# 97% of Americans not worried about AGW



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sorry, Al. The marketing plan failed.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/t...americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I know. And he was going to make so much money off it too. Poor guy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> I know. And he was going to make so much money off it too. Poor guy.


Al has feathered his nest to a degree that would astonish most Americans if they did not understand his avarice. He truly found his shtick besides inventing the internet.

Too bad he had to cancel his road show prelude to the latest global warming delusion conference after the Paris terrorists upstaged him.

If it bleeds, it leads, Al.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Global warming doesn't worry me. What the government might do about their climate change fantasy does, though...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

My question is why democrats want to force the 97% to obey laws created by the 3%? Why does that 3% deserve laws that will raise fuel prices and stifle business? Why do 3% of the people deserve laws requiring every baker in the country to bake gay wedding cakes if it is against their religious beliefs? The inmates are running the asylum.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Americans absolutely never worry about anything bad that is predicted. We don't deal with things until we hit the wall. 

Okay read the link and the poll. Um only 3% of Americans consider Global warming to be the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing us. The numbers don't mean they don't care about it, it just isn't their number one issue. More conservative spin and misconstruing the facts. Should have known better.


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

One thing I learned in college is that polls don't mean squat. They depend on what is asked, in what manner it is asked, who is asked, how the answers are interpreted, and how the figuring is done. And 97% of the time, the results are what the person wants. But most people believe what they want anyway.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

AND, that what *good* representative government consists of is *statesmen* listening to committee input, weighing informed information on one hand sometimes versus superstition, ignorance, and vested interest on the other, and at least occasionally enacting (or enforcing, in the case of the executive branch), legislation that drags a majority of yahoos along despite their inability to see past special interests' advertising and campaign contributions. Gee, that poll was fashioned by Rupert Murdock's Fox News. Go figure.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

"Ah, look, something that agrees with my preconceived notions. I'll just wade past the 25 pages of information and science that disagrees with my views and post this one."


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

There is no need to resort to needing to be told what to think by someone that got labelled an "expert" by the establishment. We all have brains and the power of observation. If we Only had that and nobody telling us what to think, we'd never dream up the insanity that we're told to believe in.

I don't know any of those guys folks call scientists. They could be raging sociopaths for all I know...what I do know is that they love a paycheck and those are hard to get when you don't agree with the agenda.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> There is no need to resort to needing to be told what to think by someone that got labelled an "expert" by the establishment. We all have brains and the power of observation.


Sure, you could use your brains and power of observation to determine if the world is flat, but you might draw the wrong conclusion. Many people have.

The thing is that experts usually have advanced degrees and have devoted their lives to a particular thing. It's a pretty good bet that they know a lot about that thing.

So if you have a question about a scientific topic you could rely on your own intuition, take the advice of a Fox News host, or you could ask a scientist. It's a good bet that the scientist will give you the best answer.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And they get 1,000's to millions of dollars in Government Tax Payer Funded GRANTS~!
And some still think they are to be believed? :facepalm:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And they get 1,000's to millions of dollars in Government Tax Payer Funded GRANTS~!
> And some still think they are to be believed? :facepalm:


Interestingly, it doesn't disturb you that Fox News hosts are paid by Fox News. You still believe them over scientists.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Sure, you could use your brains and power of observation to determine if the world is flat, but you might draw the wrong conclusion. Many people have.
> 
> The thing is that experts usually have advanced degrees and have devoted their lives to a particular thing. It's a pretty good bet that they know a lot about that thing.
> 
> So if you have a question about a scientific topic you could rely on your own intuition, take the advice of a Fox News host, or you could ask a scientist. It's a good bet that the scientist will give you the best answer.


You obviously didn't read the Times article about how most "scientists" are not concerned about fudging their facts in order to achieve their intended goals. I don't have much faith in them anymore. My own intuition has been right much more than some "published" science.


----------



## Alaska (Jun 16, 2012)

Science is never settled. The climate change, formally global warming, formally ice age is coming scientist. have been working backwards trying to justify the conclusion. To announce that the science is settled is ludicrous. Scientist are supposed to kee questioning. These guys are politicians first and now they let themselves get involved with the tinpot dictators club formerly the united nations. 
The ring of fire puts them all to shame on a daily basis. Mankind does not stand a chance. We should be blessed o live our life out before the earth itself snuffs out. Live Large


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Sure, you could use your brains and power of observation to determine if the world is flat, but you might draw the wrong conclusion. Many people have.
> 
> The thing is that experts usually have advanced degrees and have devoted their lives to a particular thing. It's a pretty good bet that they know a lot about that thing.
> 
> So if you have a question about a scientific topic you could rely on your own intuition, take the advice of a Fox News host, or you could ask a scientist. It's a good bet that the scientist will give you the best answer.


My brain and observation tells me that everything in the sky is spherical and the horizon can be viewed at high altitudes as curving and nature favors curves, not straight edges....so, no, I never figured the world was flat.

I don't consider it a good bet that those educated in what they are supposed to think are better off than anyone else being told what to think.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Government Tax Payer Funded GRANTS~!


Absolute, utter nonsense, clearly sputtered out by citizens who have had zero personal contact with scientists or how the grant process works. Much of that money goes to quite modest wages paid to graduate students or effectively indentured servant post-docs, and to equipment used to collect data, for data analysis, and travel to conferences and so on. The PhDs' salaries are mostly paid by their universities or government agencies like NOAA, NASA, and so forth, and don't get enhanced with bonuses for bringing the grant funds in. Actually, it's the universities themselves who suck in major fractions of the grants as overhead fees. If a prof is to make *big* bucks, anything anywhere near the salaries and bonuses of private industry like the employees of the Kochs, Exxon, Fox News, Citizens United, and so on, it's by way of publishing popular books then charging speakers' fees for lecture presentations, or from consultants' fees at court cases or sometimes for corporations who don't feel comfortable with their own stables of engineers and researchers. Al Gore is something of an example of how that aspect works and how much money can be garnered, to his discredit, I agree. But *he's* never been a researcher or grant applicant to my knowledge, noted as not doing well in science classes nor taking math courses. Lumping real, active researchers in with Gore and claiming they do it for money is to slander them. 

And what happens to a researcher who questions some aspects of AGW ideas like one Dr. Muller of Berkeley and is helped to assemble a detailed study of topics he had found questionable with partial funding of $100,000 from the Kochs? Nobody blackballed him in academia. What happened was he concluded, (from Wikipedia):


> On July 28, 2012, he stated, "[G]lobal warming [is] real .... Humans are almost entirely the cause."[2]
> _Foreign Policy_ named Muller one of its 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "for changing their minds".[18]


 He *does* still feel methane fracking is on balance much more desirable than coal or other energy sources, but the fact is the Kochs dropped funding him like a hot potato, and like their apparent sycophants right here, refuse to discuss his conclusions and intellectual honesty any further. There, he *lost* money by coming to the supposedly profitable pro-AGW conclusions.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Money, power & control. That's all it's about. Look at those who push this BS lifestyles, all these liberal progressives that have nothing better to do then control the World. 
But, you already knew that, and you are just as guilty as them for pushing it. And all this crap is the scam of the century.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Money, power & control. That's all it's about. .


 Yes, I would agree. Those anti-climate change propagandists are as guilty as anyone.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Alaska said:


> Science is never settled. The climate change, formally global warming, formally ice age is coming scientist. have been working backwards trying to justify the conclusion.


 Ah yes, another one who didn't get the memo that the 'coming ice age' was more of a fringe theory that happened to get an inordinate amount of press, and never had widespread backing amongst the scientific community.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Sorry, Al. The marketing plan failed.


 Is this going to be like every other 'global warming thread' you start? Where we go back and forth for 20 pages, show you link after link that refutes your every argument, and you eventually get tired of being proven wrong and start another thread? :happy2:


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> you are just as guilty as them for pushing it


Ah, edging into what future judgements will consist of. Happy to give my spin, that the AGW issue supporters and researchers in general will be viewed as in the tradition of Galileo, Kepler, Benjamin Franklin, and such, enlightened thinkers, humanists, and patriots opposed by ignorant witch hunters and in Franklin's case, royalists, where the ilk of the deniers will be grouped with Torquemada, and for more current US parallels in the political realm, perhaps Andrew Jackson or US Grant.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Is this going to be like every other 'global warming thread' you start? Where we go back and forth for 20 pages, show you link after link that refutes your every argument, and you eventually get tired of being proven wrong and start another thread? :happy2:


Of course not Greg.  let me find the link that examines the study that was used as the basis for AGW supporters' claim that 90%+ scientists support AGW. The study was bogus, btw.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

DryHeat said:


> Ah, edging into what future judgements will consist of. Happy to give my spin, that the AGW issue supporters and researchers in general will be viewed as in the tradition of Galileo, Kepler, Benjamin Franklin, and such, enlightened thinkers, humanists, and patriots opposed by ignorant witch hunters and in Franklin's case, royalists, where the ilk of the deniers will be grouped with Torquemada, and for more current US parallels in the political realm, perhaps Andrew Jackson or US Grant.


Not with all the lies and bogus charts they wont! They will be looked at as the kooks who tried to impose their will on others for personal gain! That IS how they will be seen, especially in the scientific community. As a matter of fact, most already are looked at with disdain .

And the global cooling scare was promoted vigorously, unlike some here have said. This will be more of the same.

What is your solution? One that won't affect me or cost me more money, I'm already forced to pay a lot for those that refuse to work, I don't need any more taken from us.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Here's one example of what you're paying for unnecessarily. Years ago the GE steam turbine and generator plant in Schnectady, NY was working two shifts. At some point much more recently they went to three shifts.

Machinests are being encouraged to work 16 hours per day but any overtime work is welcome. The bonus is $100 per hour in addition to the regular pay. Some are going out to their vehciles after their shift, sleeping and then going back to work. They're eating out of the vending machines.

One machinest I know of had a $6,000 paycheck for last week. That was for one week, not one month.

If you're wondering why, that is part of the rape and pillage of Americans being initiated by the EPA by forcing the replacement of coal fired power plants with natural gas fired plants.

While the press enlightens us with imaginative stories of corporate misdeeds to cover up AGW, one of the biggest, GE, is making money hand over fist from the EPA's stupidity.

BTW, the word is GE expects tha workload to continue for years.

Someone will have to pay for that $6,000 per week paycheck and a lot more costs besides. If you want to know who. Go look in the mirror.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Darren said:


> Here's one example of what you're paying for unnecessarily. Years ago the GE steam turbine and generator plant in Schnectady, NY was working two shifts. At some point much more recently they went to three shifts.
> 
> Machinests are being encouraged to work 16 hours per day but any overtime work is welcome. The bonus is $100 per hour in addition to the regular pay. Some are going out to their vehciles after their shift, sleeping and then going back to work. They're eating out of the vending machines.
> 
> ...


Well ain't that a hoot!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> And they get 1,000's to millions of dollars in Government Tax Payer Funded GRANTS~!
> And some still think they are to be believed? :facepalm:


The government is the primary funder of most "public" research. Try getting environmental research paid for an oil company. It's like giving equal air time to candidates.



Woolieface said:


> There is no need to resort to needing to be told what to think by someone that got labelled an "expert" by the establishment. We all have brains and the power of observation. If we Only had that and nobody telling us what to think, we'd never dream up the insanity that we're told to believe in.
> 
> I don't know any of those guys folks call scientists. They could be raging sociopaths for all I know...what I do know is that they love a paycheck and those are hard to get when you don't agree with the agenda.


SO you never met the scientists, but you're pretty sure they're getting a paycheck to buy their opinion? That's not how the scientific community works, not at all. Anyone being bought by money is quickly ridiculed and thrown out of the circle. Prestige is much more valuable to a scientist - that's why they sacrifice 10 years of their lives to higher education.



Alaska said:


> Science is never settled. The climate change, formally global warming, formally ice age is coming scientist. have been working backwards trying to justify the conclusion. To announce that the science is settled is ludicrous. Scientist are supposed to kee questioning. These guys are politicians first and now they let themselves get involved with the tinpot dictators club formerly the united nations.
> The ring of fire puts them all to shame on a daily basis. Mankind does not stand a chance. We should be blessed o live our life out before the earth itself snuffs out. Live Large


No one said the science is settled. The satellites aren't perfect, the data is sometimes flawed, graphs need adjustment, and there's always human error. But the scientific community is at a 97% percent agreement on climate change, which coincidentally matches this garbage heap of a poll. And you know what else - I don't give a crap what the public thinks. Never have, and never will.



greg273 said:


> Yes, I would agree. Those anti-climate change propagandists are as guilty as anyone.


Quite right. A recent study showed most of America's confusion on climate change was due largely to misinformation propagated by the oil industry.



Darren said:


> Here's one example of what you're paying for unnecessarily. Years ago the GE steam turbine and generator plant in Schnectady, NY was working two shifts. At some point much more recently they went to three shifts.
> 
> Machinests are being encouraged to work 16 hours per day but any overtime work is welcome. The bonus is $100 per hour in addition to the regular pay. Some are going out to their vehciles after their shift, sleeping and then going back to work. They're eating out of the vending machines.
> 
> ...


So machinists making as much money as a radiologist - by working 4 times harder - from one of the foremost tech companies is cause for alarm? What?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*NOAAâs climate change science fiction*


> NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.
> 
> Earlier this year, NASA issued a news release stating that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Few media acknowledged the footnote: Scientists were only 38 percent sure this was actually correct. That is less than 50-50.
> 
> ...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/print/


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> And they get 1,000's to millions of dollars in Government Tax Payer Funded GRANTS~!
> And some still think they are to be believed? :facepalm:





DryHeat said:


> Absolute, utter nonsense, clearly sputtered out by citizens who have had zero personal contact with scientists or how the grant process works. Much of that money goes to quite modest wages paid to graduate students or effectively indentured servant post-docs, and to equipment used to collect data, for data analysis, and travel to conferences and so on.* The PhDs' salaries are mostly paid by their universities or government agencies like NOAA, NASA, and so forth,* and don't get enhanced with bonuses for bringing the grant funds in.


What difference if it's grants or salaries? It's all *taxpayer money*.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> ? It's all *taxpayer money*.


Total ignorance. You "skeptics" just talk through your hats making stuff up precisely like you reflexively accuse scientists, profs, researchers, whatever, of doing. Many top researchers are at private universities whose funding comes in major part from alumni contributions. Some are in "endowed seat" positions whose salaries are funded far into the future by massive trusts set up by wealthy science & arts patrons' estates. Plus, a huge number of these researchers are at *foreign* schools so even if it's "tax money" it's from countries to whom you don't pay taxes anyway, but likely have better-educated citizens than we do here now since we've allowed know-nothing evangelical types to burrow into local school system boards in so many places.

Fortunately, it's still the job of public servants to allocate funds to qualified research whether the ignorant or superstitious or advertising-duped approve of it or not, and many of them take their jobs seriously still. IMO, one reform needed is a tax structure more like in the 50s and 60s (when there was plenty of economic growth, no?) with income tax rates up to 70% for the highest income brackets. Beyond the first couple hundred thou of income, pay 40%, then 50% for the part over a million, etc, upwards. Enforce a heavy inheritance and gift tax, again when beyond a million per recipient so "normal" hard work by parents can still give a good grubstake to kids but not a lifetime sinecure. Eliminate easy shelters and loopholes. That would give a little breathing room for funding allocations not bleeding the lower income strata, especially considering how fed cutbacks are forcing states to use the obscenely regressive sales tax route, plus killing public schools.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> SO you never met the scientists, but you're pretty sure they're getting a paycheck to buy their opinion? That's not how the scientific community works, not at all. Anyone being bought by money is quickly ridiculed and thrown out of the circle. Prestige is much more valuable to a scientist - that's why they sacrifice 10 years of their lives to higher education.


No, I'm not pretty sure. I'm absolutely sure. 
Yes, that is how the scientific community works.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Here's another essay. Posts here keep throwing out comments about scientific hypotheses and theories changing, how weather "models" are so unreliable and are "fudged" or something by being altered to fit past data and events. All those sorts of comments are, again, stunningly ignorant blather. It's time to challenge nonsense here. Yes, energy cycles in the climate, weather events, are vastly complex. If some theory, some approach, has validity... if it's "true," it has to have predictive value. So, you measure various forces as best you can, in as many places as you can. You think about how different parts of the environment might influence others, even if only in a small way. A college level basic ecology course sends undergrads off to classic, then more recent, publications presenting various measurements then challenges them to think about what it "means," how better measurements could be selected, and a few of them continue on to calculate equations showing interrelations among measurements.

CO2 in the atmosphere increases a tad, a bit more gets absorbed into the ocean, more of that is used by plankton to build their carbonate shells, plankton die, some fall to floor sediments and that CO2 is likely sequestered from the carbon cycle and out of the way. BUT, CO2 in the water increases acidity by ionizing to carbonic acid and that process along with slightly higher water temperature from the CO2 greenhouse effects starts bleaching corals, killing reefs, reducing biodiversity with lowered krill populations on up the marine foodchain to vertebrates that are food for humans. On and on, every step *measurable* in some way, perhaps by running sample nets through different ocean depths, burning and reducing the jumbled contents to some index number like a measured weight of pure carbon; something that can be compared to past techniques. Then you might have something that can be expressed as an equation, X grams of CO2 added to atmosphere per month, then Y grams of biocarbon at 1 meter depth, 10 meters, 100 meters, in many many different sampling locations. The undergrad course prof takes students out to a lake, say, then pulls up the results of various types of sampling from last year, 2, 3, 4 years earlier, for as long as he took classes out there with the same equipment. Some are inspired to go into grad school and develop much more complex comparisons, MODELS, which need to have predictive value. Create a series of equations, so much CO2 measured atmospheric, local air temperatures, water temperatures, input to the pond of fertilizer runoff, pesticide levels, phytoplankton biomass, pH water levels, species diversity index calculations. There are zillions of things that might be monitored and many possible "outcomes" that can be measured, too. Sometimes it's more based on what's been done before so a comparison into the past is available, sometimes it's based on what can be measured most easily or cheaply (if budgets have been cut, sometimes...). Sometimes it sounds like something nominated for a "Golden Fleece" award, like total biomass of rotifers in a 100-sq meter pond behind the school's biosci building since this grad student wasn't able to get a grant to do something more relevant, or maybe is destined for a "terminal masters" degree award as being one of the dimmer bulbs in the program that year.

So, what gets measured, in how many locations, how much computer time is used, is all steered ultimately by judgements, sometimes of actual utility. Think these models and the way they're run looking at whether particular sets of equations *would* have predicted event outcomes given past conditions well enough to be *useful* and practical are just so much hokum? Well, LOOK at the typical tropical storm/ hurricane "cone of probability" charts the hurricane center presents dozens of every year. THOSE are models developed exactly the same way global temperature, CO2 forcing, climate change effect models are being worked on. Me, I can personally remember how uncertain hurricane path directions were in the 1960s. I lived in Florida maybe three house lots away from a salt water inlet, maybe 6' above high tide. This was *important* stuff considering possibilities of 20' storm surge events and so on, but hurricane paths were often just mysteries. Why the hey did that one just stall then spin back off into the Atlantic? It was left to individual meteorologists to pore over isobars and storm fronts and such and eyeball-gut-feel predict what would happen a couple days out. Going back to the early 1900s, ask the folks of Galveston, for example, how well that worked out for them. 

NOW, there are dozens of predictive models that input millions of measurements of wind, pressure, temperature, wave heights, for distances thousands of miles distant from storm centers. There are three or four that do very well in certain conditions (the "European Model" for example) predicting cyclones' paths often even a week or so into the future. They all have their "cone of probability" but when the best several agree, boom, you have a very useful weather prediction that was utterly impossible to have with that sort of certainty a few decades ago. People can decide very reasonably, several days in advance, either to relax, on one hand, OR on the other, to board the house up, load up the car, and head up I-75 into Georgia for safety. 

The climate change models you bozos are endlessly dissing with your yammering here are being developed by the same processes. It works, but it takes time and money.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

In habitants of this world have adapting or dying since this world was formed. Its called the cycle of life. Just adapt or die because you aren't going to change it.:runforhills:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> So machinists making as much money as a radiologist - by working 4 times harder - from one of the foremost tech companies is cause for alarm? What?


That was a small example of the added costs to fight the chicken little AGW scam that is being impressed on the American public. The recently coined term to cover the wealth transfer is energy poverty. Utilitiy companies are not protesting. They get to pass the costs of the new plants on to their consumers. What's not to like about getting billions of dollars of new deprecable assest on the backs of American families?

Companies like Exxonmobil which has invested heavily in natural gas resources won't complain because they have set themselves to benefit from the greatly icreased demand for natural gas once those new power plants are brought online. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what will happen to families in this country. First they will have to pay for the new power plants with higher electricity costs. Then those costs will sky rocket due to the higher price of natural gas because of the greatly increased demand.

Then heating costs will skyrocket for those that heat with natural gas. Energy poverty is about to be visited upon American families due to the misplaced touchy feely concerns over global warming.

The end result will be an impact on disposable income that so far has not been mentioned in the media. It will be profound to the extent that this country's retail sector and its jobs will be severely affected.

We're entering into the initial phases of an economic disaster.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> What difference if it's grants or salaries? It's all *taxpayer money*.


Thankfully, scientists receive this money that enables them to (usually) work without constant oversight by the public. The public is confused and ignorant when it comes to science; constant oversight would destroy normal science.



Woolieface said:


> No, I'm not pretty sure. I'm absolutely sure.
> Yes, that is how the scientific community works.


You've subscribed to premiere journals like Science? You've participated in intellectual discourse with scientists? You've been to college? If you bash the entire scientific community, it's easy to dismiss AGW. You know science brought you the computer you're using right now? Or is it a smartphone, using technology that's been miniaturized using techniques from nearly every science field? How about medical improvements - I bet those are just conspiracies to make people sick.



TripleD said:


> In habitants of this world have adapting or dying since this world was formed. Its called the cycle of life. Just adapt or die because you aren't going to change it.:runforhills:


Heartwarming. 



Darren said:


> That was a small example of the added costs to fight the chicken little AGW scam that is being impressed on the American public. The recently coined term to cover the wealth transfer is energy poverty. Utilitiy companies are not protesting. They get to pass the costs of the new plants on to their consumers. What's not to like about getting billions of dollars of new deprecable assest on the backs of American families?
> 
> Companies like Exxonmobil which has invested heavily in natural gas resources won't complain because they have set themselves to benefit from the greatly icreased demand for natural gas once those new power plants are brought online. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what will happen to families in this country. First they will have to pay for the new power plants with higher electricity costs. Then those costs will sky rocket due to the higher price of natural gas because of the greatly increased demand.
> 
> ...


Umm all right. The initial costs of switching to greener energy may be higher than they could be. But are you aware that fossil fuels are subsidized? Just look at how much money it takes to make the black machine roll:

IMF says global subsidies to fossil fuels amount to $1.9 trillion a year â¦ and thatâs probably an underestimate



> A new report [PDF] from the International Monetary Fund tries to tally up fossil fuel subsidies around the world and finds that they add up to an eye-popping $1.9 trillion a year. Thatâs 2.5 percent of global GDP!


I'm pretty sure you'll have a mighty hard time coming up with $2T in costs incurred by the green, scientific, or AGW community. Which are pretty much the same group.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Darren said:


> That was a small example of the added costs to fight the chicken little AGW scam that is being impressed on the American public. The recently coined term to cover the wealth transfer is energy poverty. Utilitiy companies are not protesting. They get to pass the costs of the new plants on to their consumers. What's not to like about getting billions of dollars of new deprecable assest on the backs of American families?
> 
> Companies like Exxonmobil which has invested heavily in natural gas resources won't complain because they have set themselves to benefit from the greatly icreased demand for natural gas once those new power plants are brought online. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what will happen to families in this country. First they will have to pay for the new power plants with higher electricity costs. Then those costs will sky rocket due to the higher price of natural gas because of the greatly increased demand.
> 
> ...


ROFL, you think natural gas is a "clean" alternative? So you actually believe ExxonMobile is on the environmentalists' side of the issue? Wow.

Do some research on the release of methane gas into the atmosphere associated with fracking -- the most common method used for natural gas extraction.

Don't you ever wonder why there are all those "clean natural gas" ads on the tee vee, paid for by the natural gas industry? Propaganda at its finest. And you bought it.

Things You Must Believe in Order to Believe AGW is a Conspiracy:

1. There are no scientists outside the USA, or that somehow all the scientists world wide are under the sway of the American government.

2. The fossil fuels industry has no incentive to mislead the public about the settled science.

3. The same science that tells you we've had natural cycles of climate change for millions of years -- which you find reliable -- is "different" science than the science that tells you that *this* cycle of climate change is heavily influenced by the activities of the human race.

4. That the scientific community, which has in fact endured significant funding cuts over the past 40 years, is somehow more powerful than the fossil fuels industry.

5. That the very real effects of climate change now occurring all over the world are all just part of a "hoax." I'll bet Hollywood would love to know how to conjure up some of these events as readily.

I'm sorry, but your notions are delusional. I honestly don't understand why you are so invested in propagating the lies you spin over and over and over. Even when shown how your links don't stand for the assertions for which you offer them, or that they are just plain incorrect, you persist in your crazy construct of conspiracy theory. I've never seen such an impenetrable case of confirmation bias.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

DryHeat said:


> Here's another essay. Posts here keep throwing out comments about scientific hypotheses and theories changing, how weather "models" are so unreliable and are "fudged" or something by being altered to fit past data and events. All those sorts of comments are, again, stunningly ignorant blather. It's time to challenge nonsense here. Yes, energy cycles in the climate, weather events, are vastly complex. If some theory, some approach, has validity... if it's "true," it has to have predictive value. So, you measure various forces as best you can, in as many places as you can. You think about how different parts of the environment might influence others, even if only in a small way. A college level basic ecology course sends undergrads off to classic, then more recent, publications presenting various measurements then challenges them to think about what it "means," how better measurements could be selected, and a few of them continue on to calculate equations showing interrelations among measurements.
> 
> CO2 in the atmosphere increases a tad, a bit more gets absorbed into the ocean, more of that is used by plankton to build their carbonate shells, plankton die, some fall to floor sediments and that CO2 is likely sequestered from the carbon cycle and out of the way. BUT, CO2 in the water increases acidity by ionizing to carbonic acid and that process along with slightly higher water temperature from the CO2 greenhouse effects starts bleaching corals, killing reefs, reducing biodiversity with lowered krill populations on up the marine foodchain to vertebrates that are food for humans. On and on, every step *measurable* in some way, perhaps by running sample nets through different ocean depths, burning and reducing the jumbled contents to some index number like a measured weight of pure carbon; something that can be compared to past techniques. Then you might have something that can be expressed as an equation, X grams of CO2 added to atmosphere per month, then Y grams of biocarbon at 1 meter depth, 10 meters, 100 meters, in many many different sampling locations. The undergrad course prof takes students out to a lake, say, then pulls up the results of various types of sampling from last year, 2, 3, 4 years earlier, for as long as he took classes out there with the same equipment. Some are inspired to go into grad school and develop much more complex comparisons, MODELS, which need to have predictive value. Create a series of equations, so much CO2 measured atmospheric, local air temperatures, water temperatures, input to the pond of fertilizer runoff, pesticide levels, phytoplankton biomass, pH water levels, species diversity index calculations. There are zillions of things that might be monitored and many possible "outcomes" that can be measured, too. Sometimes it's more based on what's been done before so a comparison into the past is available, sometimes it's based on what can be measured most easily or cheaply (if budgets have been cut, sometimes...). Sometimes it sounds like something nominated for a "Golden Fleece" award, like total biomass of rotifers in a 100-sq meter pond behind the school's biosci building since this grad student wasn't able to get a grant to do something more relevant, or maybe is destined for a "terminal masters" degree award as being one of the dimmer bulbs in the program that year.
> 
> ...


Sorry. Factual evidence doesn't get you anywhere here.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Man made global cooling = big lie.
Man made global warming = big lie
Man made climate change = big lie. 
I am always amazed and laughing at how horribly gullible these liberal folks are now and the rest of mankind through the world as far as that goes. And now even Money Bags Bill Gates is over there.

Climate Change Summit = New World Order Summit


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sorry. Factual evidence doesn't get you anywhere here.


Neither does calling people ignorant bozos. That's precisely where I stopped reading.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I read in one of the replys above that polls dont me squat or something similar. The place where polls me a GREAT DEAL is to the general, lazy, ininspired public. The ones that watch 4 hours of TV every day and never have an original thought of their own. They believe what the pollsters tell them and it does affect their vote if they are one of the voting few. Like my older sister who is very well educated and still votes for the candidate who is the best looking in her opinion?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Neither does calling people ignorant bozos.


Just so you know, I take offense to suggesting that all scientists are frauds. I'm careful to not use unfair language about cops and people in the military. I expect the same courtesy for my profession.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Remember When Droughts before CO2 Being Above The 350ppm Level? 
And then came *the government-funded scientists, and greenies weenies and anti-CO2 activists, and the MSM-alarmists* have all claimed that the current drought being suffered in the West coast and Southwest is the extreme climate change Americans have never experienced before. Rubbish to that.
They claim it is due to human CO2 emissions of the modern industrial and consumer civilization.
And yet severe droughts have been part this country and the WORLDS climate since humans started recording severe weather events. Across the globe, and the US, there is Plenty of historical drought reports and other extreme climate conditions. That is, IF one REALLY wants to get at the TRUTH.
Huge drought extremes in the US have been clearly documented by NOAA since the 1900s~!!
And most of them taking place well before the global 350ppm CO2 atmospheric level was in the mainstream talking points. And that is the truth, but to hear and read from these that seem to think, AND BELIEVE this is a NEW occurrence, are so far out of touch they want to believe that everything that is being reported NOW is NEW and never happened before. Pure Rubbish~!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I blame those lying Eskimos.

After thousands of years, of all that hard work, hunting whales and fishing, just to survive or flourish, they are simply just getting lazy and really just want any excuse, to move inland and get on welfare, to eat spam and watch soap operas all day long.. 



> The rapid retreat of the sea ice that has defined the Arctic ecosystem for thousands of years is threatening the existence and movements ofSome Inuit feel they are losing control of a homeland whose ice-covered expanses had long acted as a barrier to the outside world.​creatures that have long been at the heart of Inuit subsistence culture &#8212; whales, seals, polar bears, and fish. And the transformation to a largely ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer &#8212; Arctic sea ice extent last month hit a stunning new low of 1.3 million square miles, a 50 percent decline from the 1979 to 2000 average &#8212; also has meant a new and at times threatening influx of human outsiders to the region.


http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_arctic_melts_inuit_face_tensions_with_outside_world/2577/


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> T How about medical improvements - I bet those are just conspiracies to make people sick.


My health has improved substantially from avoiding all those "medical improvements". A whole lot of sick people in this very medically advanced society of ours. How about you figure it out...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

58% of the time polls are correct. 46% of the time they have been altered.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Umm all right. The initial costs of switching to greener energy may be higher than they could be. But are you aware that fossil fuels are subsidized? Just look at how much money it takes to make the black machine roll:
> 
> IMF says global subsidies to fossil fuels amount to $1.9 trillion a year â¦ and thatâs probably an underestimate
> 
> I'm pretty sure you'll have a mighty hard time coming up with $2T in costs incurred by the green, scientific, or AGW community. Which are pretty much the same group.


The two trillion you've mentioned seem to be mostly foreign.

We know the solar industry and wind industry is subsidized in this coutry. It's the reason wind power has any chance of competeing with legacy powered systems. 

My question to you: What is the amount of money the federal government provides to utilities that uses fossil fuels to generate power? It's not anywhere near the two trillion figure obviously. My guess is it's zero.

It appears you really don't think families in this country are going to face an eat or heat decision. 

Comparing mostly foreign subsidies as a way of avoiding the discussion of the depredation of American families is disingenuous at best. I won't get into what it represents at worse.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sisterpine said:


> I read in one of the replys above that polls dont me squat or something similar. The place where polls me a GREAT DEAL is to the general, lazy, ininspired public. The ones that watch 4 hours of TV every day and never have an original thought of their own. They believe what the pollsters tell them and it does affect their vote if they are one of the voting few. Like my older sister who is very well educated and still votes for the candidate who is the best looking in her opinion?


This is an unfortunate situation, however, one that is not easily remedied. There happens to be a great deal of misinformation out there on climate change as well, thus further contributing to people's negative views of the science. For many, all it takes is a few of their peers to scoff at something to change their minds.



Txsteader said:


> Neither does calling people ignorant bozos. That's precisely where I stopped reading.


I never called anyone that. Maybe you should read AK's posts.



plowjockey said:


> I blame those lying Eskimos.
> 
> After thousands of years, of all that hard work, hunting whales and fishing, just to survive or flourish, they are simply just getting lazy and really just want any excuse, to move inland and get on welfare, to eat spam and watch soap operas all day long..
> 
> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_arctic_melts_inuit_face_tensions_with_outside_world/2577/


Drat. I knew I didn't trust people in igloos.



Woolieface said:


> My health has improved substantially from avoiding all those "medical improvements". A whole lot of sick people in this very medically advanced society of ours. How about you figure it out...


I also avoid most of them. However, I've been vaccinated and it didn't kill me, give me seizures, etc. People are living a lot longer than they ever have before in history. Much of this is due to better medical understanding. And the medical community generals recommends staying away from fast food, yet how many people do you see in the drive through on average?



Darren said:


> The two trillion you've mentioned seem to be mostly foreign.
> 
> We know the solar industry and wind industry is subsidized in this coutry. It's the reason wind power has any chance of competeing with legacy powered systems.
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States



> Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
> Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
> Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
> Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)


You are correct. Renewables are receiving the largest bite of US monies. 

However, externalities take a rather large bite of the subsidies in the IMF report. Scroll to page 14 to see the externalities taken into account - they are also quite large. This refers to lots of stuff, such as road maintenance, health costs, etc. And no, I do not want to see families starved into green energy. Starving people rarely make environmentally sound decisions. We need sound, solid policies that protect the environment, the economy, and the people.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I never called anyone that. Maybe you should read AK's posts.


And YOU were not called one either. But just maybe One of YOUR companions in this disgrace and HUGE scam called GW DID. And it was NOT ME EITHER......
Try looking at those by Dry~! LOL


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> People are living a lot longer than they ever have before in history. Much of this is due to better medical understanding.



I disagree. I've never seen evidence of that being true looking through historical records of people's ages at death 100-200 years ago. On average, they look about the same. I've seen a good representation of 90 and over from that era. I'm not even sure I could say there is a good representation of 90 and over in average society today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> I disagree. I've never seen evidence of that being true looking through historical records of people's ages at death 100-200 years ago. On average, they look about the same. I've seen a good representation of 90 and over from that era. I'm not even sure I could say there is a good representation of 90 and over in average society today.


That's absurd on its face. Life expectancy improves every year. In fact life expectancy improved from less than 50 to nearly 80 during the years 1900 to 1998.

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

You can disagree all you want with that, but you'd be wrong.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> That's absurd on its face. Life expectancy improves every year. In fact life expectancy improved from less than 50 to nearly 80 during the years 1900 to 1998.
> 
> http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
> 
> You can disagree all you want with that, but you'd be wrong.


No it isn't absurd. I've posted the lifespans of the first ten presidents on here once before. As I said then, odds are either they represent the average or presidents have mighty special genes. If the argument is presidents got better medical care...well, it's still two centuries old medical care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> No it isn't absurd. I've posted the lifespans of the first ten presidents on here once before. As I said then, odds are either they represent the average or presidents have mighty special genes. If the argument is presidents got better medical care...well, it's still two centuries old medical care.


Arguing that modern medicine hasn't improved life expectancy is completely frivolous. In fact it's worked so well that it's created social problems by burdening retirement programs. There's just no arguing against that we're living longer.

In fact I've been wondering how many more medical cures we can afford. If there are too many of us living to be 100, where will the extra SS & Medicare funding come from?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Arguing that modern medicine hasn't improved life expectancy is completely frivolous. In fact it's worked so well that it's created social problems by burdening retirement programs. There's just no arguing against that we're living longer.
> 
> In fact I've been wondering how many more medical cures we can afford. If there are too many of us living to be 100, where will the extra SS & Medicare funding come from?


Actually I did just argue that we're not living longer. With some fairly good evidence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> Actually I did just argue that we're not living longer. With some fairly good evidence.


Hopeless... :smack


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Hopeless... :smack


:icecream:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I never called anyone that. Maybe you should read AK's posts.


I wasn't referring to you. See post #32.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> I disagree. *I've never seen* evidence of that being true looking through historical records of people's ages at death 100-200 years ago. On average, they look about the same. I've seen a good representation of 90 and over from that era. I'm not even sure I could say there is a good representation of 90 and over in average society today.


If you haven't seen it, you haven't really looked


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> No it isn't absurd. I've posted the lifespans of the first ten presidents on here once before. As I said then, odds are either they represent the average or presidents have mighty special genes. If the argument is presidents got better medical care...well, it's still two centuries old medical care.


10 individuals have nothing to do with the average lifespans of the general population.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

For sure people are living longer due to modern meds. Whomever thinks it is not is out of touch. Thank goodness for modern medicine as my dad is still alive at 87 and has had diabetes for the last 50 years. If it wasn't for modern techniques and meds and good healthcare he would have chances are been gone long time ago.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> I wasn't referring to you. See post #32.


Oh, okay.



arabian knight said:


> For sure people are living longer due to modern meds. Whomever thinks it is not is out of touch. Thank goodness for modern medicine as my dad is still alive at 87 and has had diabetes for the last 50 years. If it wasn't for modern techniques and meds and good healthcare he would have chances are been gone long time ago.





Woolieface said:


> Actually I did just argue that we're not living longer. With some fairly good evidence.


Look, even AK just disagreed with you. You've provided no evidence to support your case, while Nevada has. There is no logical fallacy for this; it's simply being incorrect.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've never said that all scientists are frauds, regardless of what Nevada implied/claimed. We're (or at least _I_ was) talking about *climate* scientists in this discussion. 

While I _could_ support my claim by using the arguments put forth by those climate scientists that are skeptics, it would only induce more arguments, which I have no interest in debating any more. Much like what Obamacare has done for healthcare insurance in this country, I see the whole AGW/climate treaty scam causing massive chaos.....on a global scale.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I've never said that all scientists are frauds, regardless of what Nevada implied/claimed. We're (or at least _I_ was) talking about *climate* scientists in this discussion.


I had no idea that you single out climate scientists. You need to tell me these things.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It really doesn't matter who disagrees with me. I did provide evidence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> 10 individuals have nothing to do with the average lifespans of the general population.


Sure. In the first place considering only presidents commits the 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy (drawing a broad conclusion from a small sample).

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/101-hasty-generalization

In addition, the fact that only presidents were considered ignores many significant causes of death. Obviously childhood diseases are ignored because they all lived long enough to become president. Being killed in battle is ignored, because they all obviously survived any wars they might have participated in. Dangerous occupations are also ignored, since being a statesman isn't a particularly hazardous line of work.

I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> It really doesn't matter who disagrees with me. I did provide evidence.


Where is your link providing a support to your evidence? No links, no argument. Anecdotal evidence is very weak, and the only one who knows if it's true or not is you. It just doesn't hold water. 



Txsteader said:


> I've never said that all scientists are frauds, regardless of what Nevada implied/claimed. We're (or at least _I_ was) talking about *climate* scientists in this discussion.
> 
> While I _could_ support my claim by using the arguments put forth by those climate scientists that are skeptics, it would only induce more arguments, which I have no interest in debating any more. Much like what Obamacare has done for healthcare insurance in this country, I see the whole AGW/climate treaty scam causing massive chaos.....on a global scale.


How is it a scam? There are literally thousands of climate scientists and thousands of studies. Why is all that science bad? A lot of it is science that gets used every day and is easily verifiable in real life. 
Further, were worried about a lot more than the planet burning up, although I must say that's pretty pressing. We're also worried about social inequity, personal rights for indigenous peoples, deforestation, species going extinct, pollution, public health, and economic viability. It's an extremely comprehensive way of viewing the world and thinking analytically; not just about believing some scientists on an issue. It's a lot more than that. We are the future.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Where is your link providing a support to your evidence? No links, no argument. Anecdotal evidence is very weak, and the only one who knows if it's true or not is you. It just doesn't hold water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to worry, everything will be fixed by the asteroid or comit. It will happen again. Let's live life and enjoy what the earth provides to make our lives better and more comfortable.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Where is your link providing a support to your evidence? No links, no argument. Anecdotal evidence is very weak, and the only one who knows if it's true or not is you. It just doesn't hold water.


Anecdotal? That's what you call the recorded lifespans of the the first ten presidents? Alrighty....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Let's live life and enjoy what the earth provides to make our lives better and more comfortable.


That's the intent of curbing AGW.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Arguing that modern medicine hasn't improved life expectancy is completely frivolous. In fact it's worked so well that it's created social problems by burdening retirement programs. There's just no arguing against that we're living longer.
> 
> In fact I've been wondering how many more medical cures we can afford. If there are too many of us living to be 100, where will the extra SS & Medicare funding come from?



People may be living longer through modern medicine, but they are also living better by having plenty of food and easier lives. People aren't having to starve through the winter and suffer through summer heat plowing fields and gardens by hand anymore. Modern conveniences and good nutrition is what is making people live longer, unless they have a bit to much nutrition and convince..... then they need modern medicines.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

terri9630 said:


> People may be living longer through modern medicine, but they are also living better by having plenty of food and easier lives. People aren't having to starve through the winter and suffer through summer heat plowing fields and gardens by hand anymore. Modern conveniences and good nutrition is what is making people live longer, unless they have a bit to much nutrition and convince..... then they need modern medicines.


Oh sure, medical advances are only one way we live longer. There are many others.

* Workplace safety regulations
* Automotive safety (seatbelts, airbags, safety glass, etc.)
* Paramedic service, instead of 'grab & run' ambulance service
* Food safety regulations
* Drinking water quality
* Smoke & CO alarms
* Home construction standards

And many other reasons. But medical advances are certainly a major contributor.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's the intent of curbing AGW.


Quite.



Woolieface said:


> Anecdotal? That's what you call the recorded lifespans of the the first ten presidents? Alrighty....


Nevada already pointed out the logical fallacy of small group size. What about the other 350 million people?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=average+us+life+expectancy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I shouldn't have even had to post that. Look, even Google disagrees with you. The only way to continue to disagree is willful ignorance.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's the intent of curbing AGW.


No, it's not. It's about people control, not the quality of life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No, it's not. It's about people control, not the quality of life.


Making abortion illegal is controlling people, lowering greenhouse emissions is improving our environment.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Making abortion illegal is controlling people, lowering greenhouse emissions is improving our environment.


Abortion is another thread, but you knew that and thought to insert it here, doesn't fly. Forcing people to pay taxes is controlling people. Forcing green on people is controlling, much more so because it effects everyone, not just woman.

Please explain how lowering "buzz word...greenhouse gases" will improve our environment? Seems that trees and such thrive with more CO2, am I wrong?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I like to pop in from time to time and watch the hamster wheel spin a few laps and determine that yes, indeed, the same points are being made and forgotten over and over as always.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sl9-tY1oZNw[/ame]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

In the meantime, I'd just like to add that those who believe they can change the climate for better or worse are suffering from delusions, if not of grandeur, at least of significance.

The test is quite simple, my friends. If you can change the climate, simply end the drought in California. Prove you can do that......we'll talk....Joe

See ya in another year or so


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

mass hysteria. Tell people the sky is falling long enough and they will believe it and try their hardest to convince others.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

City Bound said:


> mass hysteria. Tell people the sky is falling long enough and they will believe it and try their hardest to convince others.


If you don't believe that 2 degrees is the tipping point then what do you believe is the tipping point, and why?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If you don't believe that 2 degrees is the tipping point then what do you believe is the tipping point, and why?


And be aware.......whatever "tipping point" is established, a dozen supposed "studies" will claim we have just reached it. No point in arguing with folks who make up their own statistics. According to them we were toast years ago. They have demonstrated their willingness to lie and invent and prophesy doom in spite of the evidence ever since Gore invented the internet, and if any of them are still alive in 100 years, they will still swear that we are still on the verge of extinction, only by then the threat will have changed another 6 times, but the cure will always be the same.......more money to government, surrender more personal liberty, suppress dissent, vilify those who think for themselves, wreak personal destruction on anyone who disagrees.

Nothing has or will change since the good old days when the witch doctor told folks to throw the virgins into the volcanos or the sea to placate the earth and water gods, ("and by the way, I need my fee to continue operations").....OK, enough for one year....Joe


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

I might start considering global warming might be real when everyone hollering about it start living like they really believe it. Don't tell me my truck and livestock are killing the world when your wasting electricity and flying all over the country in jets to tell everyone else how bad their lifestyles are.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Abortion is another thread, but you knew that and thought to insert it here, doesn't fly. Forcing people to pay taxes is controlling people. Forcing green on people is controlling, much more so because it effects everyone, not just woman.
> 
> Please explain how lowering "buzz word...greenhouse gases" will improve our environment? Seems that trees and such thrive with more CO2, am I wrong?


That presents a fundamental misunderstanding of basic earth science. Most plants are limited by other factors, such as water, nitrogen, or micronutrients, before they starve of CO2. Plants in greenhouses are given extra CO2 because they have everything else they need - meganutrients, micronutrients, water, and then CO2 becomes a problem because they oxygenate the greenhouse to the point of plant starvation.



joebill said:


> I like to pop in from time to time and watch the hamster wheel spin a few laps and determine that yes, indeed, the same points are being made and forgotten over and over as always.


The same arguments are being made from both sides. However, I'd like to bring up a different point. I've been debating climate change science since I was 13. As a result of that and spending literally hundreds of hours studying the problem, I'm almost an expert on the matter. Granted, I'm no climate scientist, but I understand the issue extremely well. The main difference is this: The studies keep coming in, they keep changing, the science is progressing, and we're getting better models, better analysis, satellites, computers, infrastructure, and so on. What isn't changing is skeptics: Challenging every single thing the science puts up without ever backing their own arguments with factual evidence or data. Every, singe, solitary, time.



Nevada said:


> If you don't believe that 2 degrees is the tipping point then what do you believe is the tipping point, and why?


The tipping point is whatever period in time we reach whereby irreversible damage occurs to the planet. Could be 5 years, could be 85 years. One thing is clear, though; by 2100, this planet will be completely different if we don't do something.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Its going to be different even IF Nothing takes place, as nothing is Normal, nothing stays the same. Everything changes, the earth always has and always will, with man or without. Man will not change it, Mother Earth will change it, always has always wi. Period.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

terri9630 said:


> I might start considering global warming might be real when everyone hollering about it start living like they really believe it. Don't tell me my truck and livestock are killing the world when your wasting electricity and flying all over the country in jets to tell everyone else how bad their lifestyles are.


It's more of a mindset change to begin with, then larger changes can be made. Allow me to use myself as an example, albeit not a great one. Further, your truck and livestock are not doing much to the environment. Our constant shipping with trucks, ships, and cars is harmful, and so is consumerist society. That's another reason conservatives are typically opposes to action on climate change, since we typically propose economic barriers. However, I believe green business is fully possible.
I drive a hybrid-electric vehicle that gets 47 MPG. I still have a truck I use sporadically for hauling. I recycle when I can, but since I live in a very anti-environmentalism area, there are no local recycling centers, so unless I expend a great deal of fossil fuels, I can't recycle. Hmm. I also buy products that are better, such as those that are Rainforest alliance, fair trade, organic, SFI, what have you, in the hopes that these products are better for the environment that their conventional counterparts. I still buy stuff, because oddly enough, I need stuff too. The difference is, I'm willing to search out inconvenient options.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

2100 WILL be different what it is now, just like 2000 was different from 1900, and 1900 was different from 1800 and 1800 was different from 1700 and so on and so forth. Nothing stays the same never did. Nothing is what SOME want to call Normal. What in the world IS Normal? Normal from WHAT? NORMAL IS WHAT?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Quite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I can always come back here with a list of historical names...probably as may as you'll put up with reading. You and anyone could look at their own family's records...but, wouldn't it be downright odd if the few men chosen for president over the course of those years were just exceptionally long lived? They aren't random picks, after all...they just all have happened to be presidents of the US. 

At any rate, we're trained to be told what to think. Everyone is. Few things get people so upset as questioning the things that make their life stable and safe feeling.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's more of a mindset change to begin with, then larger changes can be made. Allow me to use myself as an example, albeit not a great one. Further, your truck and livestock are not doing much to the environment. Our constant shipping with trucks, ships, and cars is harmful, and so is consumerist society. That's another reason conservatives are typically opposes to action on climate change, since we typically propose economic barriers. However, I believe green business is fully possible.
> I drive a hybrid-electric vehicle that gets 47 MPG. I still have a truck I use sporadically for hauling. I recycle when I can, but since I live in a very anti-environmentalism area, there are no local recycling centers, so unless I expend a great deal of fossil fuels, I can't recycle. Hmm. I also buy products that are better, such as those that are Rainforest alliance, fair trade, organic, SFI, what have you, in the hopes that these products are better for the environment that their conventional counterparts. I still buy stuff, because oddly enough, I need stuff too. The difference is, I'm willing to search out inconvenient options.



The electricity for that hybrid is made from what? I don't need to search out inconvenient options, according to most my lifestyle is inconvient. We don't make everything but raise our own food, not because of environmental concerns but because we believe it's healthier for us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Its going to be different even IF Nothing takes place, as nothing is Normal, nothing stays the same.


Are you taking the position that introducing as much CO2 as we have into the atmosphere will have no consequences at all. That's very optimistic.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> The tipping point is whatever period in time we reach whereby irreversible damage occurs to the planet. Could be 5 years, could be 85 years. One thing is clear, though; by 2100, this planet will be completely different if we don't do something.


And how, pray tell, do scientists know, with guaranteed certainty, that the climate will continue to warm, that the climate won't change in the other direction?

And while you're at it, could you please explain how it's possible to have record cold winter temperatures in a warmer environment? Don't bother using the 'global warming causes climate extremes' excuse because that's just crazy talk......like bat-crap, sitting-in-a-corner-eating-your-hair crazy talk.

ETA: Maybe you could also explain why NASA, NOAA, et al. scientists have been _altering_ data so that the numbers indicate warming.....even though those numbers conflict w/ actual recorded data?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Txsteader said:


> that's just crazy talk......like bat-crap, sitting-in-a-corner-eating-your-hair crazy talk.


And bananas to boot. :nanner:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Perhaps when I see world leaders leading by example, I will pay more mind to the AGW theory. Why can't they use Skype instead of flying their jumbo jets to Paris for a meeting? When most of the proponents of AGW start living like Ed Begley Jr. and not like Al Gore, perhaps I will listen to what they have to say. Until that time, I must believe that the it is nothing but a scare tactic to gain money and power.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> And while you're at it, could you please explain how it's possible to have record cold winter temperatures in a warmer environment? Don't bother using the 'global warming causes climate extremes' excuse because that's just crazy talk......like bat-crap, sitting-in-a-corner-eating-your-hair crazy talk.


 You should probably do a little more research on this subject. 

I'l tackle one of your questions, global warming doesn't mean hotter everywhere, all the time. Even if the global average temperature goes up 5 degrees, its still gonna snow, there is still going to be record cold snaps, and there will still be wide variations in temperature. 
No hair-eating necessary, you just have to have a basic grasp of meteorology.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> 2100 WILL be different what it is now, just like 2000 was different from 1900, and 1900 was different from 1800 and 1800 was different from 1700 and so on and so forth. Nothing stays the same never did. Nothing is what SOME want to call Normal. What in the world IS Normal? Normal from WHAT? NORMAL IS WHAT?


That's actually a good point. But would you say the climate is substantially different from 1900? It is a little different, but 2100 is going to be much more different.



Woolieface said:


> Well, I can always come back here with a list of historical names...probably as may as you'll put up with reading. You and anyone could look at their own family's records...but, wouldn't it be downright odd if the few men chosen for president over the course of those years were just exceptionally long lived? They aren't random picks, after all...they just all have happened to be presidents of the US.
> 
> At any rate, we're trained to be told what to think. Everyone is. Few things get people so upset as questioning the things that make their life stable and safe feeling.


*sigh* I don't care if people are living longer or not. Presidents have historically been educated people, from educated lineage. These people live longer - I can also pull stats that show the more education you possess, the longer you live. High school dropouts die earliest, *on average,* fact of life. You do know what an average is, right? The people may have heights of 3, 4, and 6 feet tall, but the average is 4.3, and none of them are 4.3 feet tall.



terri9630 said:


> The electricity for that hybrid is made from what? I don't need to search out inconvenient options, according to most my lifestyle is inconvient. We don't make everything but raise our own food, not because of environmental concerns but because we believe it's healthier for us.


No, hybrids function off gas, using a battery to collect excess power and reuse it. They're just super-efficient gassers - I can't afford an electric car, and most would't work my long country commutes. But I have high hopes for affordable, long-range cars coming down the economic ladder quite soon.
Further, your methodology is actually quite helpful. Raising your own food keeps you out of the supermarket more, where the average food item has traveled about 5000 miles.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps when I see world leaders leading by example, I will pay more mind to the AGW theory. Why can't they use Skype instead of flying their jumbo jets to Paris for a meeting? When most of the proponents of AGW start living like Ed Begley Jr. and not like Al Gore, perhaps I will listen to what they have to say. Until that time, I must believe that the it is nothing but a scare tactic to gain money and power.


You're not taking it as seriously as you take terrorism. Yet CNN has this headline today.

*Extreme weather kills 10*
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/wintry-weather/index.html

Now if that was a terror attack you would take notice, and you wouldn't even mind spending $1 trillion to avenge that attack militarily. But when 10 Americans die due to allegedly preventable extreme weather you don't seem to mind.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

terri9630 said:


> *The electricity for that hybrid is made from what?* I don't need to search out inconvenient options, according to most my lifestyle is inconvient. We don't make everything but raise our own food, not because of environmental concerns but because we believe it's healthier for us.


See how these anti this folks Dance around THAT question. electricity to charge those batteries HAS to come from somewhere, and most places sure as heck are not using the sun to do it either. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> See how these anti this folks Dance around THAT question. electricity to charge those batteries HAS to come from somewhere, and most places sure as heck are not using the sun to do it either. LOL


 A hybrid car doesn't get 'charged up' by anything other than a fuel-efficient gasoline or diesel engine and regenerative braking.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What was USED to MAKE that Hybrid toy car? Wood burning in a furnace to make electricity to run the production line? LOL


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You're not taking it as seriously as you take terrorism. Yet CNN has this headline today.
> 
> *Extreme weather kills 10*
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/wintry-weather/index.html
> ...


 Mistake Nevada, I largely list terrorism and AGW, as booger men that the government uses to gain money and power. I have stated the same many times on these boards.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You should probably do a little more research on this subject.
> 
> I'l tackle one of your questions,* global warming doesn't mean hotter everywhere, all the time. *Even if the global average temperature goes up 5 degrees, its still gonna snow, there is still going to be record cold snaps, and there will still be wide variations in temperature.
> No hair-eating necessary, you just have to have a basic grasp of meteorology.


Meteorology aside, how is it possible that if the *atmosphere* is warming, it's not getting warmer everywhere, all the time? How is it even possible for record-breaking cold weather to form within a warmer atmosphere? 

Doesn't that defy the law of physics?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> *sigh* I don't care if people are living longer or not. *Presidents have historically been educated people, from educated lineage. These people live longer* - I can also pull stats that show the more education you possess, the longer you live. High school dropouts die earliest, *on average,* fact of life. You do know what an average is, right? The people may have heights of 3, 4, and 6 feet tall, but the average is 4.3, and none of them are 4.3 feet tall.




heh...education helps you live longer, then? Not modern medical miracles? Alright, I'll go with that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Meteorology aside, how is it possible that if the *atmosphere* is warming, it's not getting warmer everywhere, all the time?


 If the AVERAGE temp goes up, that does not mean 'hotter everywhere, all the time'. It means just what it says, AVERAGE temp.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And THAT average temp has been Skewed and screwed up by the GW folks noting is to be believed from that group ANYMORE.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Americans absolutely never worry about anything bad that is predicted. We don't deal with things until we hit the wall.
> 
> Okay read the link and the poll. Um only 3% of Americans consider Global warming to be the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing us. The numbers don't mean they don't care about it, it just isn't their number one issue. More conservative spin and misconstruing the facts. Should have known better.


So maybe, just maybe only 3% now agree w/Idiotincharge? I really hope its that low. His "global warming is the worst threat" is so tiresome.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> What was USED to MAKE that Hybrid toy car? Wood burning in a furnace to make electricity to run the production line? LOL


FYI my hybrid has saved me $10,000 in fuel, even at current prices. Let's see you figure a way to laugh that one aside. 



Txsteader said:


> Meteorology aside, how is it possible that if the *atmosphere* is warming, it's not getting warmer everywhere, all the time? How is it even possible for record-breaking cold weather to form within a warmer atmosphere?
> 
> Doesn't that defy the law of physics?


Ouch. What makes you think you're qualified to debate climate change science? I'm rolling on the floor; this is hysterical!
*cough* Right. It seems you don't understand how averages work. The average temperature is what's going up. On average, three cities will have average temps of 65, 64, and 63. Their aggregate average is 64. Climate change occurs, and the towns go to 66, 63, and 64. One went down, but two went up, so now the aggregate average is 64.3. If you still don't understand, I suggest either finishing high school or taking a meteorology course, which I have done.



Woolieface said:


> heh...education helps you live longer, then? Not modern medical miracles? Alright, I'll go with that.


Isn't that the way you ultra conservatives like it? Health care is only for the privileged, right? So only those with more money can afford healthcare, especially good health care, and since educated people make more money, we live longer.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Isn't that the way you ultra conservatives like it? Health care is only for the privileged, right? So only those with more money can afford healthcare, especially good health care, and since educated people make more money, we live longer.


I don't have health care by my own choice. I walk what I talk, man...
And by the way... I don't think the presidents of two centuries ago had healthcare either. If you recall, this topic goes back the great medical advancements of our time that supposedly let us all live longer. That's just a moot point any way you look at it two centuries ago no matter how educated or rich you might have been.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization



> Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence&#8212;essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying a reasonable conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization


yeah...just super weird that the first ten presidents Happened to live an average or better than average lifespan compared to today's. Well maybe they're aliens. Anyway, if you want lots more old dusty names for the list, let me know.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ouch. What makes you think you're qualified to debate climate change science? I'm rolling on the floor; this is hysterical!
> *cough* Right. It seems you don't understand how averages work. The average temperature is what's going up. On average, three cities will have average temps of 65, 64, and 63. Their aggregate average is 64. Climate change occurs, and the towns go to 66, 63, and 64. One went down, but two went up, so now the aggregate average is 64.3. If you still don't understand, I suggest either finishing high school or taking a meteorology course, which I have done.


Honestly, you're arrogance is tiresome. Why would I even bother reading any further than your insults?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The brainwashing of not only Americans, but the world is in its finally stages as the progressive liberals have complete control over the masses and their constant lies and exaggerations and messed up charts and satellite data that has been messed with so that it shows just what they Want it to show and so many times now this has been done that THEY even now believe their own lies about this manmade global warming scam they have spooned fed to the masses.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Strange. 
A tax on energy use would cause us to conserve and create alternative ways to use energy and likely stall our country's economy. This country cannot support the debt we already have and millions more would fall below the poverty line. Areas of this country would begin to resemble a Third World country.

But the Carbon Tax will be used to aid poor countries that Obama says are suffering from Climate Change already. 

Who would have thought that in 8 short years, the US would commit economic suicide while sending millions of dollars of Climate Change reparations to Kenya's Muslim Dictator.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Strange.
> A tax on energy use would cause us to conserve and create alternative ways to use energy and likely stall our country's economy. This country cannot support the debt we already have and millions more would fall below the poverty line. Areas of this country would begin to resemble a Third World country.
> 
> But the Carbon Tax will be used to aid poor countries that Obama says are suffering from Climate Change already.
> ...


Lots of us believed him when he said "Under my plan rates will necessarily skyrocket.". 

I think we should stop ALL federal foreign aid until we get our debt paid down. Let the countries receiving the money carry the debt themselves.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> How is it even possible for record-breaking cold weather to form within a warmer atmosphere?


This also shows you have difficulties with science, or at least meteorology. Maybe that sounds like an insult, but it's obviously a fact. It's a weather situation I've explained here in the past, too, as I think others have.

Warmth in the atmosphere, and continuing as its temperature increases, has as one of its effects, converting to the kinetic energy of air movement. Wind. Jet stream strength and pattern. Winter comes and solar radiation drops over the Arctic and its regional air temperature drops. Stronger JET STREAM flows vary around, fueled by that global warming, and sometimes dip suddenly and strongly bringing a pulse of very cold air farther south, or from a colder region, than has happened on record in the past into some given area. There. A transient new cold record. Warmer air also holds more moisture so such fronts can bring very heavy snowfall, as is on average expected this winter in the NE US despite mostly average temperatures, with colder than average temps from Texas to Virginia but again with more precip, due to the El Nino Pacific warming.

Generalized warming creating higher winds can also cut down on cyclone formation by establishing regions of higher wind shear that tears a possible storm's circulation apart before its eye, etc, gets going. Hence, you can have pretty high air and water temperatures in the Atlantic and Caribbean but get a wimpy hurricane season. It's all complex but weather predictions are getting slowly more reliable in those areas.

Oh, regarding this statement,


> while sending millions of dollars of Climate Change reparations to Kenya's Muslim Dictator.


The last two elected presidents of Kenya, going back for over ten years, are listed as being Catholic. (unless you're making another tiresome swipe at Obama. Definitely pointless trolling in that case.)
You should read past perceived insults since that's the way you can learn something and correct misinformation, unless you're just trolling with random statements that sound good to you at the moment.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This ALL boils down to the UN Fleecing Americans to Transport Wealth to these poor countries without going to Congress like The Constitution Mandates.
And now Obozo is Daring anyone and everyone to Just TRY to Impeach HIM.~!
* Just Follow The Money*
AND because Americans Do Not Care about This GW carp.
Is exsatly why Obama is Full Speed Ahead in pushing this carp because he KNOWS with nobody watching him there will not be ANY interference.~!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Actually I did just argue that we're not living longer. With some fairly good evidence.


I think y'all are missing his point. If you take out the what millions of children who died before the age of 5 and the women who died in childbirth and from it's complications then the ones who manged to survive to adulthood did live fairly long lifespans comparative to today. 

What he is missing here is that a whole lot more children live to adulthood today and whole lot of husbands aren't on wife 3 or 4 to raise their children because they lost the previous ones to having babies. Antibiotics and hygiene have done wonders for us.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> So maybe, just maybe only 3% now agree w/Idiotincharge? I really hope its that low. His "global warming is the worst threat" is so tiresome.


If you made a post that didn't contain Jr. High level name calling I would flop right off my chair.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Time for me to share what I do from time to time when the alarmists worry about the melting northern ice. Every winter, certain posters talk about the melting ice in the north.

Make sure to compare the normals to the current forecast. This happens every year, while the alarmists HOWL about the melting ice, and use the line that the north is the area being most affected by "climate change".

http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-21_metric_e.html


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> I think y'all are missing his point. If you take out the what millions of children who died before the age of 5 and the women who died in childbirth and from it's complications then the ones who manged to survive to adulthood did live fairly long lifespans comparative to today.
> 
> What he is missing here is that a whole lot more children live to adulthood today and whole lot of husbands aren't on wife 3 or 4 to raise their children because they lost the previous ones to having babies. Antibiotics and hygiene have done wonders for us.


Dead children still drive the average. If 3 kids die at age 7, 3 babies are still born, and three live to be 75, that's 9 people, the average age is 27. Sure, those men lived to be pretty old, but the dead kids crashes the average. If they all lived to be 55, and the old men died young, the average would still look much better.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I think y'all are missing his point. If you take out the what millions of children who died before the age of 5 and the women who died in childbirth and from it's complications then the ones who manged to survive to adulthood did live fairly long lifespans comparative to today.
> 
> What he is missing here is that a whole lot more children live to adulthood today and whole lot of husbands aren't on wife 3 or 4 to raise their children because they lost the previous ones to having babies. Antibiotics and hygiene have done wonders for us.


Food availability, hygiene, Clean water. Yeah, those make sense. Poor families could have a rough time even feeding their children once upon a time, especially in a hard winter. I think if antibiotics were our great savior though, we'd see that reflected in the adult population as well. Antibiotics might likely be a great downfall sooner or later.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> I think if antibiotics were our great savior though, we'd see that reflected in the adult population as well. Antibiotics might likely be a great downfall sooner or later.


Here we go, seriously, good point. What Patchouli didn't include with antibiotics is THE huge difference maker for the demographics of reducing infant and childhood mortality: vaccination. Look at smallpox, measles, polio, influenza. All of those are viral diseases and are prevented by vaccines, untreatable by antibiotics, and past killers of infants and children. Some other targets of childhood vaccinations are bacterial (pertussis, diphtheria, typhoid) so can be treated with antibiotics but that's a moot point if the illness doesn't happen. Some others, viral and otherwise... yellow fever and malaria, for example... were huge early US problems but controlled and eradicated by mosquito control projects, and in the case of typhoid, better public water supply hygiene. 

The possibility of not staying ahead of antibiotic resistances in bacteria is certainly constantly becoming more serious. The latest huge one I've seen is spreading of resistant E. coli to polymixin class antibiotics. Take a look at ingredients in one of those generic "triple antibiotic" OTC gels; one of the three is polymixin and it's been very effective for avoiding problems with even minor cuts and avoiding office visits. Unfortunately, we've been dumping, I think the number is, 13000 *tons* of that one into livestock feed annually worldwide and the resistance factor has taken hold and is spreading.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

DryHeat said:


> Here we go, seriously, good point. What Patchouli didn't include with antibiotics is THE huge difference maker for the demographics of reducing infant and childhood mortality: vaccination. Look at smallpox, measles, polio, influenza. All of those are viral diseases and are prevented by vaccines, untreatable by antibiotics, and past killers of infants and children. Some other targets of childhood vaccinations are bacterial (pertussis, diphtheria, typhoid) so can be treated with antibiotics but that's a moot point if the illness doesn't happen. Some others, viral and otherwise... yellow fever and malaria, for example... were huge early US problems but controlled and eradicated by mosquito control projects, and in the case of typhoid, better public water supply hygiene.
> 
> The possibility of not staying ahead of antibiotic resistances in bacteria is certainly constantly becoming more serious. The latest huge one I've seen is spreading of resistant E. coli to polymixin class antibiotics. Take a look at ingredients in one of those generic "triple antibiotic" OTC gels; one of the three is polymixin and it's been very effective for avoiding problems with even minor cuts and avoiding office visits. Unfortunately, we've been dumping, I think the number is, 13000 *tons* of that one into livestock feed annually worldwide and the resistance factor has taken hold and is spreading.


What's not to like about using a virus to attack bacteria? Just because it wasn't invented here is not a reason to ignore phages.


----------

