Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
It seems that you can’t go anywhere on the Internet and not read an attack on the EPA by a Republican member of Congress. The Hill; McClatchey Unfortunately, I was not surprised how many of the Republican Congressmen were attacking the EPA and its attempts to control and eliminate air pollution. However, I was surprised by how many of those Congressmen were physicians.
“What would you think if your physician told you, “Keep smoking because quitting would kill tobacco and health care jobs.” Or, “Don’t take your high blood pressure medicine, you can’t afford it.” And, “Don’t lose weight, no one has proven obesity is bad for you.” That’s exactly the quality of medical advice we are getting from the 18 Republican physicians currently serving in Congress. Some of the most well known are the father and son team of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Tom Coburn. Almost all of these physician/Congressmen have been key soldiers in the Republican war on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling it a “job killer,” pronouncing relevant health science “unproven,” claiming we “can’t afford” their regulations.” Truthout
The “unproven” science that claims that air pollution is deadly comes from over 2,000 medical studies is significant in its numbers and content. “In the last ten years, over 2,000 scientific studies published in the mainstream medical literature have revealed that air pollution has much of the same physiologic and disease consequence as first- and second-hand cigarette smoke.(1, 2) Those studies show that just as there is no safe number of cigarettes a person can smoke, there is no safe level of air pollution a person can breathe. Even pollution at “background” levels still causes health consequences, including increased mortality rates.(3, 4)” Dr. Brian Moench
Dr. Moench’s Truthout article provides a plethora of citations to studies that confirm the need for and importance of taking the steps that the EPA has outlined in its August, 2010 report titled, “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020”. EPA I guess some people can deny the science behind the studies and the EPA report. We have seen the climate change deniers put ear plugs in their ears when legitimate and voluminous studies are presented. Maybe I am naive, but I cannot understand how medical doctors can claim that we can’t afford the regulations needed to save lives of adults and children.
Over 1,800 medical doctors, nurses and health care professionals signed a letter to Congress imploring the Congressional members to honor the original intent of the Clean Air Act and allow science to trump politics by implementing the needed regulations to save lives. “The result is saved lives and improved quality of life for millions of Americans. But the job is not finished. Communities across the nation still suffer from poor air quality. Low income families face the impacts of toxic air pollution every day. From smog causing asthma attacks to toxic mercury harming children’s neurological development, far too many people face a constant threat from the air they breathe and the impacts of climate change. Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans.” Lung.org
As someone who has Asthma, this fight to allow for the full implementation of the Clean Air Act has special meaning. I can only hope that Congress, including the Doctors who are in Congress will hear the call to do whatever is necessary to save lives. Politics should never get in the way of common sense and achievable changes and improvements in the air that we breathe.
Do you believe in the science behind the Clean Air Act and if not, where is the science to refute the claims of over 2,000 studies from all over the globe? Is there any health issue that can trump the vitriolic politics of our time? As quoted above, the original Clean Air Act and its amendments enjoyed bipartisan support. Why can’t that same bipartisan support be found for the full implementation of the Clean Air Act knowing it will save lives and create jobs? How many more must die or suffer before political gain is put aside?
I get it! Now it’s a conspiracy again and I’m somebody else.
Prove I said that. Not anyone else you might think I am or any other person. Demonstrate exactly how credible you are in your claims.
Ni Night fellas. Asta spumonte 🙂
Yeah Raff boy back in those days I used to get called all kinds of names. 🙂 Now it’s pretty light. Conspiracy boy and chowder head just to name a few 🙂
I’m looking for proof that I ever said weather isn’t climate.
Oh I’m looking if you haven’t deleted it. I’ll find it. Just saw a post about the Russian heat wave you linked to as proof of global warming when NOAA has debunked it. I’ll find it. Might take me a while, you know there are alot of threads. Does it count if Buddha is Laughing said it 🙂
OS,
Yep.
*****************
To be clear, Bdaman, I’m not looking for proof of what somebody else said although I think Gingerbaker was on to something regarding you.
I’m looking for proof that I ever said weather isn’t climate.
I’ve cut you some slack because some of the other guest bloggers seem to like you, but since I’ve found out more about you and your past actions, I’m about all out of slack.
“Bron isnt it funny how they including Gene argued weather is not climate but now it is.”
Prove I said that.
Bdaman,
Pretty harsh language, don’t you think?
I’m looking but we know that as far back as 2011 I made the claim that weather is climate. Still looking Buddha and Ms.Elaine
Gingerbaker 1, June 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm
bdaman:
“Daily weather leads to weekly weather which leads to monthly weather which leads to yearly weather. Yearly weather over time equals climate. So studying weather for fifty years gives you what the climate is like.”
I take back what I said about you. You’re not a moron.
You’re reply is an order of magnitude more stupid than that of a moron. The English language does not a word which can adequately convey the imbecilic vacuous boneheadedness of your reply.
Gene, they have made goalpost moving an art form.
Worse than watching a game of Pong.
What’s even funnier is my memory comports with Elaine’s.
Im driving at the moment trying to stay imbttween the lines but if memory serves me correctly which it usually does you askef me to explain to you how one day is indicative of climate and im 99 percent sure I know which thread. Sb how one days weather is indicative of climate.
Thats funny I just was saying the same thing about you. 🙂
Bdaman,
Yes, it’s too bad that you have a selective memory.
How quickly we forget.
Bdaman,
You did not have to explain anything to me about the difference between weather and climate. As I recall, I called you on the subject–quite some time ago.
Im on my phone ill find it Gene. I called for Ms. Elaine because she was the one who I had to explain it to while you acted as her cheerleader. Bron rembers thats why he said what he said.
Bdaman:
are you a climate change denier? I thought you were just an AGW denier.
Which is it? Climate changes all the time, that is what is so great about AGW proponents, climate cools AGW, climate warms AGW, too many hurricanes AGW, to few hurricanes AGW. Too much rain AGW, too little rain AGW.
How can human activity cause changes to all weather patterns and all climate?
The only sensible explanation for the fiercely political opposition of the right toward the entire science of climate change is rooted in human nature: those whose sense of self-worth is largely a function of material acquisition are terrified at the prospect of having to moderate certain creature comforts in order to preserve the planet for future generations. I do not believe that it is any more complicated than that.
Really. Prove that I’ve argued weather isn’t climate. I know for a fact climate is aggregate weather. That is what climate is by definition. I’m the one who just pointed it out to you. You can’t prove I’ve ever argued otherwise, so I guess that makes you a liar just now in addition to being stupid when you said “Ms. Elaine, Could you please explain to Gene weather is not climate.”
I’m guessing you’re still just pissed that the term “climate disruption” – which is and always has been the threat of AGW (combined with a possible climate shift at some point) – better describes the phenomena so that you can’t play your lil’ word games with the word “warming” in your denier nonsense.
Thats like saying global warming creates global cooling. Oh wait thats what they say now that it is.
Bron isnt it funny how they including Gene argued weather is not climate but now it is.