Cutting carbon dioxide saves 3,500 US lives a year, study finds

The Obama Administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.

A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced—an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting .

Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Climate Change.

The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.

Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach.

The study finds that the rule would eliminate an average of 3,500 deaths a year—a range of lives saved from 780 to 6,100—with more than 1,000 of the lives saved in just four states that get lots of pollution from coal : Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and Illinois. The new regulation would reduce hospitalizations by 1,000 a year and heart attacks by 220 a year, the study says.

Cleaning the air as part of reducing has immediate and noticeable benefits, the authors said.

"There could be lives saved associated with the way we implement the policy," said study lead author Charles Driscoll, an environmental engineering professor at Syracuse. "Why not kill two birds with one stone if you can?"

Lab studies on animals show how soot and smog harm the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and epidemiological studies link tens of thousands of deaths each year to soot and smog pollution, said study co-author Joel Schwartz, a Harvard environmental epidemiologist. The study's authors examined 2,417 power plants and used computer models to project and track their emissions.

The study was praised by outside academics, the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental advocacy groups. But officials in the energy industry called it costly and flawed.

"This is more than just an academic exercise to the tens of millions of Americans who depend on affordable, reliable electricity to power their homes and places of work every day," said Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. "For them, this is about their livelihoods. Coal provides nearly 40 percent of the nation's electricity and its use is becoming cleaner all the time. And while these academics are hypothesizing about unprovable consequences, what's known is that families are struggling to pay their monthly bills and companies are struggling to stay in business - and any increase in energy costs will unnecessarily burden them. "

EPA, in a statement, said the study confirms their earlier research, which shows that for every dollar spent complying with the regulation, "Americans will see up to $7 in health benefits."

Three top science officials in the George W. Bush Administration who are now outside academics—George Gray at George Washington University, John D. Graham at Indiana University and Howard Frumkin at the University of Washington—praised the study to various degrees.

"This analysis is both sound and useful," Gray, former EPA science chief and now director of risk science and public health, wrote in an email. "The cool thing is the question they ask: What public health effects might occur due to changes in air pollutants as we act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?"


Explore further

Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions

More information: US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits,
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2598
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Cutting carbon dioxide saves 3,500 US lives a year, study finds (2015, May 4) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-carbon-dioxide-year.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
47 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 04, 2015
Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from coal or natural gas power have no adverse health impacts. In fact, it is essential for plant life on earth. Particulate pollution (soot) does have a negative impact on health but there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and particulate emissions. It is possible to reduce particulates from coal plants without reducing CO2 with scrubbers, which are already installed on coal plants. The Obama Administration's attempt to reduce CO2 would not reduce particulate pollution except tangentially by forcing the closure of coal plants.

What is left out of this study are the adverse health effects of more expensive electricity. For example, how many will die because they can't afford air conditioning or heating during heat waves or cold spells. Simply getting rid of coal plants is not a viable option until other, "cleaner", energy sources are brought online at similar costs to existing coal plants.

May 04, 2015
I seriously doubt the study. Politically motivated science is worse than that which is motivated by industry. Politicians are liars.

May 04, 2015
I seriously doubt the study. Politically motivated science is worse than that which is motivated by industry. Politicians are liars.


Indeed. In all such studies, the findings are actually just made up. There is no falsifying them since they are not based on any facts.

People have lived around the byproducts of burning for thousands of years. We are well able to deal with particulate matter in the air. And CO2 is not harmful at all in normal concentrations.

May 04, 2015
I'm very careful to drink around the bubbles. In my Bass Ale.

May 04, 2015
The Obama Administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide
The only people hotly debating are the republicans because three quarters of them (and probably more) are idiot deniers and anti-science wankers who object to having a clean and better world without CO2.


May 04, 2015
Aksdad,
That's the whole point of this study.
More green energy means less coal, which means cleaner air, which means healthier people, which means less health problems, which means less people dying of respiratory ailments.

It's as if everyone is smoking with the amount of daily cigarettes being equal to a certain amount of pollution released.
All this study really said was cutting atmospheric pollution makes you healthier, which is well established. the researchers were just attempting to quantify that idea.

May 04, 2015
Again with the putting the cart before the horse.
Lets make the villain harmless, and the real problem ancillary.

May 05, 2015
Again with the putting the cart before the horse.
Lets make the villain harmless, and the real problem ancillary.


The only cart we see is the one you're driving in... krusty hair and all... ;)

May 05, 2015
I seriously doubt the study. Politically motivated science is worse than that which is motivated by industry.
Quite so. All that scare mongering about tobacco is just motivated by so-called scientists getting more money the more alarmist they are. We shouldn't phase out tobacco until there is a cheap substitute. And Wakefield's study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, motivated by honest commercial interests, is much more reliable than all the government funded crap saying otherwise.

Politicians are liars.
While business interests make people honest, corporations being so much more accountable to the general public. Absolutely.

May 05, 2015
The problem is this:

The new regulation would reduce hospitalizations by 1,000 a year and heart attacks by 220 a year, the study says.


In a nation of 300 million people, a number like a thousand people is a drop in a bucket. If the proposed regulations hurt the economy by even a small amount, they're poised to -cause- more problems than they solve.

I.e. if the energy prices rise say 5% because of the regulations, many more people than that are going to die or become ill indirectly because they lose their jobs, become poor, homeless etc. etc. and can't afford proper food or medical care anymore.

That's because a single percentage point of just about anything in scale of a nation the size of the US affects millions of people. You shave one percentage point off somewhere and a thousand people go out of work.

This has nothing to do with CO2 or AGW or fossil fuels per se. It's just plain unintended consequences of trying to micromanage and save everyone.


May 05, 2015
howhot2,
The only people hotly debating are the republicans because three quarters of them (and probably more) are idiot deniers and anti-science wankers who object to having a clean and better world without CO2.


Wow. You managed to insult half the political population and everyone who gives thought to the issues in a single sentence. For your information, a world without CO2 is a mostly dead world. Only a few specialized single celled organisms would remain. CO2 is essential for organized life on this planet.

May 05, 2015
The price of energy is an especially powerful driver of economics, because it affects everyone and nothing gets done without energy. The price of energy experiences a positive feedback when it comes to consumer prices.

Think for example: a farmer needs energy to till fields, a food processing plant needs energy to make bread, a retail chain needs energy to supply the bread to the customers.

Suppose we increase overall energy prices by 5% to all. The farmer passes the cost on to the processing plant, which passes the cost on to the retail chain, which passes the cost on to the customer. Suddenly the customer is paying not only 5% more for their own energy use, but 3x the increase for the bread they buy, so the effect for the man on the street is multiplied. Since the man now pays extra for his daily bread, he needs a wage raise, and so the guy he's working for pays more, and then the next guy, and the next, and so it goes.


May 05, 2015
The only solution to the accumulating cost problem is that someone somewhere along the line accepts their fate and absorbs the loss. It may be the farmer, the food processer, the customer, or the customer's employer, or their customer - most likely all of them to various degrees.

So the farmer makes less money and has to let go a farmhand. The food processer sees increasing cost and lays a worker off. The customer decides to go on a diet or delay the purchase of a new car to save money... which means the car manufacturer lays off a couple engineers because the cars aren't selling as well.

Living standards drop all across the board, and the people at the bottom start to fall out. This is why it's so important with the removal and replacement of fossil fuels, you do not significantly increase the cost of energy.

Otherwise you might as well line the poor up to shoot them. That could arguably be more humane than death by poverty.

May 05, 2015
Another way to look at the matter is to note that the energy sector represents about 8-10% of the GDP of a typical western nation. For less than a tenth of all our money - which is ultimately almost the same thing as energy that we are investing - we produce the energy necessary to run the other 9/10 of the country. We're running at a total EROEI of about 9:1.

Whatever happens to the energy prices changes this relationship. Increase energy cost, and this "social EROEI" must drop, meaning less energy and money for all the other functions of society.

It's estimated that we face social collapse below about 8:1 which is just ~12% higher in cost, all other things remaining constant. Our improvements in efficiency through history has reduced the minimum necessary surplus, but we run into foreseeable practical limits at around 6:1 (+50%) and absolute thermodynamic limits at around 3:1 (+200%).

That's the cost margins we're dealing with.

May 05, 2015
The new regulation would reduce hospitalizations by 1,000 a year and heart attacks by 220 a year, the study says.


Unlikely.

More likely you will see a one-time delay in those events by about a year, and then the curve will just return to about what it always was.

Its like the healthy guy dying at 47 and some other guy drinks and smokes his whole life and lives to a 90, which happens.

May 05, 2015

More likely you will see a one-time delay in those events by about a year, and then the curve will just return to about what it always was.


Everyone dies eventually. Nothing you can do stops that.

This is really about lost productivity, because these people become ill and die when they're 40,50,60 while they could be working and generating tax revenue until they're 65-70 or whenever they decide to retire.

A larger portion of the population becomes unable to work before their time due to various preventable diseases, and the society gets less out of the investment into their training and education. Of course if it was just the homeless bums dying of lung cancer, people wouldn't care so much.

May 06, 2015
aksdad claims
Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from coal or natural gas power have no adverse health impacts
Except it increases background radiation:-
https://en.wikipe...exposure

aksdad states In fact, it is essential for plant life on earth Indeed but at the correct level, higher CO2 results in some food plants producing cyanogens which become poison

aksdad claims
Simply getting rid of coal plants is not a viable option until other, "cleaner", energy sources are brought online at similar costs to existing coal plants.
Natural gas is obviously a better move & incrementally appropriate, it is obviously a dynamic and renewables are coming on stream and with recent improvements in battery technology and Eg Tesla corps latest announcement will likely see others advancing battery engineering & exploit record low interest rates to allow those renewable's to become more widely used :-)

May 06, 2015
Imagine how much can be saved if these AGW Chicken Little hypocrites stopped breathing.

May 07, 2015
Imagine how much can be saved if you and your lardass bafoon sockpuppets stop farting.

May 08, 2015
dogbert claimed
CO2 is essential for organized life on this planet.
Yet the more CO2 we have the more disorganised he anti-AGW crowd become as they grasp at straws and fail dismally to get an education in radiative heat transfer:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Tell us dogbert as we are only feebly educated & only understand Physics & not your cognition

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with proven irrefutable thermal properties to the atmosphere, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Logical to then conclude, as dogbert surely cannot answer this, that dogbert & his kind are deniers of Physics !

Been in a physics lab dogbert, learned anything at all about how matter functions & the FACT everything gives off light ALL the time ALL around you everywhere that you just cannot see or think ?

so sad, political emotional hypnosis has set in, Physics will return you to the dust from whence you came, your contribution is nought

May 08, 2015
So tell us Mike your reasoning on how life on this planet other than specialized single celled organisms could survive without CO2. That was howhot2's claim a well and he declined to provide the scientific basis for his claim. Why don't you support your claim with science?

May 08, 2015
Imagine how much can be saved if you and your lardass bafoon sockpuppets stop farting.
--HeloMeneloTurd
You sound like, you smell like, you've inhaled it all.

May 08, 2015
How many die each year from socialist tyrannies?

May 08, 2015
dogbert addressed
That was howhot2's claim a well and he declined to provide the scientific basis for his claim
Sigh, it isnt obvious to you he meant to say 'extra' or 'CO2 problem', its in reference to politics as its clear the republicans have an immense bias away for definitive Science processes & many don't have much interest in that area...

dogbert claims
Why don't you support your claim with science?
I didn't make a claim, I asked a question, did you also make a slip up or have comprehension problems, here it is again, it is a question !

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with proven irrefutable thermal properties to the atmosphere, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Be good if you could answer the question and whilst at it, get a handle on the Physics as per:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Surely I've asked you this a few times but, nothing or from your 'close associates' ;-)

nada, zero, zilch :-(

May 08, 2015
My statement was that we had to have CO2 in response to howhot2's statement that we don't need CO2. You said I was wrong and I asked you to support your assertion. Instead, you avoid the question and ask me to prove an assertion I never made. Typical avoidance strategy.

May 08, 2015
dogbert claimed
You said I was wrong and I asked you to support your assertion
No. I offered an opinion & here it is "Yet the more CO2 we have the more disorganised he anti-AGW crowd become as they grasp at straws and fail dismally to get an education in radiative heat transfer"

Its called sarcasm

dogbert claims
Instead, you avoid the question and ask me to prove an assertion I never made
No. I never challenged your comment re CO2

dogbert claims
Typical avoidance strategy.
No. The Evidence is clear, I only offered a sarcastic opinion to your observation, which was "..CO2 is essential for organized life on this planet.."

Of course your statement I prefaced as claim because its woefully incomplete, it depends just how much CO2 is "essential", too much then too much warming & higher cyanogens in some food plants etc

Would you have been happier if I had asked you for evidence, obviously not, you are wasting my time but, whats worse yours too ?

May 08, 2015
"most of the report's authors have been given enormous amounts of money by the EPA, far beyond the sums routinely depicted as creating unacceptable conflicts of interest when climate-change skeptics produce work for private organizations. The total grants add up to some $45 million. That, in turn, is a mere fraction of the money riding on these new EPA regulations.

This is a study expressly intended to support a power grab by the EPA. "
"Also keenly interested in bringing attention to the benefits of carbon controls: the bureaucrats who enforce them. In this case, those bureaucrats gave a great deal of money to the scientists who conducted a study supporting the agenda of the agency, and those scientists have every reason to expect more financial support in the future… provided the global-warming gravy train keeps rumbling along."
http://www.breitb...parties/

May 08, 2015
Imagine how much can be saved if you and your lardass bafoon sockpuppets stop farting.
--HeloMeneloTurd
You sound like, you smell like, you've inhaled it all.


Playing the trumpet through your arse again, speak don't fart.. ;) Perhaps then you could one day get something other than a 1 out of five rating.. ;) now..... keep those dumb comments rolling gorillamonkey, perhaps you can top 200 where your sockpuppet waterclown failed ? (or did he forget to leave mental class today).... :D

May 08, 2015
dogbert claimed
You said I was wrong and I asked you to support your assertion
No. I offered an opinion & here it is "Yet the more CO2 we have the more disorganised he anti-AGW crowd become as they grasp at straws and fail dismally to get an education in radiative heat transfer"

Its called sarcasm

dogbert claims
Instead, you avoid the question and ask me to prove an assertion I never made
No. I never challenged your comment re CO2

dogbert claims
Typical avoidance strategy.
No. The Evidence is clear, I only offered a sarcastic opinion to your observation, which was "..CO2 is essential for organized life on this planet.."

Excellent, now that we threw them the bait, let's watch them roll like monkeys in a circus proving to the world how proudly dumb they are, finally the show is back in full flare... C'mon monkeys your target is 200 dumb comment, kick it into high gear.

May 08, 2015
hee haw.. hee haw..., speak don't fart.. hee haw.... hee haw
-- helomeneloTurd
My farts are more eloquent and intelligent than your speech, plus they smell way better.

May 08, 2015
My statement was that we had to have CO2 in response to howhot2's statement that we don't need CO2. You said I was wrong and I asked you to support your assertion. Instead, you avoid the question and ask me to prove an assertion I never made. Typical avoidance strategy.

Of course. The avoidance strategy is yours dogfart. You knew I didn't mean CO2 levels below pre-industrial levels of 286ppm. (Which by the way was the CO2 levels the earth experienced for millions of years. Pre-human industrialization).

We are at 403.26ppm for April and oddly enough I can remember a newspaper article from back in the 1995 when CO2 broke 350ppm. I never thought I would see 400ppm. I thought mankind was smarter.

May 08, 2015
howhot2,
You knew I didn't mean CO2 levels below pre-industrial levels of 286ppm.


Really? So why did you say:
The only people hotly debating are the republicans because three quarters of them (and probably more) are idiot deniers and anti-science wankers who object to having a clean and better world without C02.


You obviously meant exactly what you said and if I had not pointed out to you that a world without CO2 would not support complex life, you would not have backpedaled.

You made a serious mistake. You could have said "I made a serious mistake.", but the left can never admit to making a mistake. So you choose instead to lie and insult.

You are so driven by your political agenda that you can no longer see such simple truths as the fact that CO2 is essential for life on this planet. This is to be expected any time you elevate politics over scientific reality.

May 09, 2015
hee haw.. hee haw..., speak don't fart.. hee haw.... hee haw
-- helomeneloTurd
My farts are more eloquent and intelligent than your speech, plus they smell way better.


naa, your unintelligent comments and low ratings througout prove the opposite, only you and your mental classmates think so, but hey, keeps the smile on my face while the world is laughing... ;)


May 09, 2015
dogbert claimed
You are so driven by your political agenda that you can no longer see such simple truths as the fact that CO2 is essential for life on this planet
No. Politics doesn't come into the thermal properties of any greenhouse gas. Facts however, suggest that commercial inertia mainly big oil/coal & entrenched US republican approach & conservatives elsewhere RESIST change re status quo - so they react & bark/cry political agenda whilst IGNORING Science & trying to obfuscate, shame !

dogbert do you know ANY Physics, properties of materials ie Essential Science ?

dogbert claims
This is to be expected any time you elevate politics over scientific reality.
What is the Scientific reality dogbert go on ?

Is your best skill only barking at sidelines ?

Why not get an education, community college is great start in this essential core settled issue
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Everything radiates ALL the time, balance is crucial !

May 09, 2015
dogbert, I understand you clearly, despite the attempts of detractors to misdirect what you're saying.
Whatever your education, your reach seems well within you grasp.
Well thoughtout and germane, and I see no mistakes due to presumption.

May 09, 2015
Water_Prophet states
dogbert, I understand you clearly, despite the attempts of detractors to misdirect what you're saying
Of course as Water_Prophet doesnt understand Science either, birds of a feather, so Water_Prophet predictably keen for acceptance of his delusions will support likewise untenable opinions whether political or otherwise...

Water_Prophet claims
Whatever your education, your reach seems well within you grasp
Which means what ?

Water_Prophet claims
Well thoughtout and germane, and I see no mistakes due to presumption
Water_Prophet doesn't understand basic philosophy, the mistake is the presumption & even then its mature to offer some supporting paradigm, citation or evidence

@dogbert are you also like Water_Prophet, unable to prove your claims, you do realise that Water_Prophet has history making claims that he has NEVER proven or even addressed in ANY Scientific framework...

Is it mature dogbert/Water_Prophet to deny basic Physics ?

May 09, 2015
Mike_Massen,
dogbert are you also like Water_Prophet, unable to prove your claims


You are the person making claims you cannot prove. What claims have I made that I cannot support? Are you back on your CO2 is not necessary bandwagon? Or is it something else?

May 09, 2015
hee haw.. hee haw..., speak don't fart.. hee haw.... hee haw
-- helomeneloTurd
My farts are more eloquent and intelligent than your speech, plus they smell way better.


naa, ..heee....hawwww
--helomeneloTurd
Whoa... careful there TurdBrain, or you might just hurt someone's feelings. You know, it's tough to decide what I "admire" most about you. Is it your abject Turd brain stupidity, or your foul Turd breath.

May 09, 2015
dogbert claims
You are the person making claims you cannot prove
No, if you refer most recently I asked a QUESTION I make in response note: STILL not answered, can you take it step by step, because you often (not just on this thread) but, twist language to suite your bias or fail to comprehend :-(

dogbert asked
What claims have I made that I cannot support?
Well I don't know if you are STILL unable to support them but, you don't offer any support, you bark & run & often don't respond. Eg Some are

"This is to be expected any time you elevate politics over scientific reality"
"..but the left can never admit to making a mistake"
"Why don't you support your claim with science?"
"..the findings are actually just made up"
".There is no falsifying them since they are not based on any facts"

dogbert claimed
Are you back on your CO2 is not necessary bandwagon?
No. NEVER said CO2 is not necessary - you are very confused or prove it !

Physics is smarter ?

May 09, 2015
Mike_Massen,
Well I don't know if you are STILL unable to support them but, you don't offer any support, you bark & run & often don't respond. Eg Some are

"This is to be expected any time you elevate politics over scientific reality"
"..but the left can never admit to making a mistake"
"Why don't you support your claim with science?"
"..the findings are actually just made up"
".There is no falsifying them since they are not based on any facts"


So, again, what claims have I made that I cannot support. None of the above are scientific claims at all. They are simply observations.

You claim, for example, that the small amount of carbon dioxide man releases is destroying the climate of the earth. A claim which neither you (nor any of the actual scientists who claim it) has proven.

continued...


May 09, 2015
When I point out that AGW is a political agenda, I am merely stating the obvious observation which is easily confirmed by the actions of the people supporting it. The IPCC and all their ilk seek the redistribution of resources as a solution to CO2. Redistributing resources through carbon credits and other such schemes does nothing to control the release of CO2, but it does redistribute resources.

You never prove that carbon dioxide is destroying the climate of the earth. No one has. You don't even know why we have had several ice ages. You don't know what causes us to enter an ice age nor do you know what causes us to leave an ice age. We have been leaving the last ice age for the past 20,000 years, warming to the present. You don't know why, but you want everyone to believe that a little CO2 is at fault.

Support your own scientific claims. I have not made any which need supporting.

May 09, 2015
@dogbert

When I point out that AGW is a political agenda, I am merely stating the obvious observation which is easily confirmed by the actions of the people supporting it. The IPCC and all their ilk seek the redistribution of resources as a solution to CO2. Redistributing resources through carbon credits and other such schemes does nothing to control the release of CO2, but it does redistribute resources.

You never prove that carbon dioxide is destroying the climate of the earth. No one has. You don't even know why we have had several ice ages. You don't know what causes us to enter an ice age nor do you know what causes us to leave an ice age. We have been leaving the last ice age for the past 20,000 years, warming to the present. You don't know why, but you want everyone to believe that a little CO2 is at fault.

Support your own scientific claims. I have not made any which need supporting.


LMFAO!

May 09, 2015
dogbert,
Yeah, it's been over 50 years and I have yet to see positive inarguable evidence. Even Journals never eliminate sufficient variables, or worse.

50 years, I think they've used up all faith.

May 10, 2015
hee haw.. hee haw..., speak don't fart.. hee haw.... hee haw
-- helomeneloTurd
My farts are more eloquent and intelligent than your speech, plus they smell way better.


naa, ..heee....hawwww
--helomeneloTurd
Whoa... careful there TurdBrain, or you might just hurt someone's feelings. You know, it's tough to decide what I "admire" most about you. Is it your abject Turd brain stupidity, or your foul Turd breath.


Naa i'm having a ball with my intelligent friends here, and so do they watching you making a bafoon of yourself,(cough... that fits your name quite adequetly...cough..cough..) c'mon monkey you can get past the 1 out of 5 mark if you really try hard ;)

May 10, 2015
aaaah the monkeys really getting out to play today, we got almost all the monkeys in one circus right here and i just love giving those one out of 5 ratings (and so does my scientist friends)... now now monkeys... 200s the mark...team up and show us your stuff !

May 10, 2015
dogbert claims
So, again, what claims have I made that I cannot support
the ones I listed.
dogbert claims
None of the above are scientific claims at all
Doesnt matter they are still claims beside they impact the Science some more than others

dogbert claims
They are simply observations
Which makes them claims. Observing & reporting equals making a claim to have knowledge/interpretation. If I observe a person speaks & report on it, then its a claim. You have trouble comprehending the simple.

dogbert claims
You claim, for example, that the small amount of carbon dioxide man releases is destroying the climate of the earth
You are LYING, I NEVER made such a claim, ever, you have been shown up now to be a complete lair AND cheat you have ZERO credibility.

That is one of your problems, faking what people say so you can attempt to continue propaganda !

Apologise Please you are way off the mark and resort to the gutter, not smart !

May 10, 2015
dogbert claims
When I point out that AGW is a political agenda, I am merely stating the obvious observation which is easily confirmed by the actions of the people supporting it
No. Its a claim, the Science precedes political interpretation.

Physics of GHG's & their radiative forcings is proven, testable, verified & settled !

dogbert claims
The IPCC and all their ilk seek the redistribution of resources as a solution to CO2
No. It is a Science body, government in each country can interpret obviously private enterprise has shown best efficiency to change !

dogbert claims
You never prove that carbon dioxide is destroying the climate of the earth
Again, I have NEVER made that claim you weasel LIAR !

And I doubt any credible scientist has, you are easily influenced by political propaganda.

If/When you get an education in Physics you will become immune to politics & if you are not, then its evident.

I observe, You write as if paid to lie & obfuscate

May 10, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Yeah, it's been over 50 years and I have yet to see positive inarguable evidence. Even Journals never eliminate sufficient variables, or worse 50 years,..
Evidence of what, that CO2 is the cause as its thermal properties are well known.

You LIAR & CHEAT Water_Prophet, you have played ugly with many earnest scientists on this web site but have nothing to offer, you have taken up people's time giving you sound education opportunities as if you were genuine & been offensive slandering runrig & others who have the integrity to show you Physics but, you FAIL in simple polite communication protocols.

Water_Prophet you are not a scientist despite your claims of "4 technical degrees" and by the way you write you can never become a scientist, your many LIES & OBFUSCATION shows you up to be either paid to downplay the evident radiative forcing of GHG's or your entrenched Dunning_Kruger indicates you have a mental problem !

Please ban Water_Prophet

May 10, 2015
Mike_Masson,
dogbert claims

You claim, for example, that the small amount of carbon dioxide man releases is destroying the climate of the earth


You are LYING, I NEVER made such a claim, ever, you have been shown up now to be a complete lair AND cheat you have ZERO credibility.

That is one of your problems, faking what people say so you can attempt to continue propaganda !

Apologise Please you are way off the mark and resort to the gutter, not smart !


It would be good for you to decide where you stand. You promote the AGW agenda constantly. If you have suddenly decided that global warming is not a problem any more, simply say that you have changed your mind and that global warming is not a problem.

If you have decided that human production of CO2 is irrelevant to global climate, just say so.

You don't have to scream. A simple statement will suffice.

May 10, 2015
dogbert claims but cannot read
It would be good for you to decide where you stand
My posts are sufficient evidence but, an education in Physics is helpful to understand the impact. I promote education, knowledge of Physics and am against the dicks who weasel & LIE about claims as YOU have.

dogbert claims
You promote the AGW agenda constantly
What agenda, prove it?

I focus mostly on Science, in that respect Physics & Evidence

I bring LIARs & CHEATS to account, especially when they LIE about what I wrote !

dogbert claims
If you have suddenly decided that global warming is not a problem any more, simply say that you have changed your mind and that global warming is not a problem
No. You are WRONG again, CO2 IS a problem, climate IS changing, its complex for uneducated to understand

dogbert states
A simple statement will suffice.
So READ my posts & dont LIE about what I've written, its wastes time.

Be smarter & get education in Physics please

May 10, 2015
Mike, you call me a liar when I say you support the AGW agenda; when I say that you say human generated CO2 is a problem; and when I say that you say that CO2 is destroying our climate. Then you say this:

No. You are WRONG again, CO2 IS a problem, climate IS changing...


Don't know how to respond to someone who says one thing, then says the opposite -- in the same post.

You really need to examine your beliefs. Choose something and stay with it.

Perhaps you cannot be honest even with yourself.

May 10, 2015
aaaah the...hee haww....hee....haww... i just love giving those one out of 5 ... hee haww...hee...haww !
--helomeneloDonkey
Says the Turd brain with an IQ of 1.

May 10, 2015
dogbert with cognition problems claims
Mike, you call me a liar when I say you support the AGW agenda
No. I called you a LIAR & PROOF is clear when you claimed I said that "CO2 is destroying the climate". Never said it

dogbert needs to re-read
when I say that you say human generated CO2 is a problem; and when I say that you say that CO2 is destroying our climate
No. You misread AGAIN, you fail at cognition of causes of AGW & FAIL at comprehension, take it step by step, re-read & see your mistake

dogbert claims
Then you say this:
No. You are WRONG again, CO2 IS a problem, climate IS changing..
I did say CO2 is a problem BUT, you misread your own post, you claimed I said "CO2 is NOT a problem" - I NEVER said that - point to it then ?

dogbert claims
..how to respond to someone who says one thing, then says the opposite..
Please dogbert, take a breath, re-read, you will see I NEVER said "CO2 wasn't a problem", you misread your OWN quote !

May 10, 2015
@dogbert

1
Please get some practice with using the browser feature of "searching within the page" and you will plainly see that the first use of the word "destroy" or the phrase "destroying the climate" is by YOU.

2
My comments in respect of destroy or the phrase is to address your claim I used it, thats all, thats it.

3
I guess you might be think I said it on another thread, am a little sympathetic to you as on reflection this cognition issue has arisen before with you, so I have discounted your slandering me for time being but, please take a breath, don't get yourself into a lather & if you are really sure I did claim "CO2 is destroying the climate" or words to that effect then FIND IT, link it & I will apologise. I am more than damn sure I didn't & I still await your reply as to what "AGW Agenda" you imagine I follow ?

To help you, pls use google's site specific search, in google dialog use:-

site:phys.org CO2 "destroying the climate" Mike_Massen

capisce' ?

May 10, 2015
It's a double whammy , waterclown pulled gorilla and dogfart both into the silkwormbox, o this is going to be stellar lol.... the box is a present to the world full of hilarious entertainment, c'mon monkeys team up and show the world the dumber the three can be... ;) a..a.... i'm watchin ya... remember 200s the mark..

Brilliantly said Mike, ooooo man it really gets rubbed in tonight :)

May 10, 2015
dogbert
Like most of the prominent AGW voices on this site, they are so insecure that individuals have multiple accounts.
Mike_M and Helmenelo are the same person, of course. Note "neither of them" provide anything more substantive then insults.

DLK=Capt Sumply="thermodynamics", more.

I guess I'm losing track of them. They are characterized by not being able to assimilate new information, or change opinions.

May 10, 2015
It's a double whammy , waterclown pulled gorilla and dogfart both into the silkwormbox, o this is going to be stellar lol.... the box is a present to the world full of hilarious entertainment, c'mon monkeys team up and show the world the dumber the three can be... ;) a..a.... i'm watchin ya... remember 200s the mark..

Brilliantly said Mike, ooooo man it really gets rubbed in tonight :)

The donkey turd says, what?

May 10, 2015
Mike,
You obviously like to play word games words declaring that you did not say something because you did not use that particular word, but you continue to say you did not claim CO2 was a problem followed by you claiming it is a problem.

Sad that you cannot plainly state a position and defend it.

May 10, 2015
dogbert claimed
You obviously like to play word games words declaring that you did not say something because you did not use that particular word, but you continue to say you did not claim CO2 was a problem followed by you claiming it is a problem
No. No word games, then show it - can you ?

Have been consistent but, you've inserted words to suit YOUR (narrow political) ideology of what you 'think' I said to suit your banal brand of unintelligent conformational bias provoking confrontation, that's NOT smart, its part of the obvious paradigm attempting obfuscation

Clear evidence, pleas re-read my posts, if think otherwise then post CLEARLY ?

4
Never claimed/implied "CO2 is not a problem"->

5
Never claimed/implied "CO2 is destroying climate"->

> in either that phrase or anything of equivalent paradigm, if you imagine then SHOW it definitively ?

STILL waiting for you to articulate what "AGW Agenda" you imagine I follow, why haven't you ?

Physics dogbert FFS

May 10, 2015
Water_Prophet with his usual robotic dumb claims
Mike_M and Helmenelo are the same person, of course. Note "neither of them" provide anything more substantive then insults
No.
a. I don't & never had duplicate accounts ever, I have my own domain & live in Western Australia
&
b. anyone can check with admins, don't know where Helomenlo is but guess USA

Water_Prophet shows his immense stupidity again, obfuscating

Water_Prophet claims
I guess I'm losing track of them. They are characterized by not being able to assimilate new information, or change opinions
Water_Prophet seems to have hit a particular rusty nail in his disparate feeble intellect.

Water_Prophet imagines he can use so called gedanken/intuitive wording to change the opinions of others but, FAILS to understand Science is way ahead of him, Water_Prophet would have been comfortable in medieval times where Science was dulled by flaccid logic

Water_Prophet prove your claims, Eg Start with CO2 !

May 10, 2015
OK Mike.
You don't claim CO2 is bad.
You don't claim CO2 is good.
You just don't have an opinion. But you bark at everyone who doesn't support the AGWites.

You should actually form an opinion if you want to comment.

May 10, 2015
It's a double whammy , waterclown pulled gorilla and dogfart both into the silkwormbox, o this is going to be stellar lol.... the box is a present to the world full of hilarious entertainment, c'mon monkeys team up and show the world the dumber the three can be... ;) a..a.... i'm watchin ya... remember 200s the mark..

Brilliantly said Mike, ooooo man it really gets rubbed in tonight :)

The donkey turd says, what?


Your donkey says you're dumb, and so does the Scientists :D and your ratings ;)

May 10, 2015
Waterclown does not even know how to check for duplicate sockpuppets... no wonder he's been cought red handed with all his clones...lol..

May 10, 2015
Mike,
You obviously like to play word games words declaring that you did not say something because you did not use that particular word, but you continue to say you did not claim CO2 was a problem followed by you claiming it is a problem.

Sad that you cannot plainly state a position and defend it.


Nope Mike is doing what he does best, Science and you know what that means... you guessed it... making clowns of you and your sockpuppets stuck under the iron fist of your silkwormymasters... and the world loves to see you clowns being humiliated... here monkey monkey.. have another 1 out of 5 lol... ;)

May 10, 2015
dogbert FAILS again at comprehension with
You don't claim CO2 is bad.
You don't claim CO2 is good.
You just don't have an opinion
Wrong. I have stated my position, note context of my posts re warming etc, I have also offered other issues ie Higher CO2 leads some food plants to shift equilibria to produce cyanogens

Too complex for dogbert, can 't he understand CO2 increasing is a major problem & especially so re ocean acidification which I & others have also commented

dogbert get it through your thick skull in simple grammar, from me, to educate you.

Increased CO2 is a problem in context with its well known irrefutable thermal properties re AGW

ok ?

dogbert claims
But you bark at everyone who doesn't support the AGWites
No. You distort & obfuscate AGAIN. I challenge those that LIE about it, those that CHEAT, those that have been here long enough to know BETTER ie You.

dogbert, STILL waiting show the "AGW Agenda" you claim I follow ?

Physics dogbert !

May 10, 2015
drivel.

May 10, 2015
drivel.

Double drivel.

May 11, 2015
O shoot, shooti shot himself in the foot again, (was it because perhaps he smelled a dogfart again.. ? ) lol...
As always well said Mike... :)

sorry howhot accidentally downvoted you, 5/5 for your comment there.

May 11, 2015
Mike_Masson,
dogbert, STILL waiting show the "AGW Agenda" you claim I follow ?


So you are saying that AGW is not real, is not something to be concerned about?
Do you actually have an opinion about anything?
What is your position on AGW?

Before you get started, we all know your opinions about personalities. What is your position on AGW?

May 11, 2015
Those unable to understand common sense or inability to realize they are conscious (ie those still in mental school) usually won't register the countless of times Mike has given his view on AGW... ;)

May 11, 2015
O shoot, shooti shot himself in the foot again, (was it because perhaps he smelled a dogfart again.. ? ) lol...
As always well said Mike... :)

sorry howhot accidentally downvoted you, 5/5 for your comment there.

The Donkey Turd did whaaaattt?

May 11, 2015
HeloMenlo,
Are you a sick puppet for Mike?

I haven't been able to pin Mike down on anything. I have asked him to simply state what he believes about AGW. Why don't you back off and let's see if he will take a stand?

May 11, 2015
I meant to say "sock puppet".

May 11, 2015
Now, now dogbert, antigore:
Be patient. Let's see who shows up to defend helo and mikey now that you're on to them.

May 11, 2015
Thanks for poppin in to say goodnite my monkeys, it's been fun, see ya'll tomorrow... ;)

May 12, 2015
dogbert can't type
Mike_Masson
Be smarter, Its Mike_Massen, copy/paste is fine, I don't munt your nick !

dogbert claims
So you are saying that AGW is not real, is not something to be concerned about?
NEVER said it wasn't real & I'm concerned

dogbert claims
Do you actually have an opinion about anything?
My posts indicate it clearly for those able to comprehend, read my posts/links & esp. understand the Physics is settled

dogbert asks
What is your position on AGW?
Based upon Physics & Evidence re change in Earth's heat balance - primary cause of this additional heat is from human related activity, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming & Climate Change is a valid proposition & especially so as Evidence continues to mount

dogbert asked twice
What is your position on AGW?
dogbert STILL hasn't answered my question
..waiting show the "AGW Agenda" you claim I follow ?
Smarter & polite to answer my question first before asking more ?

May 12, 2015
Water_Prophet attempts to distract AGAIN
Now, now dogbert, antigore:
Be patient. Let's see who shows up to defend helo and mikey now that you're on to them.
Nothing to address his claims, science, proof or even simple maths consistent with radiative transfer.

ie. Why can't Water_Prophet prove ANY of his claims.

From "4 technical degrees" to his faked figure for CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2?

& the worst of all easily CAUGHT claims his 0.00009W/m^2 is in "great agreement" with wiki's of 1.5.

How can a ratio of 16,666 times from Water_Prophet's claim be a "great agreement" - its NUTS ?

How can one deal with this sort of immense delusion on a Science site where Physics is so very important and understand and especially so by someone who claims to be a "Physical Chemist" ?

so sad

May 12, 2015
Shootist claims
drivel
When he should know how to Read & Comprehend technical language, h'es been on this forum since February 24, 2008 & COULD have got a degree or even a community college certification in essential Physics of radiative transfer but, FAILS to progress.

Pertinent for Shootist

Dunce
Retards
Inquiry &
Vacuous
Errors in
Language

or

Dunce
Reviles
Intelligent
Vocabulary
Entrenching
Laziness

Shootist has been here SO long yet is persistently anti-Science, hasn't brought anything of value to proceed his political agenda, a huge fail, the occasional attempted anti-AGW links also FAIL.

If only after 7+ yrs of his naive puerile attempts & dumb one liners he got just ONE technical study unit/Physics certification under his belt he 'might' be a force to be reckoned with.

But, sad thing is if Shootist were educated he'd be immune to naive propaganda

Dunce
Reaches
Impotent
Vertigo
Engendering
Loquaciousness

The common is Dunce

May 12, 2015
Mike,
Now that we have established that you believe in AGW, do you support the IPCC's recommendations?

May 12, 2015
dogbert who finally got part of my name right claims
Now that we have established that you believe in AGW, do you support the IPCC's recommendations?
NO. !

FFS, I have NEVER said I "believe in AGW".

I made it VERY clear so don't you try & F..king weasel a different view from that explicitly told you !

Nb. You STILL haven't proven your claim I follow "AGW Agenda" - what is it ?

dogbert, you come across like Shootist, an anti-Science dimwit & LAIR who, at the drop of a hat, makes claims I wrote things which Evidence SHOWS I didn't, it shows you fail INTEGRITY !

Have stated my position clearly unequivocally:-
"Based upon Physics & Evidence re change in Earth's heat balance - primary cause of this additional heat is from human related activity, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming & Climate Change is a valid proposition & especially so as Evidence continues to mount"

What particular IPPC recommendation do you imagine I might ever follow ?

Physics dogbert !

May 12, 2015
What is your position on AGW?

Mike_Massen,
Based upon Physics & Evidence re change in Earth's heat balance - primary cause of this additional heat is from human related activity, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming & Climate Change is a valid proposition & especially so as Evidence continues to mount


Now that we have established that you believe in AGW, do you support the IPCC's recommendations?

Mike_Massen
NO. !

FFS, I have NEVER said I "believe in AGW".


I just wanted to establish your vacillation on everything. You spend your time telling people you don't agree with how stupid they are and how scientific you are, but when pressed to support your position, you don't have a position. You never said whatever you said.

You not only fail to support your position, you lack the courage to take a position and defend it.

You waste everyone's time to no purpose.

May 13, 2015
dogbert claims
I just wanted to establish your vacillation on everything
No. You have STILL failed to prove your claim I am following your imagined "AGW Agenda" and NEVER stated what it is - why not ?

dogbert claims
You spend your time telling people you don't agree with how stupid they are and how scientific you are, but when pressed to support your position, you don't have a position
No. Evidence is clear & especially with YOU, I've spent my time bringing YOU to account as YOU often attempt to twist what I say to try to provoke a confrontation or force me into a position consistent with your political bias !

dogbert claims
You never said whatever you said
No. You asked my position as you obviously couldn't make sense of the Physics I commented upon. I stated my position, the evidence is clear !

dogbert claims
You not only fail to support your position, you lack the courage to take a position and defend it
Pls re-read, in my last post :-)

cont

May 13, 2015
dogbert claims
You not only fail to support your position, you lack the courage to take a position and defend it
Position is clear but, unfortunately dogbert can't understand it, its based on EVIDENCE re Physics re discipline of Science.

Here for YOUR record is my specific position re AGW:-

"Based upon Physics & Evidence re change in Earth's heat balance - primary cause of this additional heat is from human related activity, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming & Climate Change is a valid proposition & especially so as Evidence continues to mount"

Do I need to clarify ?

Aalready supported this position by referring to EVIDENCE & likely ~100+ times on lots of threads on phys.org for at least two years.

dogbert claims
You waste everyone's time to no purpose
No. YOU asked my position & I have stated it.

Sad you don't like it because you cannot find a political angle to attack me !

dogbert FAILs to prove his claim I follow "AGW Agenda" what is it ?

May 13, 2015
dogbert, I think you're doing just fine.

The problem is your opponent can't do anything more than glimmering generalizations.

May 14, 2015
Water_Prophet thinks
dogbert, I think you're doing just fine
Of course, its the same behaviour, make unsubstantiated claims, don't address them, write distracting waffle whilst NEVER proving the claims, its a sad unintelligent pattern of the uneducated who are unwilling and/or lazy to consider Science details. Almost all the deniers do it, the minor difference with Water_Prophet which is worse is he claims to know enough maths to arrive at figures but, actually fakes them instead ie Lies openly, ie Not smart !

Water_Prophet claims
The problem is your opponent can't do anything more than glimmering generalizations
No. Water_Prophet is confused & actually referring to himself, I have answered questions directly and confirmed my position

Immense problem of Water_Prophet, is he cannot prove ANY of his claims, instead states several "glimmering generalizations" & outright offense to avoid details

Eg, He has said "you monkeys can't understand a wristwatch" !

May 14, 2015
Water_Prophet,

Mike_Massen really is a waste of time. I don't know his age, but he acts like an adolescent showing off. You can never get him to make a clear statement and stick with it. It is always, "No, I never said that was true!" and "No I never said that was false!" and I said "a" instead of "the" in that context.

Word salad devoid of meaning.

I don't plan on wasting any more time on him because it is a total waste of time.


May 14, 2015
dogbert claims
Mike_Massen really is a waste of time. I don't know his age, but he acts like an adolescent showing off. You can never get him to make a clear statement and stick with it. It is always, "No, I never said that was true!" ..
No. I stand by the Evidence which is clear if anyone is interested. I also refer dogbert to his feeble attempts to twist what I have said by altering grammar to change my meaning & even mis-reads HIS comments imagining I made a comment I evidently didn't !

dogbert show where I changed ANYTHING I stated - can you ?

dogbert at his very best claims
..I don't plan on wasting any more time on him because it is a total waste of time
Great news now it can be silent, for time being what has dogbert EVER offered to advance Science, Education & essential details necessary to progress improvement in attitudes to address the increased dilemma we all face from rising CO2 emissions ?

dogbert makes things up & got Caught !

so sad

May 14, 2015
dogbert has claimed regarding my posts
You can never get him to make a clear statement and stick with it
There are two aspects here:-

1. dogbert claims I didn't make a clear statement, does this mean one that dogbert 'can' understand OR comments he cannot understand because he lacks comprehension skills

&

2. dogbert claims I don't 'stick with it'. Which statement have I ever made & not stuck with OR which position has dogbert imagined I have shifted from or to & upon what basis has this occurred, anywhere in my few years on this forum ?

NB: dogbert has claimed I am following his notion of an "AGW Agenda" but, when asked several times to declare just what 'Agenda' he imagines I am following; he is mute & whats worse impotent that he continues to lie & cheat that I shift position or don't state it clearly or cannot stick to something.

This is the talk of someone caught in a lie who is evidently intellectually impotent as the posts show !

so sad

May 14, 2015
dogbert,
He is relly amazing in his way, can you imagine how much time he spends on this site posting more words than one can count, saying nothing worth saying.
He must have no family, and little education.

May 14, 2015
Water_Prophet attempts to distract yet again
dogbert,
He is relly amazing in his way, can you imagine how much time he spends on this site posting more words than one can count, saying nothing worth saying.
He must have no family, and little education.
What I can imagine is Water_Prophet doesn't know how to craft scripts to alert, open & prepare to save time & address the clear FACTs that Water_Prophet has not ever proved ANY of his claims.

Instead Water_Prophet mutters, obfuscates & CANNOT address Science - even basic Physics !

Water_Prophet should be banned unfortunately he cannot seem to get his head around this:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

And especially why his claim of a fake 0.00009W/m^2 is somehow in "great agreement" with 1.5 W/m^2

Evidence is clear, something Water_Prophet also doesn't understand, is deluded & not to be trusted.

Water_Prophet has contributed nothing only fakes, lies & cheats :-(

Imagine if he had studied !

May 14, 2015
For example, without reading the above, I bet it's a mile long, and says nothing useful. I'll guess it contains not a single bit of information, postures big.

May 15, 2015
Water_Prophet's hypocrisy
For example, without reading the above, I bet it's a mile long, and says nothing useful. I'll guess it contains not a single bit of information, postures big.
Water_Prophet has made many claims all of which have Never been proven or confirmed in any way by him.

Why can't Water_Prophet PROVE any of his claims ?

Why does Water_Prophet obfuscate Science making it harder for the young who might browse this forum, so why is Water_Prophet being such a bad Science communicator, he only focuses on his ego and his claims and when challenged claims many uni degrees or waffles to distract.

His last post is another distraction

Water_Prophet PROVE your claims ?

May 16, 2015
O goodness i think dogfart farted out the last reamains of brain matter he actually had, and waterclown feeding him the air to accomplish it lol... o monkeys you make me proud in showing the world how utterly stupid you are... It's been great fun... :D

As always through the years, Mike thanks for your valuable input.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more