The environment thread

[BigSqwert]

Fascinating.

 

 

You actually cut your greenhouse gas emissions more by replacing beef/lamb with pork/chicken than you do by replacing pork/chicken with a vegan diet.

I guess I don't understand your conclusion based on a graph that shows vegan items mostly on the far right side.

 

EDIT: Never mind. I re-read what you typed. I'd be more impressed if you replaced lamb & beef with vegan items since that would be more impactful.

Edited July 19, 2011 by BigSqwert

[HuskyCaucasian]

There's a part of me that has a hard time listening to a study that includes animal farts

[Balta1701]

The Heat Index is a government conspiracy. It's really not that hot.

[BigSqwert]

The Heat Index is a government conspiracy. It's really not that hot.

 

How does anyone with half a brain still listen to this guy?

[BigSqwert]

Walgreens to add electric vehicle charging stations to 800 U.S. stores

[StrangeSox]

If we follow DeMint's and Boehner's logic that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was "bipartisan" because it received 5 Democrat votes, then we've got an even more bipartisan Cap & Trade bill that's already passed! Why won't these radical Republican holdouts just get on board with this bipartisan bill?

 

Among the more amusing talking points of the past week is the one holding that Cut, Cap and Balance is, as Sen. Jim DeMint put it, “the only debt compromise with bipartisan support that has passed the House.” The argument even made it into Speaker John Boehner’s speech last night. “We’ve done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country,” he said. “Something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track. Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It’s called the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ Act.”

 

So how many Democratic votes did Cut, Cap and Balance receive? Five. For comparison, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill received eight Republican votes in the House. Do you remember any Republicans touting it as the only bipartisan energy compromise that has passed the House?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Still trust OSHA to be telling the truth?

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/07/26...-zero/?mod=e2fb

 

A federal health agency said Tuesday there is not yet enough medical evidence to show that first responders to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks are more likely to get cancer as a result of the time spent at the World Trade Center site. While controversial, the finding may be revised as more studies are done.

 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health offered a summary of its report on a government website. The report states: “based on the scientific and medical findings in the peer-reviewed literature… insufficient evidence exists at this time to propose a rule to add cancer, or a certain type of cancer’’ to the list of illnesses linked to working at Ground Zero.

 

The finding, rather than ending the debate about which illnesses can be blamed on Ground Zero exposure, will only increase the attention placed on any new scientific studies about cancer risk, particularly since the government’s conclusions will help determine which cancer patients receive payments from a new victim compensation fund.

 

The law that created the new fund also required that the Institute provide periodic updates on whether scientific research has proven that work at Ground Zero led to an increased risk of developing cancer. Tuesday’s summary marks the first such report.

 

The summary of the report issued by the Institute also notes that the agency will be monitoring any cancer reports issued by Mount Sinai, the New York City Fire Department, the World Trade Center Health Registry, or the New York State Health Department.

[Balta1701]

"Insufficient evidence" is not the same as saying it's not true. Sufficient evidence for a government to make policy can and should be a very high standard.

[southsider2k5]

"Insufficient evidence" is not the same as saying it's not true. Sufficient evidence for a government to make policy can and should be a very high standard.

 

Its also a great way for the government to not have to pay claims...

[Balta1701]

Its also a great way for the government to not have to pay claims...

Which should make you happy right?

 

Anyway, didn't we finally pass the 9/11 first responder health care bill last year? Wouldn't that cover it in those cases?

[southsider2k5]

Which should make you happy right?

 

Anyway, didn't we finally pass the 9/11 first responder health care bill last year? Wouldn't that cover it in those cases?

 

It ought to piss you off as another example of what government run health care would look like. And FYI, this is also the historical norm for the VA system as well.

 

"Agent Orange, what's that?"

[Balta1701]

It ought to piss you off as another example of what government run health care would look like. And FYI, this is also the historical norm for the VA system as well.

 

"Agent Orange, what's that?"

Of course, if we simply covered "Cancer treatments" for everyone, then it wouldn't really matter what the cause was, now would it?

 

I love that attack by the way. On one hand, government provided health care is way too expensive. On the other hand, how dare the government be stingy about allowing people into this program!

[southsider2k5]

Of course, if we simply covered "Cancer treatments" for everyone, then it wouldn't really matter what the cause was, now would it?

 

I love that attack by the way. On one hand, government provided health care is way too expensive. On the other hand, how dare the government be stingy about allowing people into this program!

 

I love that you took it that way. I'm simply pointing out what the future of medicine looks like.

[Balta1701]

I love that you took it that way. I'm simply pointing out what the future of medicine looks like.

Desperately finding reasons not to treat expensive patients? I got news for you, that's the present and past 30+ years of medicine in this country.

[southsider2k5]

Desperately finding reasons not to treat expensive patients? I got news for you, that's the present and past 30+ years of medicine in this country.

 

And even longer in government health care.

[Balta1701]

And even longer in government health care.

I could just fall back on the "Except for everywhere else" point, but why bother.

 

I just can't figure out how you expect me to be scared about having the government denying care to people based on actual research done to see what types of care is effective, when care is denied right now based on whether or not you can afford it and paid for regardless of whether its effective.

[southsider2k5]

I could just fall back on the "Except for everywhere else" point, but why bother.

 

I just can't figure out how you expect me to be scared about having the government denying care to people based on actual research done to see what types of care is effective, when care is denied right now based on whether or not you can afford it and paid for regardless of whether its effective.

 

Their strategy is even better. Forget pre-existing conditions, you have no condition. That way you have no reason to get expensive treatment.

[Balta1701]

Their strategy is even better. Forget pre-existing conditions, you have no condition. That way you have no reason to get expensive treatment.

Except of course, that's not how a universal system would work. You get sick, the treatment is covered, the cause only matters if it influences the treatment. Here, we spend hundreds of manhours analyzing causes so that we can shift the cost onto other companies, all of which is effectively wasted.

[southsider2k5]

Except of course, that's not how a universal system would work. You get sick, the treatment is covered, the cause only matters if it influences the treatment. Here, we spend hundreds of manhours analyzing causes so that we can shift the cost onto other companies, all of which is effectively wasted.

 

Except of course, that isn't how it actually works in the VA that you love so much. You get sick, you get told you don't have a condition, and you get sent home.

[Balta1701]

Except of course, that isn't how it actually works in the VA that you love so much. You get sick, you get told you don't have a condition, and you get sent home.

Because, just like private insurance, the VA isn't a universal system.

[southsider2k5]

Because, just like private insurance, the VA isn't a universal system.

 

It is for vets.

[Jenksismyhero]

Balta - can you put this into laymans terms?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gapin...-192334971.html

 

s***ty study? Interesting twist? Will this new data "dramatically alter the global warming debate?"

[Balta1701]

Balta - can you put this into laymans terms?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gapin...-192334971.html

 

s***ty study? Interesting twist? Will this new data "dramatically alter the global warming debate?"

Well apparently I can't get to the journal right now, can't even get to their homepage (traffic spike for this article perhaps?) so I'll answer once I can.

[BigSqwert]

Balta - can you put this into laymans terms?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gapin...-192334971.html

 

s***ty study? Interesting twist? Will this new data "dramatically alter the global warming debate?"

Written by a guy that works for The Heartland Institute.

 

Here's a little info on that organization:

The group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics

 

Yeah, he has no agenda.

[Balta1701]

Balta - can you put this into laymans terms?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gapin...-192334971.html

 

s***ty study? Interesting twist? Will this new data "dramatically alter the global warming debate?"

I can't say whether it would be an interesting twist. I'm half procrastinating right now so I've been reading up on his work, and again, still can't get that journal to load, but the idea that data from this satellite show an incorrect response to short term heating events is something he's published before.

 

The first, and probably the most important thing to remember is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof. It's a little bit bothersome to most scientists to see a new piece of data come in and have the response be "This clearly disproves 30 years of work" if the data doesn't show that. Especially when that is written in the popular press...be concerned, because that usually means someone has taken a few liberties to make their case.

 

The actual author of the paper believes that most of climate science is wrong and that modern day warming is just an effect of changes in cloud cover. I did manage to get a quote or two from him via the U-Alabama-Huntsville press release, and there were some bothersome details in it.

A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

 

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

Now, the bolded part there is just not true. Increasing cloud cover is generally a negative feedback, in fact its a pretty strong one (clouds reflect solar energy back), and he can get away with this in no small part because cloud formation was as of the last IPCC report a very active area of study. Dissolved water vapor in the air detached from clouds is a very different story; that should be a positive forcing (the water vapor absorbs extra energy reflected up from the ground).. In the press release text that has been mixed up, probably for a good reason.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

 

"At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

I'm not quite sure this makes intuitive sense either, and I wonder about the employment of the model here. One example might be summer. The most sunlight hits the northern hemisphere on June 21, but most of the Northern Hemisphere is hottest a month or two later (July/August are the hottest months). I don't see any reason why in a short term hot spell, the maximum in heating should happen at the same time as the maximum temperature; same reason as the maximum temperature doesn't happen on June 21. A warm front can keep getting warmer even if it has started shedding its energy already, it just needs to be taking in slightly more energy than it is shedding, and if you measure the energy output, you'll only see 1/2 of that story.

 

I'm sure I'll be able to find more work on this subject as the coming months happen, but intuitively and based on what people have challenged the author on before, this doesn't seem to be an atmosphere-shaking data point. Might be some interesting science, but it's hard to believe this will be an "A-ha, the Earth is actually cooling!" moment.