In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[NiceTom]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You don't even know what the optimal mean temperature of the world is? So, are you going to try to cool the planet or let her hear up a bit?

I am a professional metrologist, so the answer is simple- 68º F

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by NiceTom

I am a professional metrologist, so the answer is simple- 68º F

-68 degrees F Now I know why you are a "metrologist" instead of a meteorologist!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You don't have to react to manmade global warming in order to reduce dependency on foreign oil, reduce air pollution, reduce enery costs, or move to more sustainable energy options. There are a whole boatload of reasons for wanting to do that, starting with $$,

You are right, but we are not reducing those things....AND besides, we also NEED to reduce our impact on precipitous climate change....Lets do better at both....

( things do seem to be moving more quickly after all this discussion about global warming)

[PlayadelSoul]

Took a few minutes to decide which thread to post this to.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You are right, but we are not reducing those things....AND besides, we also NEED to reduce our impact on precipitous climate change....Lets do better at both....

( things do seem to be moving more quickly after all this discussion about global warming)

Well, the price of oil didn't really start to go up until the debate on global warming started to get more airtime. Causation? Who knows. The whole thing could be a plot by the oil companies.

[Pok-a-tok]

New Greenpeace scenarios! (Disclaimer: May contain scientific predictions)

[vieve]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

NPR : WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria

Just want to point out that the WHO is only backing INDOOR spraying of DDT because, while it hasn't been proven to be the human cancer-causing agent, it was feared to be, it is still highly problematic.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by vieve

Just want to point out that the WHO is only backing INDOOR spraying of DDT because, while it hasn't been proven to be the human cancer-causing agent, it was feared to be, it is still highly problematic.

My point was that people overreacted to a scare and it ended up costing lives. While not deadly, the same type of thing happened with nuclear power. Environmentalists, backed up by like-minded scientists scared many countries (including the fossil fuel burning giant, USA) into not building power plants. Meanwhile, France did and now has the cleanest air in Europe. Had we converted even some of the electricity grids to nuclear, 20 years ago, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere would have been a lot less.

This thread was started, by me, on the basic idea that we tend to overreact or knee jerk react to problems. Sometimes, those actions cause more harm than do good.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

My point was that people overreacted to a scare and it ended up costing lives. While not deadly, the same type of thing happened with nuclear power. Environmentalists, backed up by like-minded scientists scared many countries (including the fossil fuel burning giant, USA) into not building power plants. Meanwhile, France did and now has the cleanest air in Europe. Had we converted even some of the electricity grids to nuclear, 20 years ago, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere would have been a lot less.

This thread was started, by me, on the basic idea that we tend to overreact or knee jerk react to problems. Sometimes, those actions cause more harm than do good.

The same point could be made for an underwhelming reaction, like the amount of time wasted in the early years of the AIDS epidemic. That lack of reaction cost lives too; it works both ways. When it comes to improving the environment why not err on the side of caution, especially given the large consensus of scientists all over the academy, government agencies, and independent groups?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

The same point could be made for an underwhelming reaction, like the amount of time wasted in the early years of the AIDS epidemic. That lack of reaction cost lives too; it works both ways. When it comes to improving the environment why not err on the side of caution, especially given the large consensus of scientists all over the academy, government agencies, and independent groups?

And it is indeed problematic to suggest that the cautious avoidance of the use of DDT in some way directly caused additional deaths...we have no way of knowing with any certainty how many deaths would be caused by the resultant use of DDT had it continued and we certainly don't know if we might have prevented other deaths by taking some other action that might have both reduced deaths caused by malaria AND not contributed to new deaths caused by DDT...by many accounts it is toxic, causes cancer and has a very long half-life....

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

And it is indeed problematic to suggest that the cautious avoidance of the use of DDT in some way directly caused additional deaths...we have no way of knowing with any certainty how many deaths would be caused by the resultant use of DDT had it continued and we certainly don't know if we might have prevented other deaths by taking some other action that might have both reduced deaths caused by malaria AND not contributed to new deaths caused by DDT...by many accounts it is toxic, causes cancer and has a very long half-life....

Maybe some of your scientists could come up with a computer model to figure it out.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

And it is indeed problematic to suggest that the cautious avoidance of the use of DDT in some way directly caused additional deaths...we have no way of knowing with any certainty how many deaths would be caused by the resultant use of DDT had it continued and we certainly don't know if we might have prevented other deaths by taking some other action that might have both reduced deaths caused by malaria AND not contributed to new deaths caused by DDT...by many accounts it is toxic, causes cancer and has a very long half-life....

We know malaria is passed by mosquitos and that DDT eliminated the disease in many places. We know that when its use was halted, malaria deaths jumped dramatically. I don't need a computer model to connect those two ideas.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

We know malaria is passed by mosquitos and that DDT eliminated the disease in many places. We know that when its use was halted, malaria deaths jumped dramatically. I don't need a computer model to connect those two ideas.

Its that simple, eh?

Kill all the mosquitos while possibly killing thousands of people too from the possible long term affects of cancer? Do you know this not to be true? You have seen the studies, yes? Do you choose to ignore them? Are there other ways to minimize the problems of malaria that are perhaps just a little more expensive than DDT, yet much safer, that we chose (choose) not to do because of the expense?

Oh, if we would spend the same amount on disease and hunger prevention that we spend on just one year of a useless war!

Cautious avoidance is what you do not seem to understand...

[woodman]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

My point was that people overreacted to a scare and it ended up costing lives. While not deadly, the same type of thing happened with nuclear power. Environmentalists, backed up by like-minded scientists scared many countries (including the fossil fuel burning giant, USA) into not building power plants. Meanwhile, France did and now has the cleanest air in Europe. Had we converted even some of the electricity grids to nuclear, 20 years ago, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere would have been a lot less.

This thread was started, by me, on the basic idea that we tend to overreact or knee jerk react to problems. Sometimes, those actions cause more harm than do good.

That is a fact PDS.I'm sure it would'nt take you long to find a long list of that happening in america over the last 50 years.Or 5!

[woodman]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Its that simple, eh?

Kill all the mosquitos while possibly killing thousands of people too from the possible long term affects of cancer? Do you know this not to be true? You have seen the studies, yes? Do you choose to ignore them? Are there other ways to minimize the problems of malaria that are perhaps just a little more expensive than DDT, yet much safer, that we chose (choose) not to do because of the expense?

Oh, if we would spend the same amount on disease and hunger prevention that we spend on just one year of a useless war!

Cautious avoidance is what you do not seem to understand...

I agree this is a useless war,But there was a lack of outrage from a scared america when we went and now were screwed.But i dought the money would have went to diesease and hunger prevention anyway.