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?
Cousin Vinny is your “go to” guy?
Gene,
I happen to think that Bdaman is helping to prove my point about weather and climate.
In addition to not providing links to the threads or specific comments–he also doesn’t include the comments he made that I was responding to with my comments.
We have a long history of discussions on climate science on this blog with Bdaman. I don’t intend to spend my day searching through posts to locate comments that both he and I have made in the past on the subject.
Elaine:
I merely offered it as a possible/plausible reply.
Why dont you tell me your actual response?
“Gene your next if you haven’t scrubbed it. Based on the ability of my now proven memory and recall your probably like a cockroach scrabbling in the kitchen when the light switch got turned on.”
Actually I’m having a coffee and laughing at your above “evidence” against Elaine. Two statements, out of context, from different threads and nothing at all with a link to the source of the statements. Yeah. I’m just terrified. Just so you know, I’ve got a busy day today, so it might be this evening before I get a chance to laugh at you again.
Bdaman,
You quoted me in a comment above:
“One snowstorm is not indicative of the climate where I live. We have four seasons here. We have hot weather, cold weather, and temperate weather. We have dry days and days with precipitation. Explain to me how one day’s weather is indicative of the prevailing climate where I live.”
BTW, did you ever provide an explanation?
Bdaman,
“Climate is made up of daily weather observations over the years.”
Really? Who knew? My, you are an expert on climate science. Maybe you should give a presentation before the National Academy of Sciences!
*****
Bron: “You say we dont need to worry and that all the computer models are good predictors?”
As is his habit, Bron has once again put words in my mouth.
Tell me how good my memory is. Pretty good for at least 4-5 months. Like I said Ms. Elaine maybe you need thicker glasses.
Gene your next if you haven’t scrubbed it. Based on the ability of my now proven memory and recall your probably like a cockroach scrabbling in the kitchen when the light switch got turned on.
Last night
Bdaman 1, March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
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.
Elaine M. 1, October 30, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Bdaman,
One snowstorm is not indicative of the climate where I live. We have four seasons here. We have hot weather, cold weather, and temperate weather. We have dry days and days with precipitation. Explain to me how one day’s weather is indicative of the prevailing climate where I live.
Bdaman 1, October 30, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Elaine weather is climate
Climate is made up of daily weather observations over the years. A 30 year span is accepted as climatic period. BEST study is based on a 30 year period.
How do you think they come up with the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly averages of temperature. By noting the observation on a daily basis.
Slartibartfast 1, October 30, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Bdaman said: “weather is climate”
Hey Bdaman, your ignorance is showing.
Elaine,
Thanks for showing us examples of how naive Bron’s understanding is.
Elaine:
what happens if there is some type of unknown feedback loop which will spin out of control if CO2 levels drop below 300 ppm? Which then causes CO2 to drop like a rock, life on earth could be wiped out all because we were worried about limiting CO2.
You say we dont need to worry and that all the computer models are good predictors? Oh, OK, I feel secure now.
Elaine:
Bdaman knows a good deal about climate and weather.
Why do you call it denial? As I have said before, Bdaman isnt denying climate change only that man has any significant impact on the change.
I would think the emails a few years ago would have been enough to convince people that something wasnt quite right. I read through a bunch and they seemed like standard chatter but there were a couple which were real eye openers. And I think more have come to light as well. These people fabricated data or at best misunderstood what they were seeing.
I think being skeptical of the AGW crowd is reasonable based on what they have been doing.
A long time ago when it was warm and dragon flies were really big, scientists are speculating there was a good deal more oxygen in the air to support those large insects. Is global warming caused by oxygen or carbon dioxide?
It seems to me the science is not settled and there is a good deal yet to learn. We dont even know if limiting CO2 might have some deleterious effect on our climate. Can you say with any degree of certainty the minimum level of CO2 required for life on earth?
With all due respect Ms. Elaine, maybe you need thicker glasses 🙂
Bron,
Bdaman IS an expert in Climate Change Science Denial. Is he also an expert in Creation Science? Better check with cousin Vinny!
Bdaman,
You had often posted reports about winter storms and cold weather to try to prove that there’s no global warming. As I said–I had called you on that. You proved my point when you wrote the following to me:
“Oh and who was it that tells me that one day of weather does not equal climate.”
Thanks!
🙂
Bdaman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QVX68dO7SPs
Your honor, Bdaman’s expertise is in climate science, if you voir dire the witness on general climate knowledge, I think you will be satisfied.
Dredd how bout the Artcic is it going going gone. By the way I’ve got a bridge you may be interested in.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=10&fy=1995&sm=03&sd=10&sy=2012
Ms. Elaine still looking for the exact comments but I did find this.
Elaine M. 1, February 17, 2012 at 9:48 am
BTW, we’ve had the warmest winter I can remember here in Massachusetts–and I wasn’t born yesterday!
Bdaman 1, February 17, 2012 at 11:03 am
Oh and who was it that tells me that one day of weather does not equal climate. We’ll one winter doesn’t either. Just a couple of years ago it was snowmegeddon and snowpocalypse. Oh forgot that was caused by Global Warming. Too hot, Global Warming, Too cold, Global Warming. Drought, Global Warming, Flood, Global Warming.
This is now, then was then; some other myth, some other time.
The G. Lakes’ ice bites the dust:
(Great Lakes Ice: Going, going, gone).
And I’m done wit dis witness
When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
I’m working on it Gene.
Elaine M. 1, October 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Bron,
Weather and climate are not exactly the same thing.
I’d say the Kochs, Exxon, and other fossil fuel producers and corporate polluters are the ones with the agenda. They are funding many of the climate change deniers.
Bdaman 1, October 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Weather and climate are not exactly the same thing.
daily weather turns in to weekly weather which in turn turns to monthly.
Monthly turns into yearly and yearly turns into climate. 30 years of that daily, weekly, monthly figures defines the period in which climate is determined.