Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Potus idiocy under the spotlight.
Marlo Lewis said:
President Obama Plays the Asthma Card
“President Obama says that climate change became a personal issue for him when his older daughter Malia, now 16, was rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack when she was just a toddler,” ABC News reports.
The President explained in a one-on-one interview with ABC News health editor, Dr. Richard Besser: “Well you know Malia had asthma when she was 4 and because we had good health insurance, we were able to knock it out early… And if we can make sure that our responses to the environment are reducing those incidents, that’s something that I think every parent would wish for...”
Is there any sillier justification for pricing low-income families out of affordable power, or for EPA to seize control of State electricity markets, than the one the President just gave?
Carbon dioxide, the substance targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, is not a lung irritant and does not contribute to respiratory problems. At most, the CPP would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations a few parts per million by century’s end. What biological difference could that make to children, when their exhaled breath contains about 40,000 parts CO2 per million?
Obama argues that CO2 emissions cause global warming, which in turn increases ozone smog, which then causes asthma. But how can that be so when, despite global warming, smog-forming emissions and ozone levels have declined, decade-by-decade, since the 1970s? Besides, asthma-related hospital admissions are lower in summer than in winter, and childhood asthma rates have gone up as smog levels have gone down. Those facts indicate that air quality is an increasingly unimportant factor in childhood asthma.
Obama plays the asthma card because, as explained in a secret strategy memo, obtained via FOIA by my colleague Chris Horner, the public won’t care about climate change unless it is repackaged as a threat to children’s health.
Another causality fail...pollutants down, asthma incindence up, no causality.“President Obama says that climate change became a personal issue for him when his older daughter Malia, now 16, was rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack when she was just a toddler,” ABC News reports.
The President explained in a one-on-one interview with ABC News health editor, Dr. Richard Besser: “Well you know Malia had asthma when she was 4 and because we had good health insurance, we were able to knock it out early… And if we can make sure that our responses to the environment are reducing those incidents, that’s something that I think every parent would wish for...”
Is there any sillier justification for pricing low-income families out of affordable power, or for EPA to seize control of State electricity markets, than the one the President just gave?
Carbon dioxide, the substance targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, is not a lung irritant and does not contribute to respiratory problems. At most, the CPP would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations a few parts per million by century’s end. What biological difference could that make to children, when their exhaled breath contains about 40,000 parts CO2 per million?
Obama argues that CO2 emissions cause global warming, which in turn increases ozone smog, which then causes asthma. But how can that be so when, despite global warming, smog-forming emissions and ozone levels have declined, decade-by-decade, since the 1970s? Besides, asthma-related hospital admissions are lower in summer than in winter, and childhood asthma rates have gone up as smog levels have gone down. Those facts indicate that air quality is an increasingly unimportant factor in childhood asthma.
Obama plays the asthma card because, as explained in a secret strategy memo, obtained via FOIA by my colleague Chris Horner, the public won’t care about climate change unless it is repackaged as a threat to children’s health.
turbobloke said:
Potus idiocy under the spotlight.
This is straight out of the movement's strategy handbook, I can't remember where I read it, but they said the aim was to move the narrative away from melting icecaps (as the dire warnings failed to come to pass presumably) on to how it was harming the health of children in people's own community (as this would make people feel more guilty presumably). Marlo Lewis said:
President Obama Plays the Asthma Card
“President Obama says that climate change became a personal issue for him when his older daughter Malia, now 16, was rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack when she was just a toddler,” ABC News reports.
The President explained in a one-on-one interview with ABC News health editor, Dr. Richard Besser: “Well you know Malia had asthma when she was 4 and because we had good health insurance, we were able to knock it out early… And if we can make sure that our responses to the environment are reducing those incidents, that’s something that I think every parent would wish for...”
Is there any sillier justification for pricing low-income families out of affordable power, or for EPA to seize control of State electricity markets, than the one the President just gave?
Carbon dioxide, the substance targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, is not a lung irritant and does not contribute to respiratory problems. At most, the CPP would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations a few parts per million by century’s end. What biological difference could that make to children, when their exhaled breath contains about 40,000 parts CO2 per million?
Obama argues that CO2 emissions cause global warming, which in turn increases ozone smog, which then causes asthma. But how can that be so when, despite global warming, smog-forming emissions and ozone levels have declined, decade-by-decade, since the 1970s? Besides, asthma-related hospital admissions are lower in summer than in winter, and childhood asthma rates have gone up as smog levels have gone down. Those facts indicate that air quality is an increasingly unimportant factor in childhood asthma.
Obama plays the asthma card because, as explained in a secret strategy memo, obtained via FOIA by my colleague Chris Horner, the public won’t care about climate change unless it is repackaged as a threat to children’s health.
Another causality fail...pollutants down, asthma incindence up, no causality.“President Obama says that climate change became a personal issue for him when his older daughter Malia, now 16, was rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack when she was just a toddler,” ABC News reports.
The President explained in a one-on-one interview with ABC News health editor, Dr. Richard Besser: “Well you know Malia had asthma when she was 4 and because we had good health insurance, we were able to knock it out early… And if we can make sure that our responses to the environment are reducing those incidents, that’s something that I think every parent would wish for...”
Is there any sillier justification for pricing low-income families out of affordable power, or for EPA to seize control of State electricity markets, than the one the President just gave?
Carbon dioxide, the substance targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, is not a lung irritant and does not contribute to respiratory problems. At most, the CPP would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations a few parts per million by century’s end. What biological difference could that make to children, when their exhaled breath contains about 40,000 parts CO2 per million?
Obama argues that CO2 emissions cause global warming, which in turn increases ozone smog, which then causes asthma. But how can that be so when, despite global warming, smog-forming emissions and ozone levels have declined, decade-by-decade, since the 1970s? Besides, asthma-related hospital admissions are lower in summer than in winter, and childhood asthma rates have gone up as smog levels have gone down. Those facts indicate that air quality is an increasingly unimportant factor in childhood asthma.
Obama plays the asthma card because, as explained in a secret strategy memo, obtained via FOIA by my colleague Chris Horner, the public won’t care about climate change unless it is repackaged as a threat to children’s health.
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Another causality fail...pollutants down, asthma incindence up, no causality.
You're looking in the wrong direction NO2 triggers Asthma and it's also a greenhouse gas.Obama said:
CO2 emissions cause global warming, which in turn increases ozone smog, which then causes asthma.
Either way the increased asthma incidence isn't due to NOx levels or any other facet of global warming, which hasn't been around for ~20 years anyway.Pollutant levels have been falling for decades including NOx.
In the UK as per the EU generally and the US also, lower levels of pollutants has coincided with a higher incidence of asthma. The trends are in the opposite direction. This rules out a direct causal link, and the statement "NOx causes asthma" is false.
If an asthmatic person - so NB they already have asthma - stands behind a diesel engined bus, it may trigger an attack (to use your words) but it won't cause a non-asthmatic person to develop asthma, most probably they'll just feel sick from the NOx and PM10 cocktail.
NOx is in the greenhouse gas list but as levels have been falling through the 80s and 90s when so-called manmade global warming was still happening, this also rules out a causal link as the trends of NOx and temperature were in the opposite direction.
The data is consistent with cleaner air causing asthma. Do you think that's likely? It's more likely that there's another cause unrelated to air pollution, and one of the best candidates is the enzyme mix in the excreta of the house dust mite.
The NAC advises that house-dust mite poo is the number one asthma trigger.
It also points to compelling evidence that the poo from these mites can cause asthma to develop in the first place, this is causation not triggering of existing cases and represents an increased incidence.
This result arose from the work of a team of researchers at St George's Hospital Medical School, London, about 15 years ago. Their research provided the first demonstration that enzymes in house dust mite excreta destroy the biological 'glue' that holds together the protective cells in human airways.
Once this protective lining has been breached, the enzymes in mite poo are free to interact with the body's immune system leading to asthma causation.
Jinx said:
Lotus 50 said:
You're looking in the wrong direction NO2 triggers Asthma and it's also a greenhouse gas.
NO2 is not "well mixed" and under global warming theory non-well mixed gases can be ignored for the sake of AGW (or water vapour would dominate all the models) . If we're thinking of the ickle childwen we really ought to chop down greenery and concrete over lawns
NOx is mostly naturally occurring in any case. Hari et al in 'Ultraviolet Light and Leaf Emission of NOx' (Nature 422, 134, 2003) showed that global NOx emissions from boreal coniferous forests are of the same magnitude as emissions from combined worldwide industrial and traffic sources. Then there are lawns (Townsend-Small and Czimczik) another major urban source, and seasonal burning of vegetation globally (Lewis and Weibezahn) which is mostly a rural source, all adding to the natural total.
We'll be on the methane trail next - not an invitation...
A main factor/worst environment for causing a predisposition to the condition, and causation of attacks, is a child's nurture/home.
Lack of exposure to dirt and exposure to high levels of pet/furnishing/insulation/household chemicals from over-insulated under-ventilated 'green' houses.
Lack of exposure to dirt and exposure to high levels of pet/furnishing/insulation/household chemicals from over-insulated under-ventilated 'green' houses.
We all can keep going round in circles but pollution in towns is increasing.
London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Foppo said:
We all can keep going round in circles but pollution in towns is increasing.
London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Nobody is arguing that climate change is happening, the dispute is over it being man made.London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Foppo said:
We all can keep going round in circles but pollution in towns is increasing.
London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Yes climate change is happening - has always happened - and there is sweet FA we can do about it (note even if Climate Change is affected by CO2 emissions then without curbing the growth of China, India and all other developing nations all we are doing is spending all our money and our children's money and our grand children's money on Golden sink plugs for the titanic - blocking up little holes when there's a China sized hole in the hull is pointless) . London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Air pollution has been improved dramatically in the UK in less than a lifetime - I'm not sure what London you are referring to but in the 1960s pollution was so bad you had proper peasoupers. Unfortunately the main improvement has been at the cost of our heavy industries (now being manufactured in China) .
Interesting assertion:
Wiki said:
Global rates of asthma have increased significantly between the 1960s and 2008 with it being recognized as a major public health problem since the 1970s. Rates of asthma have plateaued in the developed world since the mid-1990s with recent increases primarily in the developing world. Asthma affects approximately 7% of the population of the United States and 5% of people in the United Kingdom. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have rates of about 14–15%.
New Zealand, with cleaner air, has double the US asthma rate and triple the UK's.PRTVR said:
Foppo said:
We all can keep going round in circles but pollution in towns is increasing.
London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Nobody is arguing that climate change is happening, the dispute is over it being man made.London ,Leeds two of the worst excamples in Europe for air pollution.I'm not a doctor but common sense would have me thinking a no no for children.
We can all keep our heads in the ground like ostriches but climate change is happening.Untill we are all under water we might wake up.
Also, pollution in towns and cities is not increasing. That is, unless local politicians fall for the spin and opt for busising their town centre by banning cars, in which case their urban paradise will shoot towards the top of the polluted towns league table, see under 'Oxford' for example.
Not being a doctor doesn't mean you can't note that with urban pollution levels falling overall (not rising) and rising asthma incidence, there cannot be a causal connection unless cleaner air causes more asthma.
As for what actual doctors think, some eminent medics have told it as it is.
NHS Executive Report entitled Transport and Health in London at Section C5 on p44 said:
the available evidence does not support a causative role (asthma) for outdoor air pollution
Dr Kenneth Calman when he was Government Chief Medical Office said:
Air pollution does not cause asthma. There is no correlation between levels of vehicle emissions and asthma incidence.
Professor Emeritus Stanley Feldman of Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School said:
In the last 40 years the level of (outdoor) air pollution has decreased dramatically. Nevertheless the incidence of asthma has risen.
Pollution does not cause bronchitis or asthma, nor does wearing a so-called anti-pollution mask do anything except identify the wearer as a sucker.
However qualified and eminent these people are, nobody should take their word for it - look at the data for pollutants and asthma incidence already posted, and see for yourself exactly how they reached their conclusion.Pollution does not cause bronchitis or asthma, nor does wearing a so-called anti-pollution mask do anything except identify the wearer as a sucker.
motco said:
Interesting assertion:
Quite. New Zealand is noted for its cleaner air, yet it has relatively high levels of asthma incidence. The ocean island of Tristan da Cunha has some of the cleanest air on the surface of the planet yet medics there report that virtually every inhabitant has asthma.Wiki said:
Global rates of asthma have increased significantly between the 1960s and 2008 with it being recognized as a major public health problem since the 1970s. Rates of asthma have plateaued in the developed world since the mid-1990s with recent increases primarily in the developing world. Asthma affects approximately 7% of the population of the United States and 5% of people in the United Kingdom. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have rates of about 14–15%.
New Zealand, with cleaner air, has double the US asthma rate and triple the UK's.turbobloke said:
Quite. New Zealand is noted for its cleaner air, yet it has relatively high levels of asthma incidence. The ocean island of Tristan da Cunha has some of the cleanest air on the surface of the planet yet medics there report that virtually every inhabitant has asthma.
Big commercial opportunity for China. Bottle some air from the worst regions and sell it as a asthma treatment. Make sure your kids get some pollution at an early age. Think of it like a vaccine. Got to be a winner. (and this might even work!)
s2art said:
turbobloke said:
Quite. New Zealand is noted for its cleaner air, yet it has relatively high levels of asthma incidence. The ocean island of Tristan da Cunha has some of the cleanest air on the surface of the planet yet medics there report that virtually every inhabitant has asthma.
Big commercial opportunity for China. Bottle some air from the worst regions and sell it as a asthma treatment. Make sure your kids get some pollution at an early age. Think of it like a vaccine. Got to be a winner. (and this might even work!)
Add some not-so-dangerous bugs and ni hao!Foppo said:
We all can keep going round in circles but pollution in towns is increasing.
No, it isn't. Not in the UK. Do you really think the air quality in London is worse than decades back? How many people died from smog last year?"The air quality in London is improving. In the last fifteen years the concentrations of all local air pollutants in London have decreased, as demonstrated in the graph below (ozone remains a problem, however this is not considered a local pollutant)."
Source King's College London
What is increasing is the partisan scientific research (for instance the reversal of wisdom of petrol v diesel and the gross exaggerating of the infinitesimally small contribution and health impacts of private diesel cars) and intensive publicity campaigns, all in aid of 'the cause'.
"On 11 June 2010, the An-225 carried the world's longest piece of air cargo, when it flew two new 42-meter test wind turbine blades from Tianjin, China to Skrydstrup, Denmark."
very interesting, saving on energy and pollution by transporting stuff using 6 ZMKB Progress D-18 turbofans, russian gas guzzlers that are probably among most inneficient today
very interesting, saving on energy and pollution by transporting stuff using 6 ZMKB Progress D-18 turbofans, russian gas guzzlers that are probably among most inneficient today
nelly1 said:
All well and good but there'll be no fish anyway cos they'll all be dead due to that there ocean acidification. I wish the stupid feckers would make their minds up. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff