Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[BrentAllen]

AGW is the greatest hoax of our lifetime. Al Gore makes the Snake Oil Salesmen from the old west look like rank amateurs. I, for one, will be proud to tell my grandkids I never fell for the great scam that was AGW. I hope they study this in Social Studies, so they can recognize these charlatans if they ever reappear.

[GaHillBilly]

Gern. . .

"I have a very difficult time engaging in any scientific discussion with those who hold the belief that the earth was created in 6 days and is only 5-10 thousand years old. Just sayin'."

 

I have lived all my life in the evangelical community, and except for my mother, I've never personally known anyone who believed that. I know some must, but I haven't encountered them personally. Who do you do know who believes that?

 

Or, are you just throwing that out in hopes it hits someone?

 

 

packsaddle . . .

"GHB, anyone who does not want to engage in actual science should not attempt it, degree or not."

 

I'm not sure what your point is. If you referring to my son's career options, my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions.

 

 

Oh, just found some more fun links:

From the London Times, "Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up"

[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece ]

 

And, here's the SAME story, but by the more gullible reporter from US News & WR:

[ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish-in-5-7-years.html?s_cid=rss:gore-polar-ice-may-vanish-in-5-7-years ]

(Fact checking?? What fact checking! It's Al Gore, fool!)

 

And on the topic of ice melting elsewhere and elsewhen -- at the WRONG time -- from Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, via Breitbart: "Sunshine speeded 1940s Swiss glacier melt"

[ http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d1adbaecf2f1d58fb3880c64655e52ea.151&show_article=1 ]

 

 

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

[le Voyageur]

I can't think of a less-likely group to concoct a massive global conspiracy than a bunch of scientists. We're highly trained in our specialties but most of us are insufficiently skilled and insufficiently dishonest to be able to pull of a conspiracy bigger than stealing reagents from the next lab. packsaddle

 

It won't be the scientists, at least not the ones being envisioned here. None the less the process is taking place. Waters polluted with a witches brew of chemicals that our physiology cannot cope with, or break down.

 

A global food distrubution network that spreads diseases, and invasive species. The majority of humans eat meat that is toxic with growth hormones, and antibiotics. Both fresh water, and salt water fish that are loaded with mercury, and dioxins. Hamburger alone is a mix of nearly several hundred beeves, from several different countries (Mexico, South America, Canada, besides the USA)

 

International tarvel which over several decades have spread diseases once confined by ocean barriers.

 

A concern of California is the loss of the Salton Sea, a sewage pond were it to dry out would spread carcinogenic dust over several states. Nuclear test sites in Nevada still spread radioactive dust into the St George area of Utah, and nothern Arizona.

 

As the human population continues to grow. the stresses on natural resources will grow, too. Means needing more carbon based energy to produce not only the basics, but also the frivolous. Eventually, human growth will outstrip available resources, with those resources such as land, air, and water becoming ever more, and increasingly toxic, and unuseable...

 

(This message has been edited by Le Voyageur)

[BrentAllen]

We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen is hardly grounds for complacency.)

1971 - John Holdren (Obama's Science Czar)

 

As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.

1986.

 

More ridiculous predictions:

 

65 million Americans will die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Paul Ehrlich, 1968

 

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death." Paul Ehrlich (Holdrens co-author and mentor) 1968

 

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. Paul Ehrlich 1969

 

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1969

 

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Paul Ehrlich 1976

 

"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." Environmentalist Nigel Calder at the first Earth Day celebration.

 

"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." Eco-scientist C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization, 1969

 

...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind, biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

 

By 1995...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

 

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born, Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

 

We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation, biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

 

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half... Life magazine, January 1970.

 

Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

 

"200,000 Americans will die from air pollution, and by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans will be 42 years." Paul Ehrlich, 1973

 

It is already too late to avoid mass starvation, Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

 

We can now add leVoyageur to the list, 2009. Congratulations.

 

[JoeBob]

"Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up"

 

Owl got caught in Copenhagen yesterday stretching the truth again:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

 

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said Its unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gores office.

[DanKroh]

"The amount of radiation released at the Three Mile Island site was small and there have been no significant effects."

 

vol_scouter, I disagree. There are conflicting accounts of how much radiation was released, and there have been no studies done, that I know of, to show an absence of long-term effects. On the other hand, I have anecdotal information from various relatives about increased cancer and birth defects among both the human and livestock populations, as well as pictures of interesting mutations of plant-life in the area.

 

I spent a day locked in a school 12 miles from TMI in 1979, and most of a week in exile from my home, wondering if we would ever be able to return. Some of us don't need the media to scare us about nuclear power. Experience has done a good enough job. That said, I am not anti-nuclear, but I am concerned about regulations regarding the building and operation of power plants.

[FScouter]

"More ridiculous predictions: "

 

All of those dire predictions are prefaced with "If we don't take steps now, then later we will see... ". And we've taken steps to head off those potential environmental disasters.

 

Considering the growth we've experienced, what would air pollution in our big cities be like today if control measures were still at 1970 levels?

[GaHillBilly]

@ DanKroh

" I have anecdotal information from various relatives about increased cancer and birth defects among both the human and livestock populations, as well as pictures of interesting mutations of plant-life in the area."

 

Dan, I'm pretty sure you are well enough educated to know how reliable such information is, in assessing actual magnitudes of effects or risks!

 

Some years ago, I did an experiment in social psychology, but just once! It caused way too much trouble to repeat.

 

I've worked with commercial swimming pools of years, and have been very involved in the chemistry and pathology of both the chemicals and of the microorganisms associated with pools. Over the years I've observed many cases where identical conditions (so far as I could measure or determine them) led to very, very different reactions among pool customers.

 

So, once upon a time as a test, I had the head lifeguard instruct a couple of guards on duty -- in a voice audible to pool users -- that we'd put some chemicals in the water that might cause some folks to itch a bit. She was to explain that the effects would be limited in extent and duration, but that they could explain to patrons what was going on, and that if they preferred, they could come back in a few hours. Of course, we had not put ANYTHING into the pool. But, as you might expect, there were some complaints, so many in fact that my little experiment quickly morphed into a "My God, I'll never do THAT again" experience.

 

Tell people that they are going to have health problems as a result of radiation . . . and they will. Some will report pyschosomatic effects, like the pool patrons. Some will report real problems with uncertain causes. Some will report problems that might actually be caused by radiation. But the ONLY way to know for sure -- unless the radiation effects are both medically unmistakeable and statistically massive -- is to do epidemiological studies comparing the Three Mile Island community with other similar communities not exposed to radiation.

 

It's my impression that that HAS been done, and revealed no effect. In fact, it's also my impression that the overall epidemiology of nuclear power vs. coal power has been examined, and that those studies revealed that -- OVERALL -- coal power kills more people per gigawatt hour than nuclear power does.

 

Of course, this does not address the 'locked in your classroom' issue. But isn't that a problem caused by panic and inappropriate response, rather than by nuclear power per se?

 

 

 

@ various others

 

I'm all for alternative sources of power, and not even too upset over losing a moderate number of birds to windmills. But, I HAVE seen the math on alternative power, and know that it does not come close to providing enough to maintain anything other than a 3rd world lifestyle. So, I expect those of you who are advocating no-coal and no-nukes to lead the way by giving up your cars (CO2) and by heating your homes and offices to 55 in winter and using no AC ever and installing composting toilets. Anything else is just Al (must have my 10,000sft house in Carthage, TN) Gore style eco-hypocrisy.

 

Of course, I'll also ask those of you who are not eco-hypocrites to please stay downwind on warm days! Even though I'm a hillbilly, I no longer live in a log cabin with no running water, and have become accustomed to people who don't stink so much.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[BrentAllen]

Really?

 

What, exactly, did we do to prevent the global cooling?

 

What did we do, exactly, to prevent the depletion of key minerals? (BTW, Paul Ehrlich lost an embarassing bet about how scarce key minerals would be in 10 years)

 

What did we do, exactly, to keep England around?

 

What did we do, exactly, to keep 75 - 85% of all species from going extinct by 1985?

 

I need a good laugh, so please, keep it coming. The truly sad thing is that instead of being laughed out of science, these idiots are now given a seat at the head of the table with Obama. These Debbie Downers are hard-wired for doom & gloom, along with the idea that only the government can save us. They've been wrong for 30 + years, yet some people keep listening to them. I wonder why?

[DanKroh]

"Of course, this does not address the 'locked in your classroom' issue. But isn't that a problem caused by panic and inappropriate response, rather than by nuclear power per se?"

 

GHB, thanks for the pop pseudo-psychology, but you are missing my point. Those who watched TMI from a safe distance can talk about how irrational the fear of nuclear power is, but for those of us who lived through it, we have reasons to distrust nuclear power, and even more reason to distrust those who regulate and run the power plants.

 

Yes, the power of suggestion can have dramatic effects. But I'm not quite sure how suggestion produces increased numbers of deformed livestock and plants. Again, my point, which you have completely missed, is that there is no hard, uncontested evidence supporting vol_scouter's claims.

 

I am not "anti-nuke", however, I do think a lot more safety features and plans need to be in place if we, as a nation, are going to utilize nuclear power. Like any sort of realistic evacuation plan for the population, another thing which did not exist for the Harrisburg area in 1979.

[GaHillBilly]

Dan, my mother followed the same sort of 'reasoning' process. If I told her that I'd read that 3 out of 100 people in Georgia had serious stings over the course of a summer, she'd say something like "That's interesting" meaning of course, "That's boring, but you're my son." On the other hand, if she happened to get badly stung during a particular summer, then there was a "serious problem" that "somebody ought to do something about" (besides dispatching one of us to deal with the particular nest).

 

You can be that way.

 

But it has nothing to do with a reasoned examination of the problem. As I mentioned in the thread about gays, my uncle pursued the opportunity to molest me. Fortunately, he failed, but the fact that he went after me does not in any way change the overall percentage of gays who are also pedophiles. It does, of course, make me wary of gay advocacy groups citing 'studies' that show that almost no gays are pedophiles.

 

That's not unreasonable, so if you want to challenge the data I've linked below, and can do so successfully, please have at it.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

"Overall, the pattern of results does not provide convincing evidence that radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear facility influenced cancer risk during the limited period of follow-up."

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2389745 ]

 

"This commentary suggests that the major source of radiation exposure to the population has been ignored as a potential confounding factor or effect modifying factor in previous and ongoing TMI epidemiologic studies that explore whether or not TMI accidental plant radiation releases caused an increase in lung cancer in the community around TMI. The commentary also documents the observation that the counties around TMI have the highest regional radon potential in the United States and concludes that radon progeny exposure should be included as part of the overall radiation dose assessment in future studies of radiation-induced lung cancer resulting from the TMI accident."

[ http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/113/2/214 ]

 

 

"CONCLUSIONS: Thyroid cancer incidence has not increased in Dauphin County, the county in which TMI is located. York County demonstrated a trend toward increasing thyroid cancer incidence beginning in 1995, approximately 15 years after the TMI accident. Lancaster County showed a significant increase in thyroid cancer incidence beginning in 1990. These findings, however, do not provide a causal link to the TMI accident."

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18300710 ]

 

Here's one that actually supports your conclusions, though the effect reported is weak:

"Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI. The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence."

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9074881 ]

 

 

But another study examining mortality from 1979 to 1992 found nothing:

"Therefore, it is unlikely that this observed increase is related to radiation exposure on the day of the accident. The mortality surveillance of this cohort does not provide consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the TMI accident has a significant impact on the mortality experience of this cohort to date. However, continued follow-up of these individuals will provide a more comprehensive description of the morbidity and mortality experience of the cohort."

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856029 ]

 

. . . and so on. The consensus is that either TMI had NO effect, or else a very small one.

 

 

The Wikipedia article is consistent with what I found, and have read before, and links some good references. Essentially, some bad maintenance and operational training lead to a system failure which destroyed the plant, but had minimal effect on the surrounding area.

There's no evidence that any deaths occurred, either at the time nor later, as a result of the accident or any radiation 'release'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

 

 

"As a public service, in 1979 the Eastman Kodak Company collected all the unexposed film that it could locate in the area around Three Mile Island and examined it for evidence of radiation-induced fogging. This would provide excellent evidence of even relatively small radiation exposures, because the film would begin fogging at a mere 5 millirem.

 

Kodak found nothing. As the reputable scientists who have examined the accident since have emphasized, this totally rules out the theory that public exposure was substantially above background."

 

[ http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2009/03/noisome-falsehoods-about-three-mile.html ]

(This is only a blog, and I couldn't find authoritative confirmation of the Kodak film thing, though it's mentioned in a number of places.)

 

 

 

[DanKroh]

"You can be that way."

 

Excuse me, sir, but I don't believe you know me well enough to make that kind of value judgment. One of the reasons I gave the caveat of "anecdotal" is because, unlike some people, I *am* cautious of presenting my personal opinions as hard facts.

 

But I do have some personal commentary on your sources (I deleted the quoted text for brevity). The first comment on all of them is that I can only see the abstracts, not the full articles, so I cannot judge for myself the validity of the conclusions based on the data, or the validity of the methods. But there are a few other things worth noting:

 

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2389745 ]

 

A study done in 1990, when doctors agree that many cancers take *at least* 10-15 years after exposure to manifest. Not exactly a "long-term" study. And what does "does not provide convincing evidence" mean exactly? So does that mean there is "unconvincing evidence"?

 

[ http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/113/2/214 ]

 

The abstract, which you quote here, says that the background radon could make it difficult to link cancer increases to TMI, not that there is no increase. Without looking at the rest of the article, I can't tell if they actually examine lung cancer incidence.

 

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18300710 ]

 

This looked just at thyroid cancer, and says that there was in increase in incidence, but no causal link to TMI. Causality is very hard to establish, even with overwhelming evidence. Still, doesn't address other cancers, like non-hodgkins lymphoma.

 

Here's one that actually supports your conclusions, though the effect reported is weak:

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9074881 ]

 

But another study examining mortality from 1979 to 1992 found nothing:

[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856029 ]

 

This examined mortality, not incidence. Cancer treatments have come a long way. I would be more impressed if this study looked at *incidence*. Also, it only covers a 12 year period (see above about some cancers taking *at least* 10-15 years), so it's still not what I would call "long-term". I'm curious, was the "continued follow-up of these individuals" ever conducted?

 

". . . and so on. The consensus is that either TMI had NO effect, or else a very small one."

 

Actually, the studies that say "no effect", seem to really say "there are small but statistically significant effects, but they cannot be causally linked to TMI", which is not exactly the same thing. Also, you don't present any studies here looking at birth defects, only cancers. Having had 2 children with (minor and not so minor) birth defects (the wife was within the affected area during her childhood, as well), I would be interested to see data on that.

 

The Kodak thing is interesting, but again, it is taken from a blog, and I would like to see an original report, although I suspect my physics is not strong enough to make a good interpretation either way.

[GaHillBilly]

""You can be that way."

 

Excuse me, sir, but I don't believe you know me well enough to make that kind of value judgment. One of the reasons I gave the caveat of "anecdotal" is because, unlike some people, I *am* cautious of presenting my personal opinions as hard facts."

 

 

 

What I wrote was ill-phrased. I should have said something like, "You can adopt that way of thinking about it." or some such. Actually, that doesn't sound much better; regardless, I didn't mean it the way it came across.

 

I was trying (and failing) to say -- in a colloquial manner -- that anecdotal evidence, even when it's intensely personal, doesn't lead to valid statistical conclusions apart from a complete statistical context. And, that citing isolated personal experience sometimes provides a data point, but nothing more.

 

But I'm sorry for your experiences with birth defects. Even if I think it's improbable that TMI was related, I do NOT think it's impossible. And, I do think such problems are to be regretted, however they occurred.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[vol_scouter]

The radon cited in the article is confounding because it comes from the uranium that occurs naturally in the ground (it is a decay product) and from coal fired power plants. So the adjustment would be to decrease the incidence of lung cancers - not to increase. Thus, it strengthens the conclusions that there is no ill effects due to TMI. There have been extensive data collection to determine the amount and distribution of the radiation release. I have sat through several lectures on the topic. There have been several longitudinal studies on workers in the radiation industry: Hanford, K-25, Savannah River, et cetera. The consistent conclusions are that there is a statistically non-significant incidence in lymphomas but otherwise the age matched cohorts are healthier than the general population. Those studies exclude the very few workers who received a large dose in a short period of time (a criticality accident). The risks of nuclear power are totally overblown. The waste problems were solved years ago. We must turn to nuclear power if we wish decrease our dependence on foreign petroleum. Coal plants produce more radioactive products in the environment than does nuclear plants.

[GernBlansten]

"I have lived all my life in the evangelical community, and except for my mother, I've never personally known anyone who believed that. I know some must, but I haven't encountered them personally. Who do you do know who believes that?

"

Sarah Palin.