Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gee, what a surprise. There’s also this classic Anderson Cooper live report on a flooded road…where he stood in a ditch to over-dramatize the amount of flooding.
 
www.engadget.com

California plans to launch its own climate satellite

The current White House doesn't accept climate science, and California is worried that this may lead to NASA switching off climate probes under pressure from President Trump. The state's solution? Build its own probe. In a speech at the Global Climate Action Summit, Governor Jerry Brown declared...
www.engadget.com www.engadget.com
 
He really is an embarrassment,

and I thought advocates didn’t even trust the sat temp record vs station records. Must be a payoff to Musk or some CA business…
 
There was a thread, closed about a week ago, dealing with the EPA’s estimate of the number of deaths that could be attributed to Trump’s changes to coal emission standards. There was a big discussion about how awful it was that (up to) 1400 people might be sacrificed because of this change.

I just stumbled across this piece dealing with the EPA’s analysis of the dangers of airborne particulates.


EPA: Entirely unProven Assumptions
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So you want to take this silly misrepresentation of the EPA over the real EPA? Funny.
Click to expand...
Really? This is all you’ve got to say to counter the allegations? Let me be more specific:
EPA claims the PM2.5-death hypothesis is supported by existing epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies. This is false.

Epidemiology. EPA admitted in federal court that its epidemiologic studies on PM2.5, because of their exclusively statistical nature, prove nothing by themselves.

Toxicology. No laboratory animal has ever died from PM2.5 in an experimental setting — even though animals have been exposed to levels of PM2.5 as much as 100+ times greater than human exposures to PM2.5 in outdoor air.

Clinical studies. EPA has tested a variety of air pollutants — including very high exposures to PM2.5 — on over 6,000 human volunteers. Many of these volunteers were elderly or already health-compromised — the very groups EPA claims are most susceptible to dying from PM2.5 exposures. EPA has admitted that there have been no deaths or any dangerous adverse events clearly caused by these PM2.5 exposures. PM2.5 exposures in these experiments have been as high as 21 times greater than allowable by EPA’s own air quality rules.
Click to expand...
It is the claim that the EPA delivers its rulings based on actual science that is the silly misrepresentation.
 
Let me be more specific. This is a silly misrepresentation:

The EPA’s position is that:
  • ANY inhalation of PM2.5 — even one molecule — can cause death;
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Let me be more specific. This is a silly misrepresentation:

The EPA’s position is that:
  • ANY inhalation of PM2.5 — even one molecule — can cause death;
Click to expand...
Well, that one does seem extreme, and I’d have to see where the EPA actually said that to accept it, but the rest of the rebuttal is very specific, especially the part about what the EPA admitted in federal court.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Let me be more specific. This is a silly misrepresentation:

The EPA’s position is that:
  • ANY inhalation of PM2.5 — even one molecule — can cause death;
Click to expand...
Well, that one does seem extreme, and I’d have to see where the EPA actually said that to accept it, but the rest of the rebuttal is very specific, especially the part about what the EPA admitted in federal court.
Click to expand...
Sorry to use an ad hominem argument, but once someone makes a mistake like that I’m outta there as far as seriously considering their other claims.
 
@ender, thanks for the link.

My understanding is that those deaths are mostly assumed ‘early deaths’ by people with pneumonia, bronchitis, severe allergies, and other lung ailments. Most are the old who might live longer with clean air.

These people should already have hepa air filters cleaning their room air.
These claims are a spreadsheet exercise but a big nothing burger in the real world.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Sorry to use an ad hominem argument, but once someone makes a mistake like that I’m outta there as far as seriously considering their other claims.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has been your approach to pretty much everything that contradicts your position: find some way to rationalize dismissing it.
 
Theo520 said:
My understanding is that those deaths are mostly assumed ‘early deaths’ by people with pneumonia, bronchitis, severe allergies, and other lung ailments. Most are the old who might live longer with clean air.
Click to expand...
The report I cited rebutting the EPA’s findings has its own problems, but it does offer evidence that their findings are not as rigorously supported by science as they claim. This is hardly surprising.

The entire PM2.5 exposure alarm is bogus. It is a tool used to ban products or activities the EPA opposes. California, which has some of the strictest PM2.5 regulations, just made smoking marijuana legal, but “Smoking one marijuana cigarette exposes the inhaler to up to 160,000 micrograms of small particles, about four times the amount from a tobacco cigarette. A single joint delivers more small particles than breathing typical California ambient air for two years.”

I know this subject is not strictly climate change news, but this is part of the war on coal, a war that is in fact part of the climate change alarmists agenda.
 
Here is the EPA page on the topic. They don’t say a single molecule can cause death but they do claim these are the most dangerous for the disadvantaged.

www.epa.gov

Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM) | US EPA

Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream. Fine particles (PM2.5) are the main cause of reduced visibility (haze).
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov
 
Theo520 said:
@ender, thanks for the link.

My understanding is that those deaths are mostly assumed ‘early deaths’ by people with pneumonia, bronchitis, severe allergies, and other lung ailments. Most are the old who might live longer with clean air.

These people should already have hepa air filters cleaning their room air.
Click to expand...
As someone who lives with an asthma sufferer, I object to your implication that people with sensitive respiratory systems have the onus on them to provide for themselves the clean air they require. They can’t stay locked up in their sealed houses all the time. They like to go out and walk in the park, go hunting in the woods, take a bike ride along the riverfront, or attend an open-air baseball game. Your policies would impose a serious and unnecessary quality of life burden on those who otherwise might lived a fairly normal life.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Sorry to use an ad hominem argument, but once someone makes a mistake like that I’m outta there as far as seriously considering their other claims.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has been your approach to pretty much everything that contradicts your position: find some way to rationalize dismissing it.
Click to expand...
And you so easily dismiss the EPA’s findings because of something you stumbled across in JunkScience.com.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As someone who lives with an asthma sufferer, I object to your implication that people with sensitive respiratory systems have the onus on them to provide for themselves the clean air they require.
Click to expand...
Resent it all you want but our standards are set for the general good of the population, not just to meet the needs of the utmost sensitive. I fully expect an IC unit treating people with respiratory diseases to use HEPA filters. Homes that care for the aged should also have additional air filters. Heck we should even add it to their building code regulations.

All the cities in my state have great air quality, though people with severe asthma will still have problems. You just can’t regulate pollen and dust out of existence.

https://airnow.gov/state/washington
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top