I am not claiming that adding chemicals is totally risk free, nothing is. I am claiming that there is demonstrateably way more risk leaving them out. If it were not for chlorine even trivial flooding of sewrage pipes that reqularly contaminate the water supply would kill millions with Cholera.
Chlorine is not added to drinking water in large doses, anything over 100ppm in a swimming pool will burn your eyes, recommended levels in drinking water are usually measured in ppb and vary according to temprature.
"The fact that the earth is the center of the universe was also based on thousands of years of research."
No it was based on the universal observation that celestial bodies appear to move across a dome shaped sky. I direct you to Asimov's answer to your line of reasoning entitled The relativity of wrong, his prose is far more readable than mine.
Yes SBS constantly demonstrates that the claims about draconian censorship in Australia are usually made by slashdotters who don't understand the local politics.
There is an well funded and coordinated campaign of disinformation on climate change from the likes of the CEI and the Heartland institute, these are the same people who actively campainged to discredit the notion that smoking causes cancer. I think like the medical scams these kind of campaingns are motivated by greed and are demonstratably harmfull to society.
However I think they are better fought out in the open with facts and humour rather than in the dark with astroturfers and infiltrators. I would much rather see CEO's charged with negligence when the shit hits the fan than have them censored just in case something goes wrong.
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses." in no way translates to "argued for by Sunstein" that translation is mearly a false assertion by TFA that you are repeating. This would seem to be an example of the problem the paper is exploring.
Disclaimer: Non-American who has never heard of Sunstein.
"IMHO Best to let the airwaves sort themselves out as the entertainment media they are. Better then having the government decree who's opinions are worthy."
The BBC are free to pick whoever they like, they are funded by the government not run by the government. There are similar policies with the ABC here in Australia, the policy actually does result in a wider range of opinions especially when compared to commercial broadcasts. In otherwords the result of the policy over many decades has been the exact opposite of restricting opinions to those that are "worthy".
Here in Oz, SBS broadcast this series. Basically it was a live autopsy with the body hung in an upright posture by wires (facing away from the camera and live audience). The "can't-look-away horror" part for me was when he removed the brain, spinal cord and siatic nerve all in one piece.
It seems building strawmen of scientists and setting fire to them is becoming a bit of a fad on slashdot. I don't know why you are rated informative, you would have to be ignorant or naive to believe that Drake thought his equation was more than a speculative tool.
"The CDC is meant to take the popular view and run with it; it's not meant to question."
Please don't insult both our intelligences. I'm greener than most slashdotters but I try to stick to real pollution and disease problems which is why I have no time for greenpeace's misinformation on these subjects. The benifits of flouride and chlorine far outweigh the risks in any public health or environmental equation. This is not just an opinion the CDC pulled out of it's arse. It's an opinion universally held by public health authorities all over the planet and is based on 100yrs of research and real world results. But yeah if your tap water is a bit hard or smells of chlorine a filter might improve the taste.
Sure these things are "nasty", chlorine is the active ingredient in mustard gas but to imply that the trace amounts used to good effect in water treatments are toxic is just pure new age bullshit. The human body requires various "nasty chemicals" to stay alive. For example potassium is also highly toxic, it will spontaneously combust in the presence of oxygen, and explodes on contact with water, but if you don't regularly ingest trace amounts your central neverous system stops working and you die.
PS: Not one of the thousands of scientist who have compiled these reports over the last 20yrs has ever recieved a dime from the IPCC for their work. All 3 of the the IPCC's paid staff are admin staff. The IPCC budget is $5-6M/yr sourced from ~300 politically diverse nations, the bulk of it goes to confrence facilities and plane tickets. Their financial reports are on their web site.
So why didn't you post the link. Could it be because it does not say anything about "a mini ice age". Matter of fact it doesn't even say the globe will stop warming, it says cold deep water will come to the surface and cool things off for a while while around two particular regions.
Or they may just live in one of the majority of areas where flouride occurs naturally in the water supply (that cannot be avoided by simply drinmking distilled water). Without some flouride their chalky teeth would definitely have crumbled long ago. Hint: crumbling teeth used to be the norm on the Isle of White where there is an unusual scarcity of naturally occuring flouride.
The WP entry on flouride states it "is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century"". Having said all that my original point was about Chlorination and it's impact on scourges such as Cholera and Dyptheria.
"So you don't believe the IPCC's scientists then?"
How can I agree with all of them when they only broadly agree on what's in the reports.
"So you're, it seems stuck, if you assault this guys credibility, of course you're also assaulting the IPCC's credibility"
No it's your political mind that's stuck, it seems to be having trouble understanding the republic of science. I simply assert the reports are the best science has to offer on the subject, I would be dissapointed in any scientist who couldn't find something in their field to bet on but you're Daily Mirror link is grossly distorting Prof. Latif's research.
This is how peer-review is supposed to work, you attack a persons ideas, if someone does not submit any of their work for peer-review and refuses to address obvious flaws then they rightly lose all credibility (eg:Anthony Watts). The ideas about climate that are left standing at the end of every four years go into the IPCC reports.
"But we all know what is motivating your global warming beliefs."
"It's impossible to separate this out from the enhancements in dental care and the like, though."
Sorry but the Isle of White experience disputes that. As a personal anecdote I had Fluoride tablets as a kid before it was added to the local water in the 70's. I'm 50 now, I still have my natural teeth and often use them to eat sheep.;)
And one more as you're obviously totally sold on al gores version of reality:
5. the interior of the earth is several million degrees hot.
You're mistaken my post is my version of reality. I'm not an American, what is "Al Gore's version of reality" and why do you think I'm sold on it? Also I think you mean "several thousand".
"While China's economic liberalization may leave more coin jingling in the average worker's pocket, all else remains the same. Makes me wonder if the West's political mollycoddling of PRC was ever intended to benefit their people, or if it was just to retain a cheap manufacturing source."
It's all relative, there's a line in an old John Lennon song that says "they're starving back in China". When I was a kid that's the line adults used when you didn't eat your sprouts. There may still be posters of Mao all over the place but it's unlikely Mao's famine has been forgotten by Chinese people over the age of 40. China is far from perfect but since they ousted the gang of four they have dragged more people out of abject poverty than the rest of the world combined.
The human mind will effectively adapt itself to the society it was born into, maybe some of these people don't feel oppressed, maybe they feel their lives are improving over the long term. After all I think my society is light years ahead of what I was born into but there's no shortage of people telling me society has gone to the dogs and I'm being oppressed by the government.
Interesting article, I have (half-heartedly) followed these meeting for a few years and it seems to ring true. China have also been very sensitive to the accusation that they were uncooperative, at the same time their state run papers have been gushing about how they were helping bring the world together, blah, blah, blah, and a picture of a Panda.
Previously the US have been the ones stonewalling and China's strategy was basically "we want the same deal as the USA gets plus the previuosly agreed compensation for developing countries". However it was abundantly clear that the US didn't want a ANY deal. In other words China has had to come out of the closet because it lost it's scapegoat when the US sat down and got serious.
The Chinesse targets are interesting too, they are still sticking to the idea of basing emmission quotas on GDP which is a totally useless system originally pushed by the US.
You beat me to the rio tinto thing, it was quite a big story here in Oz, between them Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton control a large part of the global iron ore market. I was going use it to point out to the GP that China not only has a seat at the "big-boys table" but is often the one dealing the cards nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not claiming that adding chemicals is totally risk free, nothing is. I am claiming that there is demonstrateably way more risk leaving them out. If it were not for chlorine even trivial flooding of sewrage pipes that reqularly contaminate the water supply would kill millions with Cholera.
Chlorine is not added to drinking water in large doses, anything over 100ppm in a swimming pool will burn your eyes, recommended levels in drinking water are usually measured in ppb and vary according to temprature.
"The fact that the earth is the center of the universe was also based on thousands of years of research."
No it was based on the universal observation that celestial bodies appear to move across a dome shaped sky. I direct you to Asimov's answer to your line of reasoning entitled The relativity of wrong, his prose is far more readable than mine.
I meant a live audience but I botched the wording in a rather amusing way.
"Very uncensored and informative."
Yes SBS constantly demonstrates that the claims about draconian censorship in Australia are usually made by slashdotters who don't understand the local politics.
There is an well funded and coordinated campaign of disinformation on climate change from the likes of the CEI and the Heartland institute, these are the same people who actively campainged to discredit the notion that smoking causes cancer. I think like the medical scams these kind of campaingns are motivated by greed and are demonstratably harmfull to society.
However I think they are better fought out in the open with facts and humour rather than in the dark with astroturfers and infiltrators. I would much rather see CEO's charged with negligence when the shit hits the fan than have them censored just in case something goes wrong.
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses." in no way translates to "argued for by Sunstein" that translation is mearly a false assertion by TFA that you are repeating. This would seem to be an example of the problem the paper is exploring.
Disclaimer: Non-American who has never heard of Sunstein.
"IMHO Best to let the airwaves sort themselves out as the entertainment media they are. Better then having the government decree who's opinions are worthy."
The BBC are free to pick whoever they like, they are funded by the government not run by the government. There are similar policies with the ABC here in Australia, the policy actually does result in a wider range of opinions especially when compared to commercial broadcasts. In otherwords the result of the policy over many decades has been the exact opposite of restricting opinions to those that are "worthy".
they aren't going to assist a suicide or murder anyone
Why not? Assisted suicide live on TV? Think of the ratings!
Nah, reality shows like "cops" have that niche stiched up.
Here in Oz, SBS broadcast this series. Basically it was a live autopsy with the body hung in an upright posture by wires (facing away from the camera and live audience). The "can't-look-away horror" part for me was when he removed the brain, spinal cord and siatic nerve all in one piece.
He's aiming for sympathy sex, don't tell me you haven't tried it in one form or another. ;)
It seems building strawmen of scientists and setting fire to them is becoming a bit of a fad on slashdot. I don't know why you are rated informative, you would have to be ignorant or naive to believe that Drake thought his equation was more than a speculative tool.
"The CDC is meant to take the popular view and run with it; it's not meant to question."
Please don't insult both our intelligences. I'm greener than most slashdotters but I try to stick to real pollution and disease problems which is why I have no time for greenpeace's misinformation on these subjects. The benifits of flouride and chlorine far outweigh the risks in any public health or environmental equation. This is not just an opinion the CDC pulled out of it's arse. It's an opinion universally held by public health authorities all over the planet and is based on 100yrs of research and real world results. But yeah if your tap water is a bit hard or smells of chlorine a filter might improve the taste.
Sure these things are "nasty", chlorine is the active ingredient in mustard gas but to imply that the trace amounts used to good effect in water treatments are toxic is just pure new age bullshit. The human body requires various "nasty chemicals" to stay alive. For example potassium is also highly toxic, it will spontaneously combust in the presence of oxygen, and explodes on contact with water, but if you don't regularly ingest trace amounts your central neverous system stops working and you die.
PS: Not one of the thousands of scientist who have compiled these reports over the last 20yrs has ever recieved a dime from the IPCC for their work. All 3 of the the IPCC's paid staff are admin staff. The IPCC budget is $5-6M/yr sourced from ~300 politically diverse nations, the bulk of it goes to confrence facilities and plane tickets. Their financial reports are on their web site.
"I've looked up his paper.
So why didn't you post the link. Could it be because it does not say anything about "a mini ice age". Matter of fact it doesn't even say the globe will stop warming, it says cold deep water will come to the surface and cool things off for a while while around two particular regions.
"They may just have good teeth."
Or they may just live in one of the majority of areas where flouride occurs naturally in the water supply (that cannot be avoided by simply drinmking distilled water). Without some flouride their chalky teeth would definitely have crumbled long ago. Hint: crumbling teeth used to be the norm on the Isle of White where there is an unusual scarcity of naturally occuring flouride.
The WP entry on flouride states it "is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century"". Having said all that my original point was about Chlorination and it's impact on scourges such as Cholera and Dyptheria.
"So you don't believe the IPCC's scientists then?"
How can I agree with all of them when they only broadly agree on what's in the reports.
"So you're, it seems stuck, if you assault this guys credibility, of course you're also assaulting the IPCC's credibility"
No it's your political mind that's stuck, it seems to be having trouble understanding the republic of science. I simply assert the reports are the best science has to offer on the subject, I would be dissapointed in any scientist who couldn't find something in their field to bet on but you're Daily Mirror link is grossly distorting Prof. Latif's research.
This is how peer-review is supposed to work, you attack a persons ideas, if someone does not submit any of their work for peer-review and refuses to address obvious flaws then they rightly lose all credibility (eg:Anthony Watts). The ideas about climate that are left standing at the end of every four years go into the IPCC reports.
"But we all know what is motivating your global warming beliefs."
Please don't project your faults onto me.
Thanks, I know the Conan O'Brian show is big in the US but the reference was way to obscure for me.
As meatloaf would say, two out of three ain't bad
"It's impossible to separate this out from the enhancements in dental care and the like, though."
;)
Sorry but the Isle of White experience disputes that. As a personal anecdote I had Fluoride tablets as a kid before it was added to the local water in the 70's. I'm 50 now, I still have my natural teeth and often use them to eat sheep.
"I assume you mean fluoridation [wikipedia.org]. Chlorination is what you do to pools, not drinking water."
No I meant that greenpeace wanted a world wide ban on chlorination a process that is used almost everywhere to sanitise drinking water. One of the founders quit over the issue and has been publicly pissing on them ever since.
I hope your joking....
And one more as you're obviously totally sold on al gores version of reality: 5. the interior of the earth is several million degrees hot.
You're mistaken my post is my version of reality. I'm not an American, what is "Al Gore's version of reality" and why do you think I'm sold on it? Also I think you mean "several thousand".
"It is possible to sell to the Chinese market. You're just not going to do it by being a cheap commodity."
Obviously you're not an Aussie. Those Buick's need steel no matter who makes them.
"While China's economic liberalization may leave more coin jingling in the average worker's pocket, all else remains the same. Makes me wonder if the West's political mollycoddling of PRC was ever intended to benefit their people, or if it was just to retain a cheap manufacturing source."
It's all relative, there's a line in an old John Lennon song that says "they're starving back in China". When I was a kid that's the line adults used when you didn't eat your sprouts. There may still be posters of Mao all over the place but it's unlikely Mao's famine has been forgotten by Chinese people over the age of 40. China is far from perfect but since they ousted the gang of four they have dragged more people out of abject poverty than the rest of the world combined.
The human mind will effectively adapt itself to the society it was born into, maybe some of these people don't feel oppressed, maybe they feel their lives are improving over the long term. After all I think my society is light years ahead of what I was born into but there's no shortage of people telling me society has gone to the dogs and I'm being oppressed by the government.
Interesting article, I have (half-heartedly) followed these meeting for a few years and it seems to ring true. China have also been very sensitive to the accusation that they were uncooperative, at the same time their state run papers have been gushing about how they were helping bring the world together, blah, blah, blah, and a picture of a Panda.
Previously the US have been the ones stonewalling and China's strategy was basically "we want the same deal as the USA gets plus the previuosly agreed compensation for developing countries". However it was abundantly clear that the US didn't want a ANY deal. In other words China has had to come out of the closet because it lost it's scapegoat when the US sat down and got serious.
The Chinesse targets are interesting too, they are still sticking to the idea of basing emmission quotas on GDP which is a totally useless system originally pushed by the US.
You beat me to the rio tinto thing, it was quite a big story here in Oz, between them Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton control a large part of the global iron ore market. I was going use it to point out to the GP that China not only has a seat at the "big-boys table" but is often the one dealing the cards nowadays.