post much more - perhaps I'll start a new thread on some of the better ideas I've come across in my research and reading. For now, suffice it to say that I have no interest in telling people what to do or shuttering small businesses. I would much rather help people to understand what is happening with the earth's climate. How they choose to use their knowledge is not anything I can control.
You are delightfully in the minority in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
If people choose to fly on private jets that's between them and their own consciences. Me, I haven't been on a plane in over twenty years and I don't own a car. The house I live in was set up to burn propane for heat, but I prefer a wood burning stove. Heaven knows, with the ongoing drought in the Southwest there's plenty of dead trees to burn and clearing them out helps reduce the fire danger.
The trouble is that many of them like to live large and guilt others into lifestyles and taxes those people don't want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
And I don't get your reference to Bon Jovi. I mostly listen to classical music and I don't pay much attention to cable TV. If Bon Jovi's beat makes their fans happy, then who am I to criticize? I tend to keep my debates to the Internet. IRL my motto is "Live and let live but LIVE!"
He and Elton John were some of the entertainment at the conclave that birthed the Paris Climate Accords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
`1``````````
Huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
