From the New Nostradamus of the North blog
A team of “international experts” have published a paper on climate change in this week´s edition of PloS Medicine:
The experts are from institutions in South Africa, Sweden and Germany. They will be highlighting the need to enhance climate and health benefits at the UN level.
This article will focus on views of these authors who feel that a healthy climate can be constantly maintained only by an overall global effort through small-scale and large-scale actions, which must involve active participation of the public health community.
The authors state that there is proof of significant health impacts of climate change in many sectors and these impacts lead to crisis in public health very similar to the impact of tobacco on the health of individuals. The authors highlight that this negative impact on health is because the general population is not sufficiently informed on the importance of public health.
How dare they make the preposterous claim that using cars less (walking, cycling) and eating less meat (the provision of which is another CO2 rich process) would in addition to being Healthier (!?) could and/or would reduce the effects of climate warming! How absurd! How rude!
I don’t see how you can maintain that you are undecided about global warming. With statements like this one it is obvious to anyone that reads it that you are firmly in the camp of the warmists, sitting around the campfire with them eating smores!
All I did was demonstrate, sarcastically, the illogic of the claim being made that those things would not reduce known greenhouse gases. That’s all.
And who is making that claim? Yours is the first comment on the story. A preemptive strike? Who did you expect to make that claim? I wasn’t thinking that at all when I read this. No, I was thinking that it is none of their GD’d business how I, or anybody for that matter, lives their life. And that because of CO2’s limited heat absorbtion properties that it doesn’t matter if CO2 levels double or tripple at this point. (A fact that I have yet to see be aknowleged by you by the way. Even though I have posted it several times.) And that what you lefties really want to see is a hegemony of everyone exercising, eating, and traveling in a manner dictated by the Left. That’s what I was thinking when I read this.
All that matters is what you were thinking. My bad.
There you go again. You can’t argue with what I say so you lash out and imply that I’m self-centered, and nobody else’s opinion matters to me. Of course that is not true, but you seem to forget that this is a forum of opinions on global warming, and that I have opinions. One’s that you don’t share obviously. And instead of defending your opinion you use a fallaciuos ad hominem.
I did defend my first statement (and my “opinion on -the above- global warming” article), what more do you want? OMG, you fall-back onto your hypocritical right-wing “I’m the victim” mode at the drop of a hat. That you cannot see that is mind-blowing. I get it that this site is perhaps your special love, and when an interloper like me uses her so trashily, in your Dudley Doright rightous way, there’s anger and defensiveness. (Now that’s an ad hominen… fallacious? Probably not).
I’m sorry. I don’t see where you defended your opinion. You just repeated it. And you skirted answering my question by feigning indignation…. again.
So just who was it that was making (or going to make) the claim that those things would not reduce known greenhouse gases?
Uhhh… the… title… of… the…article. Perhaps is was Dan who made that part up, or it was perhaps he who mis-interpreted the article. Maybe you should be interrogating him Mein Fuherer.
Ok, but I have read the article and no one has made that claim. Not the in the title, not in the body of the story.
“the illogic of the claim being made that those activities such as walking, cycling, and eating good food such as vegetables vs. meat would not reduce known greenhouse gases”- my defense of: “…views of these authors who feel that a healthy climate can be constantly maintained only by an overall global effort through small-scale and large-scale actions”.
And now to think on it- how can they say anything “small-scale and large-scale re: a global effort” could do anything? Is that illogical, or what? See below for answer.
I think it is a personal choice as to what we eat, how or if we exercise, and travel. It is a matter of freedom, and you’re darned right I get I get angry and defensive when freedom is threatened.
“Good food, walking and cycling keep climate change away” That’s my focus, uh, reality, as in the TITLE, above. And your concern over your freedom is challenged where again? Again, if you disagree with Dan’s title, please use your freedom to ask him about that.
No, you said
“All I did was demonstrate, sarcastically, the illogic of the claim being made that those things would not reduce known greenhouse gases. That’s all.”
And I asked you: who is making that claim? Nobody has said that those things would not reduce known greenhouse gases. The only thing from the story above that is critical of this, was this:
“If all these beneficial activities help to keep us away from Dr.Pachauri and the rest of the UN global warming hoaxters, then the fresh PloS Medicine paper would have served a real purpose.”
Again nobody claimed that these things would not reduce greenhouse gases. You point to the title of the story, but I don’t see it there either. Were those smores I thought you were eating actually shrooms?
Oh, and I submitted that comment too soon. I wanted to address the freedom issues I see here. And I’m glad you aked because I am happy to explain it too you. You see, when all people are forced to behave in certain ways and to accept certain orthodoxies dictated by a small group of people it is a suppresion of human free will, or in other words tyrany. It could be that everyone must worship a certain religion, or everyone must wear the same kind of clothing, or everyone must march in a parade every third Sunday. Or it could be everyone must eat no meat, ride bicycles and walk instead of driving.
Now I know that you are waving your raised hand and saying “ooh ooh Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter” Horshack, but I know you are going to say that it’s because if we don’t do these things there are going to be terrible concequences that may cause a great deal of harm to a great many people. Which I will answer in the same manner in which I answer AGW claims in general. “Prove it!” Can you show a positive correllation to CO2 levels and average world temperatures? Can you show me one prediction from the IPCC that has come true? Can you show me where CO2 is causing catastrophic temperature rises? No, you can’t because the only places that those things exist is in the computer models and the true believers minds. They don’t exist in reality.
So, what does that leave? What other possible reason would there be to make everyone out of the same cookie cutter? Who would want a hegemony of hiking, bike riding vegatarians? Why isn’t that the same agenda from the 60’s environmental movement? Hmmmm……..
“ooh ooh… but it MIGHT! Better safe than sorry, right?”
And if we keep using televisions, we might attract advanced space aliens who will come steal our women. Shut down NBC, just in case.
We may also get swallowed up by a black hole that may travel through our solar system, or be fried to a cinder by a gamma ray burst, or we may get croaked by a giant asteroid impacting the Earth. But even if, and at this point that is a really big if, climate change is caused by man, it is still something that can be adapted to, that is survivable. The climate has been changing for our entire history and more, and the human species has always adapted, and survived. My question is are we going to survive it as free people, or are we going to survive it as hiking, biking vegetarians?
And while my reality is right there in the TITLE of the article, your freedom oppression occurs where again?
And you never asked Dan, nor did he volunteer, how he came up with that interesting and sensational Title. You guys are quite the tag team, of comedy, ROFL.
You you ever follow the links that say, “read the rest at…?” That’s the article title from the author. Derr.
Thanks, but my issue is with Neil’s passive-aggressive nonsensical responses. I.e. the fact that my initial comment stands as accurate, notwithstanding the AGW issue, of course, since no one can predict the future with certainty, either way. For further clarification: the activites indicated in the title would reduce CO2, and probably other greenhouse gases as well. The matter would then be what scale, large or small, would be required in theory. And, Neil’s concern about freedoms is shared by all of humanity, but in this case I don’t believe any dictatorship yet exists for that to be a genuinely acute concern. I could go on and on about this oddly persistent paranoia exhibited by many on the Right, but I won’t. Paranoia is only useful when logic and reason preceed it.
Wow dude. Your fangs are out on this one. Have you not been getting enough sleep or something? I’m only going to say this one more time.
No one, I repeat, no one has said that doing these things i.e. riding bikes, walking, and eating twigs and berries, would not reduce the inaptly named “greenhouse” gases. NO ONE!!!!!!!!!
But you begin the first post obviously assuming that someone was going to say that. Right? Maybe you should have waited until someone actually posited that theory before railing on it.
Doing those things probably would reduce emissions a bit BTW. But I don’t care because I know that doubling or trippling CO2 would not result in any more heat being trapped than there was 100 ppm ago.
The fact that Dan posted it HERE, IMPLIES that at least he this is a stupid article and that they don’t know what they are saying. And to encourage the rightous freedom lovers like you to cry out. It is MY point that no one is saying anything about forcing anything on anyone and yet you jumped to that response, on cue. I was MERELY POINTING OUT THAT WHAT THE ARTICLE INDICATES IS TRUE- THOSE THINGS WOULD IN FACT REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS. If you want to dispute that than fine, but since you are finallky smart enough not to argue that, you need to argue against nothing. As usual. Dude.
You think they don’t want to force that on everyone? Did you miss the part where it said?:
“The experts are from institutions in South Africa, Sweden and Germany. They will be highlighting the need to enhance climate and health benefits at the UN level.”
“They will be highlighting the need to enhance climate and health benefits at the UN level!!!!!”
“The need to enhance climate and health benefits at the UN level!!!!!”
“At the UN level!!!!!”
As Dan aptly said, “derr”!!!
I think it is irrelevent what Dan thinks of an article when he posts one. The whole point of posting the articles is to see what we think about them, not to induce us to think about them in any certain way. Otherwise he would be posting articles and commenting on them right away. I think you are being a bit presumtive.
It’s almost as if Dan is getting desperate to keep this site going, bottom of the barrel red meat for the Rightous, as it were. If it wasn’t for me and Neil…
You are welcome to go at any time.
Actually I think that without the two of us bickering like an old married couple all the time, there would be more people commenting here. You should know this, it is human nature to avoid jumping into the middle of an argument. I hate to think that I am the cause of people being unwilling to make comments here. So from here on out I am going to stop arguing with you. I am going to pledge to stop the bickering and limit my comments to one comment per article. So from now on I am just going to post what I think about an article and leave it at that. No more back and forth. It is so unproductive anyway.
And I’m insulted that you imply I’m a vampire.
Well, that’s actually a more modern definition of “your fangs are out”. The one I intended is the older meaning. When you say someone’s fangs are out you are saying that they are not thinking like when they are tired, or it could even mean when you are in a more animalistic mode, acting on instinct, not really using your head basically.
See? You are usually at the ready, with encylopedic knowledge to dispense, even when totally unecessary. And yet you balk at what I believe is a rather easy assignment for you. That may be just another example of your ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) behavior. And puuhhhlease… admit this site is boring and stale, THAT is why no one else is here. If it wasn’t for us, Dan have given it up, as he eventually will anyway. We are his champions, his stallions, his saviors (for this little site anyway). Dan loves us, and hopes to you-know-who we don’t abandon him. Not only that I personally believe that you and I demonstrate the right and left pretty well, as a matter of fact that is why I persist. Just in case there are others bothering to read our intellectual tete a tete (not sure if that is the correct phrase, let’s face it I never claimed to be all that smart). AND I’d be willing to bet there are people reading this mainly because of us, but I could definitely be wrong about that. It’s just a guess. In other words I am just as valuable to Dan as you are. There, I said it.
P.S. some of my best friends are vampires.
Thanks but I try not to get my science from Nostradamus (new or otherwise).
Neil- you should read some David Icke. It will blow your mind.
The propogandist media can’t compare the positions of Obama and Romoney on any real major issues that are facing our country – because their positions are pretty much the same. So they have to invent minor kerfuffles to keep the masses occupied and ignorant. It’s Obama vs Romney, Right vs Left, Dem vs Rep. Keep the people fighting each other as the kleptocrats steal our wealth.
Make sure no one blames the real enemies –
The war profiteers
The criminal wall street banking syndicates
The federal reserve.
Recent UN Study. United States people are fat american’s and causing striff in the world. So what? So I went from 163 to 165. They have a problem with my BMI? Tell them to get out of our lives! As to vampires? Jusy what the heck are you taking about. Banter of babies. Nothing else to discuss such a climate change that is natural in nature? Whatever.
Waaa! How dare you gain two pounds Joe?! Did you get prior approval from the UN?? Jeez, some people…
I reported it for you Joe- they want those two pounds back, with interest. Or it’s to the gulag for you.
The fat police with M Obama will be on my arse. More than likely on “Oprah?” Hate the tele! Assume I will be taxed for my gain? Ok, tell me how many stone I am?
Stoned indeed you seem to be.