Yet again our conservative politicians are on the wrong side of history and put us behind the starting line when we finally wake up to it. Can we now try and take Zika, antibiotics, climate change, clear cutting and water shortages seriously? Or are we just going to build a yuge wall?
If you are worried about the planet, then you should be for a warmer climate. The Earth has always been healthier when the planet was warmer and had a higher level of CO2.
Instead, climate change folks want people to suffer now so the planet can stay cool and suffer longer.
I am in favor of global warming. It is good for food production, leads to healthier flora, creates greater arable lands in the north, opens shipping routes through the north pole, reduces the use of warming agents during the cold months, opens accessibility to resources in the north, possibly reduces instances of flu, creates safer road conditions, decreases the amount of energy devoted to winter maintenance, diminishes winter-time depression (the blahs), leads to innovative thinking about energy usage, could change minds about industrial hemp and biomass, and hypothetically should move populations around so that dense pockets of humanity thin out more evenly. I’m sure there are more benefits; I’m not a climatological philosopher!
“This is because the warnings were issued by real doctors, MDs who actually had to work hard to get their degrees.”The warnings were issued by researchers who specialized in studying the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, not basic MDs.The medical community at large has been almost as slow to pay heed to the warnings as the rest of us. Besides people who don’t finish their prescriptions, far too many doctors obliged patients who asked for antibiotics for the flu & common cold. Reckless over-prescribing is still a problem. The average MD is no more qualified in the field of antibiotic resistance than a meteorologist is in climate change.Anderson doesn’t address your point because it’s irrelevant.
Uncle JoeOur family doctor, an MD, was aware of this problem way back in the 1970s. This was one reason we chose him. On the other hand, this was in Canada.
Your headline is misleading, Martens. I read the article, and it suggests that CO2 increase alone would, in fact, lead to greater vegetative growth. Adding other mystery factors slightly reduced the growth. The study did not say which types of plants would thrive in the atmosphere which they studied: that of increased soil nitrogen, higher temperatures, and greater precipitation coupled with the extra CO2. You know full well that “plants” do not grow uniformly. If those added conditions do arise, the answer is to study which plant form thrives under those conditions. I propose that a great solution would be industrial hemp in place of corn, but perhaps there are other possibilities, such as switchgrass, algae, and sunflowers.
Much of our forest losses are due to warmer winter temperatures NOT killing off and reducing pest species reproduction. Oceans are dying because of the chemistry and thermal impacts of human abuse of the planet. Yet deniers still say, death is good for you, and who the heck needs food, forests, water, fish, birds, or critters other than man, forgetting that if they all die off, so do we!
The reality is that our food supply and lack of biodiversity have nothing to do with AGW, but with poor food habits and Big Ag dominating through corn subsidies. Significantly reduced nutritional value? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the nutritional values of food available to modern man; the problem is his food CHOICES. Corn dominates our food supply, but is it good for the earth? Is it good for ethanol? Is it good for our health? Is it good for feed? The short answer: not really. Do you know of any crops that can be grown that would thrive in a nitrogen-rich, CO2-rich, precipitation-heavy, temperature-raised environment? Besides the inevitable GMO-route, industrial hemp and sunflowers would thrive in that environment, and they are much more useful than corn. BTW, winter blahs most certainly do come from the cold in part, as it limits your outside access significantly. I had a very short winter in the northeast this past year, and I loved walking on my lawn in December!
Darsan54 Premium Member almost 8 years ago
And Republiclans in Congress still deny all of it. . . . . . .
Flash Gordon almost 8 years ago
This is why I’m a Vegetarian, and only consume organic dairy.
Dirty Dragon almost 8 years ago
I know, let’s have the media talk about e-mails for two years, and see how that works out.
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
Yet again our conservative politicians are on the wrong side of history and put us behind the starting line when we finally wake up to it. Can we now try and take Zika, antibiotics, climate change, clear cutting and water shortages seriously? Or are we just going to build a yuge wall?
BigShell almost 8 years ago
If you are worried about the planet, then you should be for a warmer climate. The Earth has always been healthier when the planet was warmer and had a higher level of CO2.
Instead, climate change folks want people to suffer now so the planet can stay cool and suffer longer.
HabaneroBuck almost 8 years ago
I am in favor of global warming. It is good for food production, leads to healthier flora, creates greater arable lands in the north, opens shipping routes through the north pole, reduces the use of warming agents during the cold months, opens accessibility to resources in the north, possibly reduces instances of flu, creates safer road conditions, decreases the amount of energy devoted to winter maintenance, diminishes winter-time depression (the blahs), leads to innovative thinking about energy usage, could change minds about industrial hemp and biomass, and hypothetically should move populations around so that dense pockets of humanity thin out more evenly. I’m sure there are more benefits; I’m not a climatological philosopher!
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 8 years ago
“This is because the warnings were issued by real doctors, MDs who actually had to work hard to get their degrees.”The warnings were issued by researchers who specialized in studying the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, not basic MDs.The medical community at large has been almost as slow to pay heed to the warnings as the rest of us. Besides people who don’t finish their prescriptions, far too many doctors obliged patients who asked for antibiotics for the flu & common cold. Reckless over-prescribing is still a problem. The average MD is no more qualified in the field of antibiotic resistance than a meteorologist is in climate change.Anderson doesn’t address your point because it’s irrelevant.
hippogriff almost 8 years ago
Uncle JoeOur family doctor, an MD, was aware of this problem way back in the 1970s. This was one reason we chose him. On the other hand, this was in Canada.
HabaneroBuck almost 8 years ago
Your headline is misleading, Martens. I read the article, and it suggests that CO2 increase alone would, in fact, lead to greater vegetative growth. Adding other mystery factors slightly reduced the growth. The study did not say which types of plants would thrive in the atmosphere which they studied: that of increased soil nitrogen, higher temperatures, and greater precipitation coupled with the extra CO2. You know full well that “plants” do not grow uniformly. If those added conditions do arise, the answer is to study which plant form thrives under those conditions. I propose that a great solution would be industrial hemp in place of corn, but perhaps there are other possibilities, such as switchgrass, algae, and sunflowers.
Dtroutma almost 8 years ago
Much of our forest losses are due to warmer winter temperatures NOT killing off and reducing pest species reproduction. Oceans are dying because of the chemistry and thermal impacts of human abuse of the planet. Yet deniers still say, death is good for you, and who the heck needs food, forests, water, fish, birds, or critters other than man, forgetting that if they all die off, so do we!
HabaneroBuck almost 8 years ago
The reality is that our food supply and lack of biodiversity have nothing to do with AGW, but with poor food habits and Big Ag dominating through corn subsidies. Significantly reduced nutritional value? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the nutritional values of food available to modern man; the problem is his food CHOICES. Corn dominates our food supply, but is it good for the earth? Is it good for ethanol? Is it good for our health? Is it good for feed? The short answer: not really. Do you know of any crops that can be grown that would thrive in a nitrogen-rich, CO2-rich, precipitation-heavy, temperature-raised environment? Besides the inevitable GMO-route, industrial hemp and sunflowers would thrive in that environment, and they are much more useful than corn. BTW, winter blahs most certainly do come from the cold in part, as it limits your outside access significantly. I had a very short winter in the northeast this past year, and I loved walking on my lawn in December!