"And those problems don't even touch on osteoporosis"
Which fluoride is used as a therapeutic treatment for. The smart money would be on taking other minerals as well. Fluoride by itself just increases the rate of bone fixin' you need minerals in the blood so it has something to fix with.
Did you mean: fluoride osteoporosis
Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis BL Riggs, SF Hodgson, WM O'Fallon - New England journal , 1990 - Mass Medical Soc Abstract Although fluoride increases bone mass, the newly formed bone may have reduced strength. To assess the effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in osteoporosis, we conducted a four-year prospective clinical trial in 202 postmenopausal women with... Cited by 1153 Related articles All 9 versions Cite Save
Effect of the fluoride/calcium regimen on vertebral fracture occurrence in postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparison with conventional therapy BL Riggs, E Seeman, SF Hodgson - New England journal , 1982 - Mass Medical Soc Abstract We assessed the rates of vertebral fracture in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Forty-five patients were not treated (91 person-years of observation); 59 were treated conventionally, with calcium (alone or combined with estrogen) or vitamin D or... Cited by 583 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save
Effect of combined therapy with sodium fluoride, vitamin D and calcium in osteoporosis J Jowsey, BL Riggs, PJ Kelly, DL Hoffman - The American journal of , 1972 - Elsevier Abstract Fluoride administration in both man and animals has been shown to stimulate new bone formation. However, the bone is poorly mineralized, and osteomalacia and secondary hyperparathyroidism frequently occur. In this study we investigated the effect of variable... Cited by 297 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save
Risk-benefit ratio of sodium fluoride treatment in primary vertebral osteoporosis N Mamelle, R Dusan, JL Martin, A Prost, PJ Meunier - The Lancet, 1988 - Elsevier Abstract The risk-benefit ratio of combined fluoride-calcium therapy in primary vertebral osteoporosis was examined prospectively in patients with at least one vertebral fracture. 257 patients were randomised to receive sodium fluoride 25 mg twice daily plus elemental... Cited by 245 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save
Actually chinese snake oil actually works - it' made from water snakes with a high Omega 3 content and is still sold today. It has proven efficacy at a topical liniment to relieve inflammation mostly in joints..
American snake oil was made from rattlesnakes who ate mice and contained no Omega 3 and didn't do anything. So it's really a pejorative of the patent medicine industry in the US, and a known working product in Asia. It says more about the person using it that doesn't know this than it does about anything else.
That is it's not really hokum the pharma industry just fucked it up without knowing what they were doing and never tested it properly. If you watch Ben Goldacre's Ted talk you'll see the exact same thing happens today and if you look at the history of scurvy it's been going on for at least 500 years.
Evidence based medicine is commonly wrong because the evidence is interpreted incorrectly.
Around the 1600s, cedar leaf tae saved Jacques Cartier's crew from scurvy, 25 died the rest were save and when he got back to France was told there as no evidence this worked.
Prior to that Vasco de Gamma nearly diet near the Cape of Good Horn but his crew found eating citrus fixed it.
Hundreds of years later, evidence showed citrus prevented scurvy and it became institutionalized. Later it was boiled on copper kettles (which neutralize the C) and nobody noticed it didn't work any more as diets had improved, until sailors and polar explorers began dying. Similarly at around the same time the new process of warming babies milk to kill bacteria also killed the vitamin C and a new disease of the rich emerged: infantile scurvy. By 1933 vitamin C had be found and scurvy became much less widespread.
The point is scurvy has been around for 20 million years, it' s in recorded history for 5500 years but as of the Scott Antarctic expedition people were still dying of it despite cures being known since Egyptian times ("bitter herbs" all have ascorbate). It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's that there's a disruptive influence from commerce and industrialization. Some unintentional, some because of vested interest. History records that "the evidence was contradictory" and while this is true it never stopped being true that two fresh citrus a day prevented and even cured scurvy, of course more was better, ascorbate does not take up into the body in hours it takes days. so any time i the past 500 years it's been true people have been saying "look I know if I eat fresh fruit I won't get sick" while the medical community insisted, no, it' something else we disproved that. During Scott's antarctic mission the medically accepted ce for scurvy was a brew called "vitriol" containing sulphuric acid. That where evidence based medicine got you and this is one of the reason it's a UN right that you can deterring your own course of treatment to any illness. Science is just a sure it's right the nit's wrong as it is when it's right and it's been worn as recently as elat year, the recent fats ans cholesterol deacle as well as finding out sugar is the cause of cholesterol is proof at least to me that the conventional wisdom is neither.
It cannot be said this does not exist today. I'm not a TV guy and have only a very casual knowledge of the claims he made. ome I know are wrong and know why there are right and I know why but are rejected by industry. Given the near complete control by industry of antu to do with pharmaceuticals they are not the best ones to adjudicate this. The belief that if it's in our pharmacopoeia it's good and anything that isn't is bad it fatally flawed in many many ways.
I don't think they'll pursue this very far. All it's going to take is one thing Oz says that works that they say doesn't but actually does and now everything else they say is in question.
If you have unwavering faith in the pharmaceutical industry to be acting only out of the best interests of your health in an ethical manner at all times then you must not have seen these:
"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe" Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.
In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014 Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.
How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?
Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms. http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification. http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).
It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.
Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.
"It is also interesting that 40 years of careful research into programming language design, including very sophisticated systems such as Algol 68 and Common Lisp, had absolutely no effect on the design of what are the most commonly used hack languages today. (PHP and C.)"
You may have won the Internet today. I salute you sir.
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." "Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Nope, digital.com predates symbolics.com. NSI screwed up the dates. Check with Reid who don't forget enabled BIND by paying Vixie to write it when they were both at DECWRL.How could anyhting predate the domain of the guys that wrote the code?
Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.
Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.
And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"
Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.
Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.
Wouldn't you expect them to say "It's gotten x degrees warmer every year" for some value of x?
Notice they stopped postings graphs of how much warmer it is? They used to.
The sum total of all harm is itemised in one paragraph: "The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years."
How can the sea rise only on 30% of beaches?
climte.gov has a nice temperature dashboard that has all the data you can play with and graph in realtime. May I suggest you go and look at it to find out what x is? Aren't you curious?
The explanation for the 30% figure is twofold. If you'll notice, where they ripped up all the trees, erosion takes place. In the Keys, whihc they can't touch, not so much.
Also, they've been pumping groundwater out for ages. Do you think this leaves behind a great huge hole and a vacuum? No really, the land sort of sinks: http://www.nature.com/news/sou...
Bit of a chicken or the egg problem here - how do they differentiate from bad gut flora causing obesity and people who eat way too many carbs have bad gut flora because of it?
Slashdot Mirror
"And those problems don't even touch on osteoporosis"
Which fluoride is used as a therapeutic treatment for. The smart money would be on taking other minerals as well. Fluoride by itself just increases the rate of bone fixin' you need minerals in the blood so it has something to fix with.
Did you mean: fluoride osteoporosis
Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis ...
BL Riggs, SF Hodgson, WM O'Fallon - New England journal , 1990 - Mass Medical Soc
Abstract Although fluoride increases bone mass, the newly formed bone may have reduced
strength. To assess the effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in osteoporosis, we
conducted a four-year prospective clinical trial in 202 postmenopausal women with
Cited by 1153 Related articles All 9 versions Cite Save
Effect of the fluoride/calcium regimen on vertebral fracture occurrence in postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparison with conventional therapy ...
BL Riggs, E Seeman, SF Hodgson - New England journal , 1982 - Mass Medical Soc
Abstract We assessed the rates of vertebral fracture in patients with postmenopausal
osteoporosis. Forty-five patients were not treated (91 person-years of observation); 59 were
treated conventionally, with calcium (alone or combined with estrogen) or vitamin D or
Cited by 583 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save
Effect of combined therapy with sodium fluoride, vitamin D and calcium in osteoporosis ...
J Jowsey, BL Riggs, PJ Kelly, DL Hoffman - The American journal of , 1972 - Elsevier
Abstract Fluoride administration in both man and animals has been shown to stimulate new
bone formation. However, the bone is poorly mineralized, and osteomalacia and secondary
hyperparathyroidism frequently occur. In this study we investigated the effect of variable
Cited by 297 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save
Risk-benefit ratio of sodium fluoride treatment in primary vertebral osteoporosis ...
N Mamelle, R Dusan, JL Martin, A Prost, PJ Meunier - The Lancet, 1988 - Elsevier
Abstract The risk-benefit ratio of combined fluoride-calcium therapy in primary vertebral
osteoporosis was examined prospectively in patients with at least one vertebral fracture. 257
patients were randomised to receive sodium fluoride 25 mg twice daily plus elemental
Cited by 245 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save
Ayn Rand used meth, not pot.
See Reid. V. Google in the 9th circuit. Google did not win this age discrimination suit.
It's more than just them, look up the word "ICANN".
In your world then NASA is a climate change denier:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Arctic ice stopped shrinking 5 years ago.
NASA photos:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Do you know enough to state unequivocally that everything he talks about doesn't work?
If the answer is yes would you care to put (a lot of) money on this?
That's not actually true at all.
http://projects.propublica.org...
Perhaps you saw the John Oliver rant that referenced this? If not here is it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who's he paid by?
There's nothing wrong with telling people about other things. Untested always mean ineffective.
The Herb Boneset was used by native Americans for fever. It was used by the Pennsylvania Dutch to survive the spanish influenza. But it's untested.
Actually chinese snake oil actually works - it' made from water snakes with a high Omega 3 content and is still sold today. It has proven efficacy at a topical liniment to relieve inflammation mostly in joints..
American snake oil was made from rattlesnakes who ate mice and contained no Omega 3 and didn't do anything. So it's really a pejorative of the patent medicine industry in the US, and a known working product in Asia. It says more about the person using it that doesn't know this than it does about anything else.
That is it's not really hokum the pharma industry just fucked it up without knowing what they were doing and never tested it properly. If you watch Ben Goldacre's Ted talk you'll see the exact same thing happens today and if you look at the history of scurvy it's been going on for at least 500 years.
And they always say they're right of course.
Evidence based medicine is commonly wrong because the evidence is interpreted incorrectly.
Around the 1600s, cedar leaf tae saved Jacques Cartier's crew from scurvy, 25 died the rest were save and when he got back to France was told there as no evidence this worked.
Prior to that Vasco de Gamma nearly diet near the Cape of Good Horn but his crew found eating citrus fixed it.
Hundreds of years later, evidence showed citrus prevented scurvy and it became institutionalized. Later it was boiled on copper kettles (which neutralize the C) and nobody noticed it didn't work any more as diets had improved, until sailors and polar explorers began dying. Similarly at around the same time the new process of warming babies milk to kill bacteria also killed the vitamin C and a new disease of the rich emerged: infantile scurvy. By 1933 vitamin C had be found and scurvy became much less widespread.
The point is scurvy has been around for 20 million years, it' s in recorded history for 5500 years but as of the Scott Antarctic expedition people were still dying of it despite cures being known since Egyptian times ("bitter herbs" all have ascorbate). It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's that there's a disruptive influence from commerce and industrialization. Some unintentional, some because of vested interest. History records that "the evidence was contradictory" and while this is true it never stopped being true that two fresh citrus a day prevented and even cured scurvy, of course more was better, ascorbate does not take up into the body in hours it takes days. so any time i the past 500 years it's been true people have been saying "look I know if I eat fresh fruit I won't get sick" while the medical community insisted, no, it' something else we disproved that. During Scott's antarctic mission the medically accepted ce for scurvy was a brew called "vitriol" containing sulphuric acid. That where evidence based medicine got you and this is one of the reason it's a UN right that you can deterring your own course of treatment to any illness. Science is just a sure it's right the nit's wrong as it is when it's right and it's been worn as recently as elat year, the recent fats ans cholesterol deacle as well as finding out sugar is the cause of cholesterol is proof at least to me that the conventional wisdom is neither.
It cannot be said this does not exist today. I'm not a TV guy and have only a very casual knowledge of the claims he made. ome I know are wrong and know why there are right and I know why but are rejected by industry. Given the near complete control by industry of antu to do with pharmaceuticals they are not the best ones to adjudicate this. The belief that if it's in our pharmacopoeia it's good and anything that isn't is bad it fatally flawed in many many ways.
I don't think they'll pursue this very far. All it's going to take is one thing Oz says that works that they say doesn't but actually does and now everything else they say is in question.
If you have unwavering faith in the pharmaceutical industry to be acting only out of the best interests of your health in an ethical manner at all times then you must not have seen these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://projects.propublica.org...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe"
Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.
In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?
Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change
In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).
It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.
Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.
Refs:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
https://books.google.ca/books?...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
You don't hear about the ones that get away with it, they tend to report crimes they solve.
That's crimes you know about, some just aren't reported - ask any cop about babies in dumpsters and why these never show up in newspapers.
"It is also interesting that 40 years of careful research into programming language design, including very sophisticated systems such as Algol 68 and Common Lisp, had absolutely no effect on the design of what are the most commonly used hack languages today. (PHP and C.)"
You may have won the Internet today. I salute you sir.
(btw I'm totally stealing this)
Don't use PHP. Use node. If you can't do that, use C. Not C# or C++, C. What, are you eight or something?
mtbf - 15 mins.
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?
Nope, digital.com predates symbolics.com. NSI screwed up the dates. Check with Reid who don't forget enabled BIND by paying Vixie to write it when they were both at DECWRL.How could anyhting predate the domain of the guys that wrote the code?
Everyone gets this wrong.
BIND was written at Digital when Brian Reid looked at Mockapetris spec and got Vixie to take the Berkeley B-Tree code and produce BIND.
Now what do you suppose the chances are that he didn't bother to grab digital.com? How bout zero? If you guessed that, you deserve a cookie.
Reid has the nic receipt for digital.com and it predates symbolics.com. February vs. March, NSI screwed up the dates in one of their transitions.
Ref: Brian Reid. Ask him yourself. This was explained on one of the domain mailing lists during the DNS wars.
Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.
Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.
And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"
Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.
Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.
Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/...
FROM JOHN DELOREAN.
>Apple Pay accepted at up to 100,000 Coke machines by the end of the year.
Wouldn't you expect them to say "It's gotten x degrees warmer every year" for some value of x?
Notice they stopped postings graphs of how much warmer it is? They used to.
The sum total of all harm is itemised in one paragraph: "The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years."
How can the sea rise only on 30% of beaches?
climte.gov has a nice temperature dashboard that has all the data you can play with and graph in realtime. May I suggest you go and look at it to find out what x is? Aren't you curious?
The explanation for the 30% figure is twofold. If you'll notice, where they ripped up all the trees, erosion takes place. In the Keys, whihc they can't touch, not so much.
Also, they've been pumping groundwater out for ages. Do you think this leaves behind a great huge hole and a vacuum? No really, the land sort of sinks:
http://www.nature.com/news/sou...
Bit of a chicken or the egg problem here - how do they differentiate from bad gut flora causing obesity and people who eat way too many carbs have bad gut flora because of it?
>I live in downtown Seattle so dial-up is the fastest connection I can get.
WOT?
I just noticed it's faster to download a large file than copy it from a second drive on the same machine. Why am I Saving these files?