New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Wow, Serge. You do a lot with a little. And relevancy plays little or no part.

Looking forward to your sci-fi novels.

Actually, I'm not really sure what your point was. But World War II is an excellent example of how accusations of "doubt" are in fact one of the most successful forms of propaganda.

Surely, Charles Lindbergh remains one of the shining beacons of the 20th century who did everything he could to prevent what the world has now become. The purveyors of the "truth" however still condemn him to this day. And I use him specifically because of his ardent environmentalism that was not tainted by liberalism.

I don't understand the "sci-fi" reference.

[Ghent12]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

I probably could not compose a better answer to that issue than this one, so read it as you like. It is lengthy and not suited to copying in this discussion. In addition, making up absolutist dichotomies around nuanced topics is generally not a great path to understanding or communication.

(Emphasis mine.)
The bolded portion is of special significance when it comes to climate science (or more generally geo-science), which in spite of the decades of research is still plainly in its infancy. Making up absolutist dichotomies around nuanced topics are indeed the specialties of the vested interests on 'both' sides of the issue of "Climage Change."

There are a few things that you can say with great confidence, however. One is that it is impossible, at present, to reduce CO2 output via government policy. The whole of European "green" policy has proven this beyond any reasonable doubt, as not only have their CO2 outputs not gone down, their policies have indeed contributed greatly towards China's CO2 emissions allowing China to comfortably take the mantle of world's largest emitter. The only force on Earth that can bring CO2 emissions down is scarcity.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

So TPC, feel free to come up here and fill all four stomach chambers from one of the public drinking fountains downtown.

Portland, huh? I lived there for four years, back in the 1960's, while attending Reed College (though some would claim that attending Reed is not living in Portland, regardless of the city limits ..) Yes -- plenty of good clean water up there, all winter long, just put out a bucket <grin>.

[don]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Actually, I'm not really sure what your point was. But World War II is an excellent example of how accusations of "doubt" are in fact one of the most successful forms of propaganda.

Surely, Charles Lindbergh remains one of the shining beacons of the 20th century who did everything he could to prevent what the world has now become. The purveyors of the "truth" however still condemn him to this day. And I use him specifically because of his ardent environmentalism that was not tainted by liberalism.

I don't understand the "sci-fi" reference.

I was probably being a bit too broad to be clear. My comments were directed on a society-wide optimism or pessimism, tied to that society's socio-economic conditions at any one time in their history. That strays from the linked articles specificity and for that I take the blame.

[zoog]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Portland, huh? I lived there for four years, back in the 1960's, while attending Reed College (though some would claim that attending Reed is not living in Portland, regardless of the city limits ..) Yes -- plenty of good clean water up there, all winter long, just put out a bucket .

Reed College, no wonder you're nuttier than a fruitcake :p

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Reed College, no wonder you're nuttier than a fruitcake

Now you know ;)

[yernamehear]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Fifty years later, the forces of evil are still pushing fluoridation and excessive vaccinations by ridiculing the opposition. Some things never change. (Not that you're evil, ggirod. Squirrels are cute. But I disagree with your apparent take on these issues.)

I pay good money for water filters to get rid of the fluoride, chlorine and other poisons in my water supply. I avoid vaccinations, and if I had more children (rather unlikely at my advanced age and marital status - not) I'd go out of my way to minimize the vaccinations they received to the least I could get away with.

Mr. Cow-

You need more skepticism about these things. (Search on Paracelsus around 1500: paraphrased quote: "the dose makes the poison"). There is NO such thing as a "toxic" or "poison". It depends on the concentration. Some things are toxic at a lower concentration than others for sure.

Corollary: "toxicity vs. concentration is non-linear". There is a long (nearly infinite?) list of materials that are beneficial or even required for life and which are toxic at higher concentrations? What to do?

Ask some Peruvian drinking water officials with thousands of dead people on their hands due to a decision to stop using chlorine in the late '80's to early '90's.

The major media outlets and even the academic establishment will not get this right because it is in their financial interest not to. People have to be scared to watch TV, buy publications, and pay for a bunch of tenure-protected profs to do academic (in every sense of the word) research. Don't watch so much TV.

Search for Prof. Bruce Ames. Chemicals are neither good nor bad.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

You need more skepticism about these things.

I don't disagree with your points; rather I my previous reply did not attempt to provide a complete or balanced view.

I actually appreciate that they chlorinate my municipal water. I think of the chlorine like "packaging", to be removed at the point of consumption. It helps protect the product from germs during delivery.

I quite agree that not all doses of fluoride cause observable affects. So far as I can tell, fluorine (and its salts) has no known nutritional value, and a smaller dose is always better than a bigger dose. In this regard, it is like lead, mercury and cigarette smoke. In sufficiently smaller doses, you'll live to die of unrelated causes, none the worse for the wear. If it were up to me, I'd add no fluoride to public drinking water, toothpaste or any other normal consumable. But I have not planned my funeral on account of drinking fluoridated water or brushing my teeth with fluoride toothpaste for many decades, until recently.

I can't comment on what is or is not on TV. I've never owned a TV for my own use or watched one regularly my entire life. Other family members have at times had them, and I've watched a few shows now and then, such as Wyatt Earp, 24 and various NBA and a few other sports games.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

yernamehear[/B]]There is NO such thing as a "toxic" or "poison". It depends on the concentration.

I do figure, however, that the typical dose of chlorine and fluoride in municipal drinking water does do harm. The dose doesn't harm all the people all the time, but does harm some people some of the time. So, as actually consumed in our present world, there are actual toxic and poisonous affects, to a non-trivial level, due to these elements. Thus my use here of the words "toxic" or "poison" is appropriate, in my view.

As stated in my previous reply, I recommend removing chlorine at the point of consumption, and not adding fluoride in the first place.

Once the chlorine is removed, water becomes a more perishable liquid, as it once again better supports bacterial growth. It then needs more careful handling.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

A
Surely, Charles Lindbergh remains one of the shining beacons of the 20th century who did everything he could to prevent what the world has now become. The purveyors of the "truth" however still condemn him to this day. And I use him specifically because of his ardent environmentalism that was not tainted by liberalism.

Lindbergh's environmentalism came late in his life. Judging by his comments on mass air travel, he would probably be for carbon cap and trade. His beliefs in the racial superiority of Europeans and dangers of Jewish people were awful. Gimme that Commie Paul Robeson any day.

[GRG55]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

Now you know ;)

There's no Aggie faculty or program at Reed. What would a Cow be doing there? Checking out the naturally pure rainfall induced grazing?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: New Scientist "Special report: Living in denial"

There's no Aggie faculty or program at Reed. What would a Cow be doing there?

The grass on the front lawn was tasty .