Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: Borek on October 04, 2013, 07:27:51 AM
-
http://www.pharmafile.com/news/181169/calls-end-uk-anti-vaccine-magazine
Each time I hear about such things I think of the industry that existed about 120 years ago:
http://io9.com/the-strangest-tradition-of-the-victorian-era-post-mort-472772709
Apparently those anti-vaccine types want to revive the idea. Most of the kids pictured on these photographs died because of one of the childhood diseases eradicated by the vaccination.
-
no matter how absurd an idea, there always will be followers and believers
take religion, for example
or collapsing skyscrapers
or, for that matter , homeopathy and thatlike quacksalver type ideas
regards
Ingo
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
(A. Einstein)
-
Depends on the type of vaccine I think.
If we're talking about chickenpox and polio and all those diseases children in western countries used to die from , then yes, not taking the vaccine is extremely stupid and dangerous.
But there have been cases of people dying and getting narcolepsy and all sorts of allergies from vaccines like the hpv vaccine and the swine flu vaccine.
-
There was one guy here a few years back that was not only so gullible to think that sodium chlorite was a wonder cure for cancer, but also that he did not know I was being sarcastic when I said hitting your nuts with a hammer cures testicular cancer, when worded in marketing-speak.
Kinda makes me jealous of the marketing skills of those peddling so much BS, and so profitably.
-
Kinda makes me jealous of the marketing skills of those peddling so much BS, and so profitably.
they're successfully selling us "carbon - tax" and rubbish like that , just like others were selling letters of indulgence a few hundred years ago, you'll have to give them that
this always happens when there's money on the table
our money, in this case
regards
Ingo
-
they're successfully selling us "carbon - tax" and rubbish like that
Why is carbon tax rubbish?
-
they're successfully selling us "carbon - tax" and rubbish like that , just like others were selling letters of indulgence a few hundred years ago, you'll have to give them that
this always happens when there's money on the table
our money, in this case
regards
Ingo
A good book about this is Blue Planet, Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic. While I cannot say I agree with him regarding the environmental movement entirely(there is nothing acceptable about improper hazardous waste disposal for instance), certainly regarding a carbon tax him and I are in agreement: totalitarian scam.
-
A good book about this is Blue Planet, Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic. While I cannot say I agree with him regarding the environmental movement entirely(there is nothing acceptable about improper hazardous waste disposal for instance), certainly regarding a carbon tax him and I are in agreement: totalitarian scam.
Interesting. I can't say I'm a fan nor an opponent.
Just that it's not obvious to me that it is a scam.
-
they're successfully selling us "carbon - tax" and rubbish like that
Why is carbon tax rubbish?
to give you my brief version: because carbondioxid is not the source of any problem
regards
Ingo
-
Interesting. I can't say I'm a fan nor an opponent.
Just that it's not obvious to me that it is a scam.
[/quote]
Oh it's a scam alright.
Big companies trade their carbon taxes to avoid government regs, countries trade them, in fact the trading is big business.
-
Uh oh Ingo,
Now you have done it....
Al Gore is going to be angry
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/S9rNL_jnoUI/AAAAAAAAC98/OTKSsLN7Q7U/s400/al+gore+emitting+carbon.jpg)
-
wasn't that the guy who totally confused the order of cause and effect? now that I think about it, yes, must have been him...
hope his hot breath will last a while, 'cause if the what the solar physicists analyze from real data these days holds as a pattern, we're right now heading into another little ice age full speed ahead.
we might need something to keep us warm badly
regards
Ingo
-
A good book about this is Blue Planet, Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic. While I cannot say I agree with him regarding the environmental movement entirely(there is nothing acceptable about improper hazardous waste disposal for instance), certainly regarding a carbon tax him and I are in agreement: totalitarian scam.
Hm you made me interested in this book
-
Interesting. I can't say I'm a fan nor an opponent.
Just that it's not obvious to me that it is a scam.
@disco @Ingo
Just curious. You guys think C-taxes are a scam because:
(a) Anthropogenic Global Warming itself is bogus
(b) GW does exist but it doesn't have a solution
(c ) GW exists, solutions exist, but C-taxes are not it.
Again, I've no side in the debate. Just curious.
-
GW does not exist, it part of a natural climate cycle.
Carbon tax is a bulls&$# thing made to make money for the big companies by government.
Like green chemistry, no such thing.
-
GW does not exist, it part of a natural climate cycle.
Carbon tax is a bulls&$# thing made to make money for the big companies by government.
Like green chemistry, no such thing.
Gotcha. That's clear.
Thanks!
-
@curiouscat
ref. (a) "Anthropogenic Global Warming itself is bogus"
there must be a human signal in all of temperature development, of course
we see it locally: local heat island effect, but also local dimming, the effect of crops vs. natural wilderness ( :rarrow: different albedo) and so on an so forth.
however, to the best of my knowledge we still can't identify this signal experimentally in a global sense, let alone know which direction it has in a net sense
therefore i come to the conclusion that the human effect most probably is minuscule, compared to the what mother nature does in her own right
ref. (b) GW does exist but it doesn't have a solution
climate is not a stable system, as history shows without any reasonable doubt: it has always changed, and will always change
the huge parameters governing the situation are: activity of the sun (both with respect to its general brightness on a very very long time scale, i.e. over billions of years, and with respect to the solar cycles and their activity level: 11-15 years in general) , Milancovic cycles, continent distribution on earth's surface with subsequent effects (mountains like the Himalaya massive, sea currents...), earth's activity (volcanoes...) , general biological activity (albedo ...), .
... and finally, somewhere near the end of all this: the human activities
Amongst those activities, human made emission of carbon dioxide again is one of the smallest factors of influence , by far overruled by factors like local albedo modification (heat islands, crops..) and local dimming (esp. smoke from huge industrial areas [ :rarrow: China] and airtravel seem to have some influence)
so, on the large scale, as we can't influence the sun in its activities, and as we can't make the earth move on different pathways , as we can't stop continents from drifting, mountains from growing, volcanoes from erupting and sea currents form floating: no , man can't do noting about this, on any relevant long-term scale
we could provoke a nuclear winter , yes
but not for long
ref. (c)(...) but C-taxes are not it.
with respect to the first part "GW exists, solutions exist": see above
with respect to the later "... but C-taxes are not it" :
it has been calculated for Australia (if memory serves) , that even if the reduction in man made emissions would be forced by named taxes like projected, the net effect to average temperature level in Australia would be minus 0.008 kelvin
I won't call this a solution for whatsoever problem
to cut a long story short: IMHO man can't influence global climate in any meaningfull way, neither for better nor for worse. Climate has always changed, is changing, and will keep on doing so. Therefore, man in his own interest must be prepared for both: that it might get somewhat warmer (which, historically, hadn't been a problem at all) , and that it might become colder - and in the very near future at that, if the what solar scientists predict becomes true.
Look at the Maunder Minimum, and you know what I mean.
Mankind is not even in the slightest way prepared for that, and this is something that makes me worried.
It's only mid of October, and we have first night frosts in Germany: Mene mene tekel u-parsin
regards
Ingo
-
So you both think that the measurable increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels has had no impact on global temperatures?
-
"The Mail on Sunday cites a leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which says there was 60 per cent more Arctic sea ice this August than at the same time last year. The minimum reading for the year normally comes in September."
In http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-size-of-arctic-ice-caps-increases-8804911.html
Right now, I don't think anyone can state for sure that the planet is either cooling or warming.
-
@DrCMS
So you both think that the measurable increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels has had no impact on global temperatures?
first: what kind of "measurable" are we talking about?
IPCC and thatlike usually refer to Mauna Loa station, a station located on top of an active volcano.
they claim that the effects of the volcano emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide are being calculated out of their measurements.
but see for yourself:
http://tu-freiberg.de/fakult2/angph/forschung/hb/hb_kohlendioxid.pdf
here: picture 7 , page 8 on top
blue: data from ice core-drilling, station "Siple", Antarctica
pink: data from Mauna Loa
obviously, two things MUST be terribly wrong with Mauna Loa: first, they started with a very low CO2-conc. "recalculated from measurements" in the early 50th - with a 87 years gap to the what respective ice core data prove to have been the truth then.
Second: the Mauna Loa graph clearly is sigmoid in its shape, something that simply is impossible if we were adding carbon dioxide at a constant or even increasing rate: the graph should be linear, or even exponential instead.
However, this graph if the whole foundation of the claim, that man is increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're accused to do
therefore, it is necessary to reinvestigate the methods we're measuring carbon dioxide, ruling out theses contradictions, before we even can start to extract meaningfull conclusions from those results
there are meaningfull measurements from satelites available these days, but as they strictly contradict climate modells used by for example IPCC, both with respect to temperature distribution in atmosphere as as with respect for trends, they're not esp. welcome in certain circles, and hence most seldomly referred to:
(http://www.americanthinker.com/Labohm_CO2.jpg)
(picture taken from: link (http://deutschlandwoche.de.dd25630.kasserver.com/2011/06/16/die-wahrheit-uber-co%C2%B2-und-klimawandel/))
second: (...) from burning fossil fuels
nobody knows how much of the carbon dioxide without any doubt released by mankind really ends up in the atmosphere permanently: there are so many equilibria of input and output involved, that we can't discriminate natural variations (which are huge) from man made factors.
however, even if we, for calculations sake , would make all of the carbon dioxide increase since the early 1900dreds "manmade", this only would account for 0.4 K plus since then ...
... if we didn't invent this shameless hoax "radiative forcing" people that "calculate" future climate from their models need so badly (else, they couldn't predict a horrific future).
however, those climate models - and they've been around long enough to compare them to reality - tend to abberate from reality badly:
(http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1-550x412.jpg)
(picture taken from: link (http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/06/10/more-evidence-that-climate-models-are-wrong/))
you think those models should be reinvestigated for their reliability?
the opposite is true: reality is being accused of not matching these models, and hence needs "massaging" of for real measured data badly...
take a look at "climate gate", and you know what I mean...
... and esp. take a look at one of the latest infamous result of this: link (http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/06/10/more-evidence-that-climate-models-are-wrong/)
third: (...) has had no impact on global temperatures?
as I wrote earlier: of course there is an impact, surely.
everything has its impact in a complex system, to a certain degree or another.
question is not whether there is an impact or not, question is, whether it's a meaningfull, relevant impact with respect to the effects caused , or not.
and even IF we'd agree - just to facilitate this discussion - that those 0.4° plus would exclusively be related to man burning fossils, we'd also have to ask a totally different question: is this something "dangerous", and what would the alternatives be?
"no" , and "pretty bad" would be my personal answers
regards
Ingo
-
Global Warming doesn't exist as the data showed a lack of it so it morphed into "climate change" which nicely covers hot and cold events
Kinda reminds you of creationism being crap science so it morphed intothe more "sciency-sounding" Intelligent design. :'(