The White House Wants Your Doctor To Teach You About Global Warming

The Obama White House is going all out on global warming, to the extent that they’re pushing your doctor to promote the damage that will be done to your health by “climate change.”

ImageThe President spoke by video to medical professionals gathered in the White House to “…get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.”

The administration has been sweating blood to devine a link between global warming and public health. The US Surgeon General took part in this round table, that would be the same Surgeon General who wants to commandeer all guns in the US because they’re a “public health issue” too.

The central message at the White House was for doctors to warn their patients – that would be you – about the danger of global warming to your health.

Speakers at the White House summit didn’t just tell doctors to go out and raise awareness about global warming, but to also promote the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
“We need people, proponents, to talk about it. Make sure that the public is informed,” said Texas Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. “Stand behind the EPA, because they’re attacked every day, all day by many committees.”
Rep. Johnson is referring to EPA rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants — a regulation that has come under fire from Republicans and industries for threatening to raise energy prices and cause job losses.

Every politicized group that could be found was represented at the conference on global warming, including the American Lung Association whose CEO was wined and dined extensively by the administration.

Image

We think the whole flap was summarized nicely by Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

The involvement of the ALA in promoting and organizing today’s White House summit on climate change and health is yet another sign that the Obama administration has been co-opted by outside pressure groups, and has politicized the EPA’s decision-making process.
If the facts came even close to supporting the EPA’s economically destructive plans, then Obama officials and their political allies in the environmental community would not need to carefully stage manage events like today’s so-called summit, or use other deceptive tactics to manufacture the appearance of public support for their actions.

What the administration isn’t telling you is that the EPA wants to shut down the electrical power grid. That’s what happens when they get done shutting down coal plants.

Obama will soon be gone, but the bureaucrats at the EPA – and everywhere else in government – will remain. They are the enemy.

<

p align=”center”>

"I have the best of intentions, but end up falling short..."
"...those who oppose it can only be characterized as bigots animated by an irrational prejudice"
  • Retired military

    Can we sue the doctors for malpractise after their speech?

  • Hank_M

    When is my doctor supposed to do that? Right now he’s too damn busy filling out forms.

  • 9.8m/ss

    This is terrible! Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to talk about science!

    • Red Five

      They are supposed to talk about science. Man-made global warming, er, climate change, er, whatever it’s called today is not science, it’s false religion. Sure, it has sciency-sounding vocabulary, and sciency-sounding proponents (like Bill Nye the Engineering Guy who is not a climatologist), but it’s all a hoax, and should not be discussed as if it had any affect on my life, like, say, eating too many donuts and drinking too much soda with HFCS in it.

      • 9.8m/ss

        Tell me more about this alleged “hoax.” The climate related sciences go back to the 1820s. Warnings from scientists about the global waste CO2 problem began in 1897. Was it a hoax then? If not, when did manmade global warming start being a hoax? Who’s responsible for it becoming a hoax? How did they get all the national science academies, and all the universities, and all the science journals to go along with it?

        • Red Five

          It’s easy. “Global warming” isn’t about the environment, it’s about control of the masses. If your climate research doesn’t toe the official line, you don’t get any grant money, ergo, you go along with it. Climate-related sciences may go back nearly 200 years, but reliable temperature data goes back less than that. CO2 is not “waste”, it is plant food, or did your biology classes forget that part? Not only that, but all of the ice core data shows that CO2 production comes after planet-wide temperatures increase, by as much as 1000 years. CO2 increase does not cause temperature increase, it is an effect of temperature increase. In addition, you seriously expect us to believe that the tiny fraction of CO2 produced by human-related activities will tip the balance irrevocably toward ever-increasing temperatures? You expect us to believe that the less than 0.00001% of the atmosphere which contains human-related CO2 will cause more climate damage than the remaining 99.99999% of the atmosphere, 95% of which is not any of the so-called greenhouse gasses which are supposed to be a problem? One more thing: none of the climate talking heads (Al Gore, a failed divinity student; Bill Nye, a civil engineer; James Hansen, a climatologist who provably falsified data related to his climate research; and many others) even know what would happen if global temperatures increased by a few degrees. They all think that catastrophic disaster will occur, but they have no way to prove it even on a small scale. Meanwhile, there is credible research that indicates that increasing temperatures are a good thing; for instance, by lengthening growing seasons for food crops; reducing the portions of the planet which are very cold, meaning less energy is used to heat buildings; reduction of disease (some research theorizes that cooler environments allow diseases to thrive, while warmer environments slow the spread); and probably many other benefits from a warmer climate.

          So, basically, we have thousands of scientists who depend on politically-focused money to make a living; many terabytes worth of climate data which is either misinterpreted or deliberately falsified; numerous talking heads shrieking desperately on all available media that The End Is Near, many of whom are not scientists of any sort, let alone climatologists, and who have set themselves up to benefit politically or financially (or both) from the lie; a raft of “alternative energy sources” which do not work at all at the kind of scale required by a large, modern technological society such as ours, and are widely known to kill birds (burnt to a crisp by concentrated reflected solar radiation or chopped to bits by turbine blades) and cause physical discomfort to humans (the slow thwop thwop of large turbine blades or the high-speed whine of the generators), among other things; and millions of “true believers” who actually believe that if you don’t believe that the climate is changing, you should be killed for the good of the rest.

          On the other side, we have scientists who have followed where the data leads, and have found no credible evidence of human-caused climate change, no reason to believe that any temperature increases are catastrophic, and mountains of evidence that it’s all perfectly natural; research funded by companies in the energy business, who have spent billions researching all means of generating the energy our modern society needs to thrive, who have found that the biggest bang for the buck is found in petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear, that solar and wind are at best unreliable, that nuclear is actually very safe and produces no CO2, and that even solar and wind run afoul of the sensibilities of some greenie dork or other; and millions of people who know that the climate changes, has always changed, will always change, and mankind has absolutely no effect on it, but who the “true believers” want to put to death anyway because “deniers!!!!”.

          Is that enough about this “alleged” hoax for you?

          • 9.8m/ss

            That’s a pretty impressive gish gallop there. Gish gallops work because you can tell a lie (or just mislead) in a tiny fraction of the space it takes to explain what’s false about the lie. So if you pack as many lies as will fit in an article people will read, they can’t be refuted in another article people will read. It’s diabolical. It was the key to Rush Limbaugh’s success. All an advocate for science can do is pick one or two at a time and try to explain the science at a level the audience can understand.

            [Temp data too recent] You don’t need a long, reliable historical temperature record to measure current energy fluxes. Your record only has to go back long enough to calibrate the orbiting sensors. The orbital survey shows more energy going in than going out of the “top” of the atmosphere. That’s global warming. No ice cores or tree rings or hockey sticks or radiation from upper tropospheric oxygen needed.

            [“less than 0.00001%”] The relevant fact is atmospheric CO2 is up 40% since the first industrial revolution. And we can measure the effect of the new CO2 compared with the old. Here’s a paper reporting a prolonged sighting of that effect. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

            [plant food] CO2 is never the limiting factor in nutrition per open air acre. Adding CO2 in a greenhouse gives you more plant bulk but less nutrition. It’s great for cut flowers and rainforests, not so great for staple crops.

            See what I mean about how the gish gallop works?
            Do you want to do the rest?

          • Red Five

            “The relevant fact is atmospheric CO2 is up 40%…” ignoring the fact that CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming that has already occurred, due to, I don’t know, the end of an ice age or something, maybe.

            “The orbital survey shows…” that ground-based temperature observations, tree ring data, and other surface indicators read much higher than they should, thus inflating the sense of warming. Plus the fact that most of the “accepted” temperature trends have been manipulated in some way to show world-wide temperature increases that don’t actually exist.

            All of your pseudo-intellectual jabber also ignores another fact: most studies of climate related to manmade global warming assume that it is possible for the earth to achieve a thermal equilibrium; that TE is the value used as the mean global temperature, and it is that temperature that is assumed to be increasing. The problem is, in a system as massive as our planet’s, it is not possible to reach thermal equilibrium. Coffee cup, yes; sink, bathtub, even Olympic-sized swimming pool, yes; but not the entire planet. There are far too many factors causing local and even broad regional changes for the earth climate system to ever reach a single global temperature; chief among them is that enormous orange orb in the sky, which pumps so much thermal radiation into our atmosphere. We are cooler now than we were during the 1600’s, and according to a graph I saw recently, even that was cooler than a period during the 1300’s if memory serves. If the output from the sun changes even a fraction of a fraction of one percent, it causes more change than all of humanity ever could, whether we’ve been here for 6,000 years or 250,000. Hell, a single volcano eruption here on earth causes more environmental changes than all of humanity combined. Need I remind you of Greenland? It’s covered in ice many hundreds of feet thick now, but once it was green and fertile and warm and inhabited. Which means that it was warmer in the past than it is now, without any industry or evil infernal combustion engines, and we have suffered no ill effects from it.

            You liberals believe simultaneously that we humans are simply hairless primates with no more capability than a dolphin or an elephant, and that we are so powerful that we can destroy our climate with a couple hundred years of industrial revolution. Which is it? We cannot be both. That’s par for the course, though; liberals tend to believe in both sides of many opposites.

            I prefer to believe that God created all of our physical existence, that humans are made in His image, and that He has not given us the power to ultimately destroy ourselves, whether through the power of the atom, or the production of a little CO2 causing irreversible planetary baking. We can cause a lot of damage, to be sure, but it is never permanent, and it will never cause ultimate annihilation. We have seen the evidence in Hiroshima, in Nagasaki, in Washington state after Mt. St. Helens blew up, Krakatoa, the Hawaiian Islands, and so many other places where large-scale disasters happen, most of them natural, but none of them ending all life world-wide, and none of them even permanently killing all life in the immediate vicinity. We harnessed the atom, and we couldn’t destroy ourselves. Mountains blow up, yet they don’t destroy us. Our own sun throws unfathomable masses of matter and energy our way, but our atmosphere and magnetosphere protect us, with awesome light shows and some temporary communication glitches. A little extra CO2 is no different.

            Mankind cannot cause any disaster like you global warming adherents fear; it is not possible, because we were not created to house and harness that level of power.

          • dadamax

            CO2 lags warming – Natural processes aren’t always a linear cause and effect. In the case of the glacial and interglacial periods of the Quaternary that are paced by Milankovitch cycles, it’s a mutual causal interaction between temperature and the carbon cycle – a feedback.

            Interglacial warming peaked around 8000 years ago with Holocene Climatic Optimum; according to Milankovitch cycles we should be incrementally cooling into the next glacial period. Carbon isotope analysis indicates the 40% increase in CO2 is entirely due to the combustion of hydrocarbons – not natural sources. In fact the oceans are currently acting as a net sink of CO2 – which is causing ocean acidification.

            Greenland was green during MWP – The ice in the Greenland ice sheet is 110,000 years old. Viking settlements were limited to the southern tip and southwest fringes of the island. The MWP was not an instance of globally synchronous warming and it was cooler than the current global mean surface temperature. While the Vikings benefited in the North Atlantic, it didn’t go as well for the Pueblo – much of the United States experienced megadrought conditions.

            I understand your personal incredulity, but an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Science must follow the evidence, no matter how incredible. The worst extinction event in the history of life on Earth, the Great Dying, was a result of global warming caused by carbon dioxide and methane, and the ensuing climate change. There is evidence that methane-producing microbes in the ocean contributed. If microbes can cause global warming, it shouldn’t be too surprising that industrial human activity can. Humans emit 100 times the CO2 that volcanoes do. The atmosphere doesn’t care where the greenhouse gases come from – they still enhance the greenhouse effect. It’s physics that has been understood for 150 years.

            The concern isn’t the survival of the human species. There are over 7 billion people. Even if 99.9% of humanity was wiped out you’d still have 7 million people to repopulate the species with. The concern is that the infrastructure and domesticated staple crops that have allowed for modern civilization and population levels cannot acclimate to a new climate state, and the economic and human cost that will be associated with the degradation or possible crippling of those systems, much of which will be irrevocable for decades if not centuries.

          • Red Five

            “Science must follow the evidence…” the only problem with that is the fact that much of the evidence used to “prove” manmade global warming is junk: ice core data tweaked, tree ring data manipulated, and even historical temperature records “fixed” to show increasing trends that don’t really exist. The science following that manipulated data is therefore suspect and cannot be used as a basis for credible government policies. Which all goes to show that all the noise about global warming has nothing to do with the environment, it’s all about controlling populations.

          • dadamax

            That is pure conspiracist ideation.

          • Red Five

            And that is pure bovine feces. That took you, what, 35 seconds and a check of the Funk and Wagnalls for the really big words?

          • 9.8m/ss

            You don’t need historical records for evidence of global warming. It comes from the CERES and IRIS orbiting observatories. They complete two surveys per month. And we’re starting to get ground-based observations as well. Try keeping up with the science. Follow Science Daily or Science Recorder or Scientific American. You’re wasting your time and being wildly misled by the political opinion sources you’re using.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You are remarkably misinformed, Red. Home schooled? Let’s consider two more items from your Gish Gallop. (You’re afraid to look up what a Gish Gallop is, right?)

            “Hell, a single volcano eruption here on earth causes more environmental changes than all of humanity combined.”
            There hasn’t been a volcanic eruption like that in a quarter of a billion years. That was the end-Permian global mass extinction.
            Human civilization emits about 125 times as much CO2 as all the volcanoes, year in and year out. Ask any geologist. There’s no controversy about that figure. Everything else volcanoes emit (mostly sulfate aerosols) causes short term cooling.

            “Need I remind you of Greenland? It’s covered in ice many hundreds of feet thick now, but once it was green and fertile and warm and inhabited.”
            Here in the real world, most of the land area of Greenland has been covered by miles of ice for two million years. (Human civilization is ten thousand years old.) A small strip of land along its southeast shore is exposed. That strip was somewhat wider during the medieval warm period. The Vikings tried to maintain a colony there, but they ignored the natives’ advice and it was never self sustaining. There was never a time in human history when Greenland was “green and fertile and warm.” Ask any historian.

          • Red Five

            “Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop” Geez, you sound like a parrot. Wanna cracker?

            Here in the real world, the earth’s climate changes. It has always changed, and it always will. It gets hotter, it gets colder. But humanity has no ability to make it change. Furthermore, there is no conclusive proof that any warming is a bad thing. Personally, I hate cold winters and I’d rather have warmer temperatures all year around.

    • Retired military

      Well I guess you feel it is okay, if not required, for your TV repair guy to talk about how you should set up your computer. I mean they are both electronics right. How about your weatherman advising you about what to eat. Weather and nutrition are both sciences.

      • 9.8m/ss

        I don’t have a TV repair guy. But when the cable guy was here we did indeed talk about how to set up a computer to play various video content. TV and computers are converging. I sent him home with a Knoppix disk to try.

  • Constitution First

    Fortunately for me, my primary care MD is not a mindless ideological Toddie.
    Never asks about firearms or the weather, just matters that directly affect my health.

  • jfreed27

    We have known of health dangers for some time.

    The World Health Organization estimates hundreds of thousands of deaths per year, 88% of them children.
    http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

    Both the AMA and American Pediatric Society see damages even now and urge us to avoid the worse impacts of climate change for the sake of our health, and our children’s.

    Deniers are complicit in these deaths, through their delay and obstruction. Some do it for the love of a lousy buck, like mercenaries throughout history.

    So, deniers, get your sneering face on, and don’t forget to slither to your doctors when you have a tummy ache.

    • So, Malthusians, go away. You have no credit.

    • Mjolnir

      Estimates? Yeah, those are accurate. Just like the temperature estimates made by the Global Warming Prophets. Inaccurate but *true*. I’ll bet I can find scientists who can make a clearer more realistic estimate about the number of deaths that will be attributable to the self-destructive policies espoused by the proselytizers and acolytes of the Orthodox Religion of Man-Made Climate Change than that twaddle.

      • jfreed27

        Huff and puff. Tell it to the AMA, Dept. Of Defense, every science academy in the world. Name ONE that disagrees.

        • Apply to Einstein for driving lessons.

        • Retired military

          Name one that doesnt have their funding cut if they dont agree.
          Answer : none.

          • 9.8m/ss

            John Christy
            Roy Spencer
            Judith Curry
            That’s three leading US climatologists who disagree with the banner findings from their field. Their government grants are renewed every year.

          • Vagabond661

            This Roy Spencer?

            In 2006 Spencer criticized Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, saying, “For instance, Mr. Gore claims that the Earth is now warmer than it has been in thousands of years. Yet the latest National Academies of Science (NAS) report on the subject has now admitted that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years, which is mostly made up of the ‘Little Ice Age'”.[25]

            In a New York Post opinion column on February 26, 2007, Spencer wrote:

            Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world – possibly none – have a sufficiently thorough, “big picture” understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.[26]

            In an interview with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on February 28, 2007, Spencer stated that he didn’t believe “catastrophic manmade global warming” was occurring. He also criticized climate models, saying “The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don’t. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models.”[27] Roy Spencer is also included in a film that argues against the theory of man-made global warming called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

          • 9.8m/ss

            Roy Spencer’s research is funded by the US Government. Weren’t you claiming earlier today that dissenting scientists get their funding cut off?

          • Vagabond661

            Not me. But hey no harm no foul.

          • Brucehenry

            I think you have two commenters mixed up. Retired Military claimed the funding cut thingie, not this guy.

          • Sparafucile

            I guess you don’t think at a second level — if any of those researchers had funding cut, it would represent public outward confirmation of everything every skeptic has long suggested motivates the less-public research grants and grantees..

        • Hank_M
          • Retired military

            There you go confusing idiots with fact

            The global warming crowd has been saying “it is the end of the world if we dont act NOW” for 20 years. Robert Redford has a column out today about this is our last chance. How many times have we heard that since Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice free last winter?

          • 9.8m/ss

            The North Pole has been ice free several times in the last couple of decades. The first time the New York Times reported it, the backlash was so strong they retracted the story, photo and all. The ice there is very thin.

          • Retired military

            Links please

          • jfreed27

            Nice try, but no cigar.

            I asked, can anyone name a single scientific organization or academy that disputes the basic claims of the IPCC or that denies AGW is happening and serious

            Your first link was to a a long essay, not the name of an academy

            The essay was titled, “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” Not an academy.

            The second was a list of deniers/dissenters. We don’t know how many are published climate scientists. Other bogus surveys find the same collections of poorly qualified individuals. with Bachelor Degrees in Engineering, Political Science etc.

            Again, not a prestigious science academy.

            The third link, a real shocker, was to an actual scientific academy, The American Meteorological Society. But, rather than dispute the iPCC claims, it supports it.

            Quote: “A very large majority of respondents
            (89%) indicated that global warming is
            happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they “don’t know” (7%)”

            Try again.

            Here is a very small part of my list of science academies that support the conclusions of the IPCC, that climate is changing due to man’s emissions with catastrophic results. There are 197 in all….

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias,
            Chile
            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa,
            Portugal
            Academia de Ciencias de la
            República Dominicana
            Academia de Ciencias Físicas,
            Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
            Academia
            de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de
            Bolivia
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Académie des Sciences, France
            Academies of Arts, Humanities and
            Sciences of Canada
            Academy of Athens
            Academy
            of Science of Mozambique
            Academy of Science of South Africa
            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World
            (TWAS)
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy of Sciences
            of Moldova
            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic
            of Iran

          • Sparafucile

            Your “organization” meme is just your bogus “consensus” canard, rephrased.

        • Wild_Willie

          What self loathing, uppity liberals think about climate change is that it is all man’s fault. When in fact the consensus for climate change is pretty well accepted. It is just a vast majority do not think it has been proven man is responsible and is probably cyclical. Just like liberals that say conservatives are against immigration when no one said that. Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration. Since liberals do not necessarily follow the law, they can’t fathom that belief. ww

        • Sparafucile

          DoD evaluates contingencies. Like a surprise nuclear attack from Putin. Or an invasion of (our ally) Taiwan by China. Studying something does not imply acceptance of a high probability of occurrence..

          • They also obey the direct orders of the President, Secretary of Defense, and (Service Specific Secretary), all of whom are currently besotted of the AGW Koolaid.

          • Sparafucile

            That, too.

          • 9.8m/ss

            It’s strange that we don’t have any climate whistleblowers in the Pentagon, don’t you think? I’d expect Wikileaks to have a stack of stolen documents by now, with the White house ordering false science to drive military purchasing and planning.

          • Retired military

            Under the Obama admin whistleblowers lose their job, go to jail and get audited by the IRS.

    • Vagabond661

      Liberals told us about the dangers of DDT and banned it. They killed more children for real than your imagined climate change.

      • jfreed27

        A lie. There are better treatments against malaria. Meanwhile you cannot name one science academy liberal or conservative or neither that disputes reality of AGW.

        • Vagabond661

          Name me a doctor who is qualified to talk about climate change to me. I believe they went to school to practice medicine.

          • 9.8m/ss

            My dentist reads Science Daily and Science Recorder, and follows links to the refereed journals they reference. He knows more about the climate system than anyone who gets his science news from political opinion outlets.

          • Vagabond661

            Nice that he reads articles. However, I want a doctor to cure me not talk about articles he read.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You asked for a doctor qualified to talk about anthropogenic global warming. Are you surprised such people exist? It’s really not hard to become informed on the science. You just have to read what scientists say about it, and ignore the politics.

          • Vagabond661

            Reading articles qualifies someone? Then my links above are ok.

          • 9.8m/ss

            If you’ve got enough training in subjects like thermodynamics and metrology to understand the papers, sure. My dentists happens to be in that category. How did you do in your thermo class? I aced mine.

          • Vagabond661

            How special for you. Al Gore invented the internet.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Not only did Gore not invent the Internet, he never claimed to have done that. He claimed to have “taken the initiative” to get its software funded in a way that everyone could use it. That claim is true.

          • Vagabond661

            He also said the polar icecaps would be gone in 2013.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You should get your science from scientists, not from retired self-aggrandizing politicians.

          • Vagabond661

            and not from doctors….or dentists.

          • dadamax

            What he actually said is that the north polar ice cap (singular, as in excluding the Antarctic) could be gone during summer somewhere between 2015 and 2030.

          • Vagabond661

            During the summer between 2015 and 2030? that’s a long summer!
            “New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. ”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish_n_391632.html

            Whatever date you put to it, it’s flat wrong. So to quote Joey Tribianni your point is “moo.”

          • How did that prediction pan out?

          • dadamax

            We won’t know for another 15 years and 2 months. But it’s an entirely plausible scenario. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png

          • Vagabond661

            Sorry, he just created the internet.

            During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
            Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp#iVLUhh52AippE5OR.99

          • 9.8m/ss

            No, you have to stick to your tribal trope: “Al Gore says he invented the Internet!” Chant it over and over. That it’s a lie is unimportant.

          • Vagabond661

            Like global warming.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Satellites don’t lie. Global warming (the energy imbalance at top of atmosphere) is surveyed twice monthly from polar orbit. The annual global average is about 0.6 watts/square meter.

          • Vagabond661

            Uhm sure. And not too long ago, the experts said an ice age was coming.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Not really. In the 1970s, a couple of scientists miscalculated the cooling potential of sulfate aerosols and triggered a journalistic stampede to a false story. All through the ’70s, magazines in the supermarket newsrack were full of Imminent Ice Age scare stories. But in the professional scientific literature, there were few climate predictions, and they were five to one for warming due to manmade greenhouse gases.
            It’s another one of those emotionally appealing but false talking points. In the revised version, popular on right wing opinion outlets, it was “all the experts.” That version is a lie.

          • Vagabond661
          • 9.8m/ss

            We agree the consumer-facing mass media were full of ice age scare stories. You assume they were reporting a scientific consensus. You want to believe it because that would show that the scientific consensus changes radically and is therefore unreliable. Your assumption is mistaken. Your belief is unsupported by facts.

          • Vagabond661

            Actually I assume it because they said “according to scientists”….

          • Retired military

            Like scientists used to say the earth was flat, the earth was center of the universe and that given enough funding they could turn lead into gold.

          • Retired military

            I can find articles on how Obama is meeting with ET. Links, pictures and all.

          • jfreed27

            Epidemiology is a branch of medicine that studies the origin and spread of diseases.

            And also, for example, when 70,000 people died in record heat waves in France and Russia, doctors were on the scene to save who they could.

            It is no wonder that pediatricians are concerned. Here is the statement of the American Academy of Pediatricians. It is based on direct experience…

            “we we often think of climate change in terms of environmental effects, there are also wide-reaching health impacts that are especially damaging to vulnerable populations like children. These health impacts include the broad effects of weather disasters, increases and range-shifts in climate sensitive infections, increases in allergic and asthmatic diseases, food and water insecurity and increased heat-related deaths. – See more at: https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Statement-on-EPA-Action-to-Regulate-Carbon-Emissions.aspx#sthash.2qvMVv9d.dpuf

          • Vagabond661

            A branch of medicine. So can you go to a foot doctor and have him give you a diagnosis on your ear?

            Obama should go back to basketball players to promote his train wreck of a health “care” program.

          • jfreed27

            OK, you stole our flag, but we’re still a_sholes.

          • Why yes, yes you are…

            …but we’re still a_sholes.

          • jfreed27

            Or to James Inhofe for a judgement about the science?

        • Vagabond661
          • Brucehenry

            You know that’s a Lyndon LaRouche site, right?

          • Vagabond661
          • 9.8m/ss

            Steven Milloy is a lobbyist for the chemical and fossil fuel industries. Try to learn the difference between a PR flack and a scientist, and get your science news from scientists, not PR guys.

          • Vagabond661

            But he reads articles….you know, like your dentist.

          • Vagabond661

            No but thanks. I’ll leave it there for reference.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Your twelve year old reference claims HIV is spread by mosquitoes. It’s a crackpot site.

        • Vagabond661

          Then why is WHO still using it?

        • Better is questionable, uniformly more expensive is inarguable.

      • 9.8m/ss

        By the time DDT was banned, tropical mosquitoes had already evolved immunity to it. But it’s an appealing talking point, isn’t it?

        • Vagabond661

          Then why is WHO still using it?

  • Mjolnir

    My doctor isn’t a moron.

    • jfreed27

      How nice for you!

  • Retired military

    Can we ban 9.8m/ss and jfreed? Their hot air is causing global warming.

    • jfreed27

      The truth hurts, but it is better not to deceive oneself, for our children’s sake.

    • 9.8m/ss

      Breathing is carbon neutral. You should have learned about the carbon cycle in middle school earth science.