Low-carbon policies could prevent up to 175,000 US deaths by 2030

February 22, 2016
Emissions from a Houston, Texas, industrial plant. Credit: Marc St. Gil/ US EPA

Reducing U.S. climate emissions enough to avoid a 2-degree Celsius increase in global warming could prevent up to 175,000 pollution-related premature deaths nationwide by 2030 and generate health benefits of about $250 billion annually, according to a new analysis by researchers at Duke University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Many people view climate change as a future problem, but our analysis shows that reducing that cause warming—many of which also contribute to air pollution—would benefit public health here and now," said Drew T. Shindell, professor of climate sciences at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment.

When longer-term global health impacts are taken into account, the benefits of reducing U.S. emissions could be 5 to 10 times larger than the estimated cost of implementing necessary policies or technologies, Shindell noted.

The researchers published their peer-reviewed analysis Feb. 22 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Most recent climate negotiations have focused on reducing current levels of emissions enough to avoid triggering a 2-degree Celsius (or 3.6-degree Fahrenheit) rise in atmospheric warming—a threshold at which the increased risk of prolonged droughts and heat waves, accelerated sea-level rise and other damaging climate impacts could outpace our ability to adapt.

Much of these negotiations have centered on reducing emissions of longer-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. But the study demonstrates that simultaneously reducing other air pollutants also has benefits.

"Burning fossil fuels in power plants, industry and motor vehicles is the main source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions," Shindell said. "Air pollution linked mostly to these same sources is also the leading environmental cause of premature death worldwide. By curbing their emissions, you score on two fronts."

To conduct the new analysis, the researchers constructed emissions-reduction scenarios for transportation and the energy sector, the two largest producers of U.S. climate pollutants. Then they modeled what the human health benefits and would be if emissions in each sector were reduced enough by 2030 to put the United States on a path to stay under the 2-degree C threshold.

"We created a 'clean transportation' scenario in which surface transport emissions are reduced by 75 percent, and a 'clean energy' scenario in which emissions are reduced by 63 percent," Shindell explained. "These scenarios exceed current U.S. emissions reductions targets but are technically feasible and in accordance with the reductions we pledged to achieve at the COP21 climate conference in Paris last December and in our climate accord with China last year."

The models showed that by 2030, cleaner energy policies could prevent as many as 175,000 premature deaths, and another 22,000 or so deaths each year following that.

Cleaner transportation policies could prevent around 120,000 by 2030, and another 14,000 or so deaths each year thereafter.

The nationwide associated with preventing these deaths would total around $250 billion a year in the near term. That means they would likely exceed what it costs to implement the new policies and would offset damage recovery fees or avoidance credits for businesses that are negatively affected.

When the global health and impacts of the reduced emissions are both factored in, the value of the accrued long-term benefits could roughly quintuple, becoming 5 to 10 times larger than the costs, the study says.

"This is doable," Shindell said. "But it's not going to be easy. Barriers remain, and short-term setbacks are likely. Pledging to reduce our emissions is one thing; implementing the national policies and binding international agreements needed to overcome these obstacles will be challenging."

Explore further: Climate change losses for Southeast Asia well above previous estimate

More information: Drew T. Shindell et al. Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C, Nature Climate Change (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2935

Related Stories

UN report raises ceiling for greenhouse gas pollution

November 6, 2015

The U.N.'s environmental authority has quietly raised its assessment of the level at which global greenhouse gas emissions must peak to avoid dangerous climate change, as governments seek a new accord to fight global warming.

Climate-smart agriculture still lags after Paris

December 21, 2015

Environmental problems are usually multifaceted and complex. This is especially true for climate change. As a result, over time researchers and policymakers have learned the importance of a comprehensive and multi-pollutant ...

Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

July 15, 2015

Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published ...

Recommended for you

Caves in central China show history of natural flood patterns

January 19, 2017

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that major flooding and large amounts of precipitation occur on 500-year cycles in central China. These findings shed light on the forecasting of future floods and improve ...

108 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.4 / 5 (16) Feb 22, 2016
We create models which predict climate disaster and have predicted disaster for over 30 years during which time, we don't have a climate disaster. Having failed at scaring people with AGW models, it seems the new tactic is to create models predicting thousands of human deaths every year from the products of combustion.

These death models are just another scare tactic and bear no relation to reality.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2016
"Low-carbon policies could prevent up to 175,000 US deaths by 2030"

Any plans in place to feed, cloth and house them? Employment? Medical Care? Educate?
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2016
People generally feed themselves..... clothe and house themselves....etc..... they usually need to be alive to do so
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2016
Dogbert, no one said we would all be dead by 2016, just that we would start having problems.
Which we are.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Steve 200mph Cruiz,
Dogbert, no one said we would all be dead by 2016, just that we would start having problems.
Which we are.


The consistent predictions were that we would experience climate disasters such as massive sea level rises, drought and flooding larger than expected in places which do not usually have drought or floods, etc. Disasters of unusual proportions and frequencies. These things have not happened. It is hard to maintain unreasoning fear when the disasters you predict fail to appear.

There is a new tactic of which this article is an example which is increasingly appearing where the reader is told that thousands of people will die if we continue to use traditional energy sources. This is just another way, and adjunct if you will, supporting the AGW redistribution effort.

And again, it is not about the science. It is about control and redistribution through fear.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2016
People generally feed themselves.

Not to mention that people who are alive and well(!) generally pay taxes.

Any plans in place to feed, cloth and house them? Employment? Medical Care? Educate?

It's not digital. I.e. it's not "healthy" or "dead". That there could be 175k more deaths also menas that there will be a lot of non-fatal, but debilitating cases (i.e. people unable to work due to health problems which will be a burden on any medicare system the US might have until then). This is where the 250bn healthcare cost estimate in the article comes from. But the amount of taxes NOT paid by this group isn't even included in the cost to society.


These death models are just another scare tactic

Since these models are directly derived from historical precedents and records (pollution during the industrialized eras whithout any regulation) these have quite a bit better foundation than just being 'scare tactics'.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
antialias_physorg,
These death models are just another scare tactic


Since these models are directly derived from historical precedents and records (pollution during the industrialized eras without any regulation) these have quite a bit better foundation than just being 'scare tactics'.


No. Such "studies" simply plug in guesstimates which reflect the bias's of the study designers. It is easy to create a model to yield what you want it to yield, then claim bad things are going to happen because your model said so. The AGWites have been doing that for years with their models.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2016
The effects of air pollution are not 'guesstimates'. A large body of resaerch for this exists spanning more than a century.

But, of course, the "dogbert arm-chair university of understanding through ignorance" trumps all that without even having a look at it.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2016
dogfart and his sockpuppets antisciencegorilla/waterprophet clown, shootist donglish et al at his best,
big oil pays him peanuts to post BS on physorg everyday, and he likes to prove to the world his the best at being dumb and ignorant everyday.. how people get kicks out of that is beyond me, but makes for one heck of a comedy.

Now... donglish, waterprophet, antisceincegorilla Little monkey, billions upon billions of tons of pollution being produced by yes YOUR big oil boss Gorilla's empire is destroying the earth, you must be really thick headed and dumb just like a real big dumb baboon to not see the relentless disastrous results of your filthy empire, it takes TIME to ruin the earth, as always your feeble peanut brain cannot comprehend the passing of time to understand this, your BIG oil is doing their very very utter best to ruin earth, they are fighting hard polluting the earth more and more each second, but they are persistent cont...
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2016
People generally feed themselves.

Not to mention that people who are alive and well(!) generally pay taxes.

Any plans in place to feed, cloth and house them? Employment? Medical Care? Educate?

It's not digital. I.e. it's not "healthy" or "dead". That there could be 175k more deaths also menas that there will be a lot of non-fatal, but debilitating cases (i.e. people unable to work due to health problems which will be a burden on any medicare system the US might have until then). This is where the 250bn healthcare cost estimate in the article comes from. But the amount of taxes NOT paid by this group isn't even included in the cost to society.


I am just wondering as to the overall health of those 175k in the first place...
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
then they throw an idiot like YOU in the mix to make them look even worse, a dumb empire employing a dumb commenter not realizing nor understanding the damage they do to their own reputation when dissected by the scientists on this site... being persistent like you with this regard sure will keep big oil's reputation lower than filth for decades to come..... can't say i'm not enjoying this ride, the humor is priceless lol...
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
HeloMenlo,
I don't work for any carbon production companies.
I have commented before on this site the propensity of AGWites such as yourself claiming that anyone with a comment opposing your position must be in the employ of some company and be paid to have an opinion.

Are you a climate scientist? Do you get paid for your opinion?

If you have information about anyone being paid to post that opinion on sites such as this, provide proof of your claims.

You won't, of course, because you are just making it up. A smear tactic.
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
I don't use tactics as i deal with the truth and well being of the planet. i highlight the truth and the evidence gathered by scientists, and expose those who ignore the truth and supports industries that ruins the earth. Your opinions does not count, clearly evident by all your replies throughout the years and the response to your false claims by scientists, on the other hand i understand the hard work scientists does and see the evidence they provide.

Thumb sucking claims, ignoring evidence does not look good on a global scale, especially the fact that you are so persistent, it carves an image of the side you are so relentlessly backing and unfortunately the image you create is not good.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2016
"such as massive sea level rises, "
------------------

If you doubt it, I suggest you start here:

http://www.cnn.co...dex.html

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
gkam,

Another scare tactic. Read it.

The model shows that sea levels might have risen faster in the last century.

Meaningless. The models predicted New York, a lot of Florida, etc. would be under water by now. They aren't.

All these bad things are always going to happen, but never do.
Scare tactics.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Dogbert
Meaningless. The models predicted New York, a lot of Florida, etc. would be under water by now. They aren't.


Could you give us references to these scientific predictions. My understanding is that the climate models have been pretty accurate as far as predicted sea level rise. Thanks.

https://www.skept...dels.htm
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
Low carbon policies that drive insane ideas like bio-fuels from food crops, will kill far more.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
antigoracle
The globe has been cooling for the past 18 years and is expected to continue.
From http://phys.org/n...est.html May 30th 2015

Except that 2014 was the hottest year on record. 2015 blew that one away. Jan 2016 just broke all records - http://renewecono...rd-15257

Maybe time to quit antigoracle. You have no credibility, you don't know what you are talking about - you are the laughing stock - why do you keep bloodying yourself with stupidity. Just shut up.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2016
Hmmm.. Show a little curiousity and ask a couple of common sense questions and get 1ed....
Trust me, it's not the 1's I care about. It's the mindset and reasoning behind them that interests me...
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Whydening
Any plans in place to feed, cloth and house them? Employment? Medical Care? Educate?
I thought that this comment was ignorant enough - that the 1 I gave for it would not need any explanation. Do you ask the same question when some research develops a new therapy for cancer? I mean why develop cures for cancer - if you don't have a plan in place to feed and clothe the people you are going to save. I am really surprised that you don't see the perverseness of your attitude.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
I thought that this comment was ignorant enough - that the 1 I gave for it would not need any explanation
@Green
Whyde is an artist, so he comes at a subject from an entirely different perspective than the typical person... this is a good thing as it gives a fresh view of how things CAN be looked at

i don't think the intent was "perverse" so much as simple curiosity
and that deserves some feedback, IMHO, though i don't actually know where i would get the information he is seeking

Perhaps the best question to ask would be:
@WHYDE
can you clarify what you are asking??
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2016
Whydening
Any plans in place to feed, cloth and house them? Employment? Medical Care? Educate?
I thought that this comment was ignorant enough - that the 1 I gave for it would not need any explanation.

(Shrug) For you, maybe. Shows your mindset.
Do you ask the same question when some research develops a new therapy for cancer? I mean why develop cures for cancer - if you don't have a plan in place to feed and clothe the people you are going to save.

You don't think that might be a call to MAKE the necessary plans? I mean, other then just let them deal with it?
I am really surprised that you don't see the perverseness of your attitude.

Thanks, "Teach". But, it's not an attitude, it's honesty. You saw perversion. I saw a real, common sense question that needs addressing, at some point (preferably sooner than later).
And, you should stop looking for things to be offended by.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Perhaps the best question to ask would be:
@WHYDE
can you clarify what you are asking??

That potential 175k. Who are they? Old? Young? Healthy enough to survive what an uncertain future brings? Rich? Poor? Health insurance?
What will their contribution be to a society already at risk, economically and environmentally?
Sounds cold, but somebody has to think about it....
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2016
"Sounds cold, but somebody has to think about it...."
---------------------------------------------

Yes, . . or dream about it. I am sure we will have plenty of volunteers for that job.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2016
"Sounds cold, but somebody has to think about it...."
---------------------------------------------

Yes, . . or dream about it. I am sure we will have plenty of volunteers for that job.

C'mon, George. That sounded pretty dour and fatalistic...
Wouldn't you rather someone realistically consider it and bring it up?
How bout less dreaming and more real planning?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
That potential 175k. Who are they? Old? Young?
@Whyde
well, the article says "premature deaths", which, by definition means a death that is not of natural causes, so it could be anything from infant to geriatric ...
What will their contribution be to a society already at risk, economically and environmentally?
Sounds cold, but somebody has to think about it....
that is actually an interesting question ... perhaps you could pose it to the corresponding author?
http://www.nature...935.html

click the corresponding author link and submit the question for reply... it didn't like the whole link here on PO, sorry

the study is paywalled, but i will see if i can't dig up a copy to see if it is addressed at all
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
How bout less dreaming and more real planning?
@Whyde
I've found some earlier studies by the corresponding author, but nothing that specifically addresses your concerns... i have a few Sci-Mag studies, but i don't know if you can access them
(like this one: Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security - Drew Shindell )

you would have to contact me via Sapo's Joint, SciForums or e-mail... it would allow you to get an idea where he is coming from, but i don't know if it will answer you

for that i suggest contacting the author: contact me privately (via above three methods) and i can get his e-mail addy from SciMag

Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2016
@Whyde
well, the article says "premature deaths", which, by definition means a death that is not of natural causes, so it could be anything from infant to geriatric ...

Thanks, Cap'n. You get where I'm going.
What will their contribution be to a society already at risk, economically and environmentally?
Sounds cold, but somebody has to think about it....

that is actually an interesting question ... perhaps you could pose it to the corresponding author?
http://www.nature...935.html
click the corresponding author link and submit the question for reply... it didn't like the whole link here on PO, sorry
the study is paywalled, but i will see if i can't dig up a copy to see if it is addressed at all

Thanks, again...:-) Too many just react emotionally and not look at a bigger picture.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2016
Just to be clear, I am not against cleaner air or CURING cancer (therapies are NOT a cure). I just think it opens up new questions.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
Thanks, Cap'n. You get where I'm going
@Whyde
kinda... maybe... not sure...LOL
i value your perspective, though!

they list the Subject terms as:
Climate-change mitigation
Environmental health
Pollution remediation

the potentially saved 175K (the prevented premature deaths) would definitely be something to consider and address because that would likely affect longevity stats, quality of living and population (especially pop density)

whereas i would like to thing the gov't is considering this ... i will not hold my breath while awaiting something to be published

i wonder if it isn't actually something being worked on already by the author, though, as this study leads one to ask about the quality of life for the future humans living here
Too many just react...
it's PO ... this isn't surprising,
but some people just don't understand, so be patient

forgive and plod on, eh?
gkam
1 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2016
"Wouldn't you rather someone realistically consider it and bring it up? How bout less dreaming and more real planning?"
--------------------------------------

That is the department of someone else. If I save lives, I do not have to take care of them forever. Yes, we need to do that, but not every time we do a job.

My field is energy and the environment, not family planning. Do you do that? What happens when you tell folk to not have more kids? You don't want me in that job:

"HEY, YOU TWO!

STOP IT!"
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
Just to be clear, I am not against cleaner air or CURING cancer (therapies are NOT a cure). I just think it opens up new questions.
@WHyde
I know that...
i think it just looked wrong to some. I know Green is pro-climate science, and that you are one to follow the evidence as well.
it WAS a confusion post and i didn't get it myself (hence the question for clarification)

i need to reiterate something
i'll just re-quote it
i wonder if it isn't actually something being worked on already by the author, though, as this study leads one to ask about the quality of life for the future humans living here
considering the author is a climate scientist ( see https://scholar.g...as_sdtp= ) perhaps this issue is where the next study will head?

i don't know
you should ask... i might also inquire via SciMag and link your question and this thread
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2016
I just think it opens up new questions.
@Whyde
just some FYI:
1- inquired of the author, awaiting reply (via link in abstract)

2- started digging and looking for research re: Climate and health impacts of US climate change
https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

so this is actually being studied at least on some levels... here is a 2006 paper "Climate change and human health: present and future risks"

https://saludsind...alth.pdf

if you want to clarify more, either leave a better (more concise, clearer) comment here or contact me via the above three methods and we can go from there
Research so far has mostly focused on
thermal stress, extreme weather events, and infectious diseases, with some attention to estimates of future regional food yields and hunger prevalence
from my link
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2016
Whyde
And, you should stop looking for things to be offended by.


Isn't that - you telling me how to think? Perhaps you live in a different world than me. Yes I am very angry. I spend a big piece of my life in the hell of inner city working poor in America. They are F*cked. Cyclical poverty is staggering. People who have nothing - living in a predatory system - that gives them no chance to get out. It is even getting worse for someone like me - with a middle class income (around 100K). This year my health insurance deductibles, out of pockets, and annual max - all went up. Next year the premiums will go up. I peddle the bike faster, and go backwards. The system IS rigged - and we are about to elect Donald Trump. But I see the potential for doing better. It is through science, and education, and technology. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It came over to me as - don't try to improve peoples lives - they will just be more mouths to feed.
greenonions
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
Dogbert

Meaningless. The models predicted New York, a lot of Florida, etc. would be under water by now. They aren't.

Could you give us references to these scientific predictions. My understanding is that the climate models have been pretty accurate as far as predicted sea level rise. Thanks.


Yep - too much to ask someone to actually support their comments with facts.

HeloMenelo
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
Yep and the fact is this goon and all his puppets supports his claims with plain thin air, the good thing though is that it shows, everytime... him being so persistent the world takes note, we get to highlight the stupidity in turn letting he world see exactly what is the truth.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Whyde
And, you should stop looking for things to be offended by.


Isn't that - you telling me how to think?

Nope.Was me just suggesting.
Perhaps you live in a different world than me.

Nope Same one you.
Yes I am very angry.

Me, too.
It is even getting worse for someone like me - with a middle class income (around 100K).

You're rich compared to me
This year my health insurance deductibles, out of pockets, and annual max - all went up. Next year the premiums will go up.

You have Health insurance?!?!?
I peddle the bike faster, and go backwards.

A bike? all I have is tennis shoes...
The system IS rigged - and we are about to elect Donald Trump.

Un-intuitive, but maybe he will actually do something positive... (not a supporter of him, tho)
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
(cont)

But I see the potential for doing better.

As do I, through better planning.
It is through science, and education, and technology.

Tools to aid in better planning.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post.

In retrospect, my comment could have appeared as callously knee-jerk..
It came over to me as - don't try to improve peoples lives - they will just be more mouths to feed.

Sorry you interpreted it that way.
Improve peoples lives, yes. But we should be more aware of all the unintended consequences. Planning for "quality of life" maintenance is just as important. Saving someones life (and subsequently draining their life's savings) so they can go back to living hand-to-mouth in a ghetto is irresponsible (an exaggeration, but makes my point) and serves to make the people doing it feel better about themselves.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2016
" but maybe he will actually do something positive... "
-----------------------------------

Yeah, like his promise to deport 11,000,000 people, bar Muslims, and institute torture as a policy.

Trump has only revealed the gritty, seamy, and violent underside of American Society.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2016
"But we should be more aware of all the unintended consequences."
---------------------------------------

"Don't feed that poor child, he might grow up to have children!"

I understand your point, but it is crude to suggest it. Maybe we should just eat the poor, as in "A Modest Proposal"?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2016
" but maybe he will actually do something positive... "
-----------------------------------

Yeah, like his promise to deport 11,000,000 people, bar Muslims, and institute torture as a policy.

Trump has only revealed the gritty, seamy, and violent underside of American Society.

You should write film noire fiction...
You actually think he could/would do that? You're letting your imagination get away with you.
Once he's a politician, he'd have to back down. (Cuz someone higher than him will give him "the talk".)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2016
"But we should be more aware of all the unintended consequences."
---------------------------------------

"Don't feed that poor child, he might grow up to have children!"

I understand your point, but it is crude to suggest it. Maybe we should just eat the poor, as in "A Modest Proposal"?

More over-active imagination, George...
Why does "unintended consequences" hold a negative connotation for you?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2016
Once he's a politician, he'd have to back down.


Like all politicians when the election is over, their promises crash head-on into the real world. Always been that way, always will be that way.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2016
Once he's a politician, he'd have to back down.


Like all politicians when the election is over, their promises crash head-on into the real world. Always been that way, always will be that way.

Yowza, Ira. You get it.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic - pollution and mitigating it's damaging effects...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Yowza, Ira. You get it.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic - pollution and mitigating it's damaging effects...
@Whyde
I do have an answer already from the professor of the study, HOWEVER, i am also still awaiting permission to repost his reply

he made a good point too...
to paraphrase:he incorporated non-market values as well as using methodology common to economists because if you only consider market costs you devalue sections of society

that is not the whole thing, but until i can get permission to share i can't post the verbatim reply
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2016
How many here are pursuing low-carbon lifestyles yourselves?
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
How many here are pursuing low-carbon lifestyles yourselves?

How many here are Pathological Liars and blames their wives for burning $150/month on gasoline?
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2016
Goricle, stop the accusations and nastiness. If you disagree, tell us why, but stop the personal stuff. It does your "cause" of being a hater no good. And it does not hurt me.

So I guess it is therapy for someone who resents others for doing something good.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
We create models which predict climate disaster and have predicted disaster for over 30 years during which time, we don't have a climate disaster.

You are wilfully blind.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
Goricle, stop the accusations and nastiness. If you disagree, tell us why, but stop the personal stuff. It does your "cause" of being a hater no good. And it does not hurt me.

So I guess it is therapy for someone who resents others for doing something good.

After 71 years of "successfully" being a Pathological Liar, Psychopath and Narcissist, you don't think we all know "it does not hurt you". If in your sordid mind you imagined I got any pleasure responding to your lies, then you couldn't be more wrong. Now that we all know, without doubt, what you are, it will be my pleasure to not respond to you ever again.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2016
Thank you for leaving. Please push your diesel car down the block before starting it up.

Meanwhile, I repeat, we all can do our part, but we have to do it, and not just depend on others to do it for us.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
@WHYDE
from the professor
The valuation of prevented premature deaths is based on empirical studies of what society is willing to pay to reduce the risk of dying. If one only considers market costs, or 'what will their contribution be to a society', one would come to conclusions such as elderly people are worth nothing as they take money from government and are no longer working. Yet we in fact spend a lot on geriatric care. There are many examples such as this where we spend more than the 'worth' based on factors incorporated into GDP, so it is quite incomplete to only consider those, and hence I - following the method used by most economists - incorporate non-market values as well.

Hope that's helpful. [edited: removed irrelevant comment about PO- Captain]
Drew Shindell
Does that answer your questions, Gyre?
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
.. maybe he will actually do something positive...

If you consider a leader just because "maybe he will actually do something positive"
then disaster is near.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2016
We can all help here.

How many here still burn wood?
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2016
We can all do our part, like my neighbors. And we, too, since we just covered up the fireplace stack with PV panels, and will give away the Buck Stove, having put in a condensing furnace and instantaneous water heater. If we are to do it, we all have to do it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2016
After 71 years of "successfully" being a Pathological Liar, Psychopath and Narcissist
A narcissist is a very different creature from a psychopath.

"They can also be Narcissists since Narcissism seems to be merely a "facet" of the psychopath or a "milder" manifestation. You could say that the Narcissist is a "garden variety psychopath" who, because of his or her "social programming," has less likelihood of running afoul of the law. In this way, they are very efficient "survival machines," living out their lives doing untold damage to their families, friends and business associates."
If you disagree, tell us why, but stop the personal stuff
Most people here disagree with you on principal because they know without checking that most of what you post are lies.
it does not hurt me
"make no mistake about it: you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2016
@WHYDE
from the professor;
The valuation of prevented premature deaths is based on empirical studies of what society is willing to pay to reduce the risk of dying. If one only considers market costs, or 'what will their contribution be to a society', one would come to conclusions such as elderly people are worth nothing as they take money from government and are no longer working. Yet we in fact spend a lot on geriatric care.


There are valuation contributions to be found.
Like, what was value of their contribution prior to retirement. Child care while parents work. As consumers. As volunteers. As Educators. As researchers (your email to the author of the study a case in point). And so on...
Was I really asking a question? or maybe I was setting a stage for further considerations...:-)
(to increase awareness of "unintended consequences")
Thanks, Cap'n. I learned something here and I hope others did as well!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
maybe I was setting a stage for further considerations
@Whyde
IMHO- this means, by his comment, that there are a whole list of factors that are considered above and beyond akin perhaps to your above list
(to increase awareness of "unintended consequences")
to do this, it would require a huge cultural shift from the current (mostly) religious based & political culture to one that is far more scientifically literate and logical (and evidence based)

good luck with that one... see above for evidence
I learned something here and I hope others did as well!
i sure did
YWC
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2016
Whyden
But we should be more aware of all the unintended consequences.
Sure - and unintended consequences is often a strange pandora's box. Politically it can be impossible to predict outcomes. But of course the response should not be total inaction (not suggesting you have advocated that). So I think I get it - that you are not advocating inaction - but asking us to try to be more complex in our prediction of consequences. The people hurt by Isis would surely agree with you.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2016
How much carbon is spent these days making a new sarcophagus for Chernobyl and trying to start the "cleanup" at Fukushima?
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
dogbert claims
We create models which predict climate disaster and have predicted disaster..
Specifically what models do that & for what era ?

dogbert claims
.. we don't have a climate disaster
Whats a "climate disaster", don't you mean "climate change" affecting people's habitat & livelihood ?

Is Trump style alarmism the best you can do dogbert, why be an alarmist ?

dogbert claims
.. the new tactic is to create models predicting thousands of human deaths every year from the products of combustion
Which models dogbert predict specific human deaths OR are you showing yourself up merely influenced by emotional propaganda ?

ie. You are not renowned for discerning emotion from intellect re determining the difference between claim & evidence. why should we care about your false claims then ?

dogbert with ugly alarmism
..death models are just another scare tactic and bear no relation to reality
What "death models", or do you mean facile media ?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2016
Mike
Specifically what models do that & for what era ?
I recently asked dogbert exactly the same question - when dogbert claimed that models had predicted ocean level rise that would have caused New York to be under water by now. http://phys.org/n...ths.html Silence of course. I guess it is just an ignorant game - so many unscientific posters - with no interest in learning.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
Thank you for pursuing it. The rest of us give up after a while.

But this denier stuff is just a game with some people who have yet to outgrow adolescence.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
"Most people here disagree with you on principal because they know without checking that most of what you post are lies."
---------------------------------------
You just lost for good, otto. I sent my real papers to Stumpy. Ask him to quote my Commander.

I proved even more than I said, and there is more to come, but you will not see it, unless you buy the magazine.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2016
I sent my real papers to Stumpy. Ask him to quote my Commander
OT, not relevant
also: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1
PW= VALIDATE
I proved even more than I said
actually, no, you haven't. the only thing your "papers" prove is your service... and i will add this caveat because IT IS IMPORTANT... your "proof" is NOT VALIDATED as being authentic!

until i can authenticate your "paperwork", JUST LIKE I DID WITH YOUR DEGREE, i can't state with any certainty that your paperwork is valid, accurate or even real.

AntiG is the one willing to take it on face value, NOT I

i said it from the very beginning ... I DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING WITHOUT AUTHENTICATING OR VALIDATING IT FIRST

i can quote that from e-mails and PO if you like...

now, rant time. flood the thread with "i sent proof" etc claims and unsubstantiated conjecture

PS- from now on i will post "FALSE CLAIM" and report your post when you state this
gkam
1.1 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
You cannot deny those papers, Stumpy. And you know they are real, but you need to put off the reckoning. In fact, how are you going to "verify" my personal performance reports? You never thought I would be real, you thought I was like you and otto and Ira, just a troll, a vandal, a sniper.

Who are you to challenge others? Are you the Internet Police? Then why are you so emotional, why are you coming apart?

Show us who you are, and how you get to be the judge.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2016
In fact, how are you going to "verify" my personal performance reports
FOI Act, the 201 file (which is also all your records, redacted of classified material) by using your DD-214 and screen-caps of your argument on PO (linked for VALIDATION and AUTHENTICATION) as evidence of proof of permission to access your records

because i can't actually authenticate anything unless you give me a signed document that i sent you- request for records? remember that one?
all this drags out longer the longer i wait for that paper... otherwise i can only turn it in to the Dpt of Justice and request an inquiry into a potential fraud and await their decision
Are you the Internet Police?
RULE 37 - you got caught in a lie, now you are unreliable
why are you coming apart?
ROTFLMFAO
you are the one freaking because you made false claims! LMFAO

if you don't have anything to hide, sign the PDF i sent you so i can authenticate your evidence!
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
You got my performance reviews, Stumpy, my thesis, my DD-214, pictures, awards, references to me in three military websites, and the catalogs of NASA reports with my name, and other stuff, yet you are not "convinced"? You get nothing else until we find out who you are, and of whom you are SO SCARED.

In the Old Days, you and Ira and otto would have held the torches to the feet of who you were going to burn alive next, based on your certainty that it is they who are evil.

Last century, you would be in lynching parties.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2016
yet you are not "convinced"?
not until the "paperwork" is authenticated... you know, like i told you in the e-mail when you wanted me to authenticate your "degree"????
see Photobucket link

the rest?
TL;DR
OT rant crossposted from: http://phys.org/n...ich.html
reported
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
Who are you, Stumpy, and of whom are you SO SCARED, and why do you hide?

As I said, you have everything from me, and I turned out to be embarrassingly real. Are you going to "authenticate" the catalog of NASA studies and reports? Gong to check if that front page of the base paper of the Air Force Flight Test Center really did have my picture on it? Going to "authenticate" my existence on three military websites I do not run?

How will you verify the comments by my Commander who printed I should be promoted at the first opportunity? Shall I go into the "ideal Airman" quote?

You disparaged the fact I wrote and taught most of the national course in Power Quality for the Electric Power Research Institute, and my seminars around the country where I taught over 30,000 technical folk. What were you doing then??
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
and why do you hide?
you mean, why don't i send you more personal information that what i already did send?

uhm... maybe because Otto is correct and you are displaying sociopathic tendencies?

the rest?
TL;DR
FLAMING, BAITING
FALSE CLAIM

reported

since obviously you only want attention, consider ANY future downrated post (rated by me) to be reported
and followed by the above as indication for WHY it was reported
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2016
Stumpy has convinced me to put all that stuff online, on my web page, where it can be seen, read, evaluated, and verified. Then, I can just send folk there when Ira or otto or Stumpy attack me for being real.

After that, we can ask them who they are, and why they hide, cower, to attack others. I have been personally attacked by these vandals for months, with disgusting personal accusations.

This is a science site, not some forum for lurkers, idiots who think they are modern Mark Twains, and librarians who spent their lives looking things up, but have no idea of the concepts behind the words.

We have anonymous snipers who set themselves up as the police, and who get really self-righteous with their judgements.

Let's get back to science, and take these trolls off the site.
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
@gkam The problem with all of this effort, gkam, is that when all is said and done noone gives a damn who you are or what you've done. No-one gives a flying burrito finger what Stumpy has convinced you to do - except as mild amusement at your desperation.

"A Dumbass is a Dumbass, no matter how paranoid." - not Dr. Seuss.

There, another one. How would you respond if we were "real" and you had all our contact info?
Like we have yours.

Seriously, what would change in how you react and act?

Phone calls to our businesses or houses? Facebook mischief? Follow us online? Hate letters?
Send us emails? Complain to the people on different forums and comment sections like you do here?

What would change?

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
Ira or otto or Stumpy attack me for being real.
Skippy I did not attack you for being real. I did point out that you are a real moron who postums a lot of made up facts and grabbing "technical stuffs" out of thin air. Then pretending that it is okay because you "are in the business" so it doesn't count that you got it wrong. And anybody who postums up something that correct doesn't count because they are just "goobers".

idiots who think they are modern Mark Twains, and librarians who spent their lives looking things up,
See what I mean, they are wrong even when they are right, eh?

but have no idea of the concepts behind the words
Why do we get the concepts right then?

take these trolls off the site
Careful what you wish for Cher.You are the troll.You are in the same group as JVK, Really, A2G and his puppets, Bennie, Viko, Dogbert, antigorical,Water, Willie, Returnering, Bart and the Zephirs. Yeah, you are Cher, hurts I know, but it is true.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
How would you respond if we were "real" and you had all our contact info?
Like we have yours.
@Estevan57
1- the only way to insure that it really is a legit contact info is to... VALIDATE IT... right?LMFAO
2- considering the already annoying threats i've received via e-mail (that i will likely be screencapping and posting to PB)... you would be hounded to death worse than a telemarketer who is trying to recruit you into a cult
LOL

.
I did not attack you for being real.
@Ira
doesn't matter... you challenged the great and powerful OZ in his home delusion!
LOL

just like i didn't say anything to him other than pointing out that his claim wasn't validated... or pointing out when he was absolutely wrong, like his ThZ arguments, which he still defended to the last post!

LMFAO

funniest thing is:i am not anonymous!!

i just started reporting his crossposting and lies... it's easier than constantly keeping up with his delusions

gkam
1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
Ira, if you cannot debate the technical issues, why are you on this site?

Please stop the Uncle Ira Show Cajun Philosopher stunt. It does not work to those of us who have lived in the South and the Gulf Coast in particular.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
Ira, if you cannot debate the technical issues, why are you on this site?
I enjoy the scenery. I can debate the "technical" stuffs just fine, but when ever anybody tries to do that with you all you got is "goober" or "wiki-warrior" or "I was in the business" or "semantics".

Please stop the Uncle Ira Show Cajun Philosopher stunt.
What? Stop being ol Ira-Skippy? Why I would want to do that? It has served me pretty good all these 38 years so far. I will stop being the Ira-Skippy when you stop being the glam-Skippy, deal?

It does not work to those of us who have lived in the South and the Gulf Coast in particular.
Sorry to hear that Cher, but that is not my problem. I don't care if it works for you or doesn't work for you. You always have that option of using the special button that the nice peoples at physorg put there just for you peoples with delicate sensibilities and easy hurt feelings. Then you can play engineers without my distractions.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
This is a science site, not one for pseudo-cajun artifice.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2016
It's been too long since one of these cat fights. First, lets go back the article;
Reducing U.S. climate emissions enough to avoid a 2-degree Celsius increase in global warming could prevent up to 175,000 pollution-related premature deaths nationwide by 2030 and generate health benefits of about $250 billion annually...
There are so so many vectors of consequences from global warming no one can really predict which is going to be the most destructive! Health care is certainly one, either from the migration of tropical disease towards the northern latitudes to lack of water and nutrition from drought, Lung illness from the smoke of forest fires or toxic algae blooms are some possible sources. Mankind creates more pollution when it's hot so the article seems correct.

So when @antigoracle say;
Low carbon policies that drive insane ideas like bio-fuels from food crops, will kill far more.
That is just a dodge from the real problem; the 2C rise!

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
This is a science site, not one for pseudo-cajun artifice.
Sorry I don't make your approval. Cher life is a good thing, and you should relax and try to enjoy it.

Somehow, as brilliant and experienced as you are, you miss the simple stuffs. If you are unhappy how the world sees you, it would be a whole lot easier to change what you show the world. That would involve changing only the one person, but you think you are going to make everybody see what you want them to see, and overlook your goofiness. Cher that just is not the way the world works.

But you can keep up with silly Sarah Palin sloganing, and jousting at the windmills, and when you are dead and dust all anybody will remember is the silly little man who just couldn't get the world to see him like he thought they should.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
There are so so many vectors of consequences from global warming no one can really predict which is going to be the most destructive! Health care is certainly one, either from the migration of tropical disease towards the northern latitudes to lack of water and nutrition from drought, Lung illness from the smoke of forest fires or toxic algae blooms are some possible sources. Mankind has creates a lot of pollution when it's hot so the article is correct.

So when @antigoracle say;
Low carbon policies that drive insane ideas like bio-fuels from food crops, will kill far more.
It's just a dodge from the real problem; the 2C rise!


That is why you are one of the smart Skippys, you put thought into your postums and don't rely on slogans and "I me I my I mine I".

The environment and climate is a good cause, maybe second and third on my list. My big issue and cause is the too many peoples trying fit into the environment and climate.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
You don't get it. I am retired. I don't care what you think. I am real, and resent you smearing my real name. What's yours?

I am not the one here playing silly games pretending to be some cajun-philosopher, with all that cute tourist-oriented silly-talk. I guess you forgot "coonass", and "cypress-stumpy", and "Hooieyeeeia", and all those other affectations in your last paragraph. You are slipping.

Let's get off the personal attacks and stick to the science. Go make your silly attacks on twitter.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
I am real, and resent you smearing my real name.
You can't put that off on me Cher, you are the one dumb enough to postum him up with all your silly slogans blahs and blurts.

I am not the one here playing silly games pretending to be some cajun-philosopher, with all that cute tourist-oriented silly-talk.
We don't get any tourists in Port Fourchon or Lafourche Parish either.

I guess you forgot "coonass", and "cypress-stumpy", and "Hooieyeeeia", and all those other affectations in your last paragraph.
Hooyeei you are dumb as a cypress stump, feel better now couyon? This coonass sure does.

Let's get off the personal attacks and stick to the science.
As it always was and it always will be, that is on you Skippy.

Go make your silly attacks on twitter.
My stuffs won't fit on the tweeters, they don't give you enough letters. But your Sarah Palin like one liners were made for it. I bet that is where you stole most of them from, eh?
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 29, 2016
I kinda like the name "Cajun-Philosopher". I really do. Maybe that's Ira's function. ; )

"...i just started reporting his crossposting and lies..." - Captain Stumpy Mmmm good advice.

I like "cypress-stumpy" too but it's hard to use it in a sentence.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
Health care is certainly one, either from the migration of tropical disease towards the northern latitudes to lack of water and nutrition from drought, Lung illness from the smoke of forest fires or toxic algae blooms are some possible sources. Mankind creates more pollution when it's hot so the article seems correct
Howhot
you aint a kiddin, either... what is most baffling is - some of the anti-agw crowd are literate enough to actually know about why pollution is bad... and read the facts (studies)... so their adherence to a known delusion is stunning

reminds me of these: http://journals.p....0075637

http://arstechnic...nformed/

.

I like "cypress-stumpy" too but it's hard to use it in a sentence.
@Estevan57
how about this:
Cypress-stumpy is hard enough to break your bones, so watch where you walk!
LMFAO
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 29, 2016
Cypress-stumpy is hard enough to break your bones, so watch where you walk!

So make him walk in front of you...:-)
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
How many of you actually practice "low-carbon" lifestyles?
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
Talk is cheap, folks. If we do not all do our part, we may fail.

Some of you who live in any of the Old Countries may live in multi-unit dwellings where you cannot put up PV panels, but you can buy community solar or invest in wind. You can also help by writing your elected officials to work us off the Petroleum Treadmill. Sitting in the same place for 200 years, it has dug itself into a rut.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
Talk is cheap, folks. If we do not all do our part, we may fail.

Some of you who live in any of the Old Countries may live in multi-unit dwellings where you cannot put up PV panels, but you can buy community solar or invest in wind. You can also help by writing your elected officials to work us off the Petroleum Treadmill. Sitting in the same place for 200 years, it has dug itself into a rut.

Late 1800's is NOT "200 years"...
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
1859. I was thinking it was 1839.

Okay, 150 years. See the rut?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
1859. I was thinking it was 1839.

Okay, 150 years. See the rut?

I see a short lived pattern...
150 yrs is a drop n the bucket.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
You don't get it. I am retired. I don't care what you think. I am real, and resent you smearing my real name
Naw you don't get it. We resent you coming here and posting under your real name as if it offers you some sort of protection from criticism when you post lies and fabricate facts.

George the gutless psychopath tries to hide behind his real name. He thinks it gives him the right to post garbage with aplomb.

You're too impaired to realize that you're the one here who is smearing your name.

"... he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind. He does bizarre and self-destructive things because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at all."
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant

we're still not in England!
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2016
otto is in England, defaming me personally on a British internet publication. I will take what he has.

Then, I will find you.

Even SCARED folk can be found. I suspect you will be in a spider hole, like OBL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2016
otto is in England, defaming me personally on a British internet publication. I will take what he has.

Then, I will find you.

Even SCARED folk can be found. I suspect you will be in a spider hole, like OBL.
Don't forget to wear this
http://www.cafepr...07374198

-so I know who you are.
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2016
Why are you scared? I keep on asking you and you keep on dodging the question. I do not have to hide like an otto. I do not have to use a phony name and cover my tracks. I used my real name, and provided proof of who I am, but you cower and snipe at me.

"Don't forget to wear this . . . so I know who you are."

It won't be me coming, otto.

Bullies are cowards.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2016
it won't be me
Of course not. A wise megalomaniac always leads from behind.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
Then, I will find you.

Even SCARED folk can be found. I suspect you will be in a spider hole, like OBL
making threats you can't possibly keep aint helpin your cause, beni-kam
feel free to send the summons
LMFAO
It won't be me coming, otto.

Bullies are cowards.
wait... but you are trying to intimidate using a physical threat AND a threat of legal action- and intimating that you will send people after us... you know, like a bully would!!!!

so, by definition, you are a coward, right?
per your own words above?
RIGHT?
LMFAO

methinks you got your masters in "python logic", beni-kam!
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
Stumpy, I am sorry I got to do all those things you hate to read about. Really I am. But when we join the service, they give us aptitude tests. They sent me to work with NASA, Test Pilot School and the Special Projects at Edwards, then to help put together, test, deploy and operate the first Electronic Battlefield. They put Stumpy in a fire truck.

He never got over it. Now, he takes his frustrations of having no life and having to hide from real folk out on real people. In fact, he put my Social Security Number online, assuming responsibility for what happens to it.

Let's Dump the Stump.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
LMFAO
Stumpy
TL;DR
OT, BAITING, TROLLING

reported

Estevan57
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
Gkam, you were in the AF for four years, and were a radio tech.

NASA? Thats new, now isn't it?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2016
Gkam, you were in the AF for four years, and were a radio tech.

NASA? Thats new, now isn't it?

That was the Ira-Skippy pushing the wrong button again. Sorry about that, it should have been a ten. If glam-Skippy had any sense of fair play about him he would give you the five I was going to give you as the even trade for the one he was going to give you. We will see what he does when he shows.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2016
No, Este-Vandal, I did a lot more than that. Did you only do one thing in your life?

What was that?

Meanwhile, the site to get the abstract of my study and report for NASA was already printed here at least two times.

Here are the references:
NASA TechnicalMemorandum81308 , August 1981
98100_,5595 1980 .... Ames Research Center Publications: A Continuing Bibliography

I sent the entire catalog to Ira, and told him to look on the top of page 41. Ask him what he found.

Do you need the ones I did for the NRC and the DCPA, too? You will have to look them up yourself.

But that was only for an intense year, until I went back to school for my MS.
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2016
I climbed Mount Kilimanjaro.
But I don't use it as a reference to be a so called expert on anything.

You can call me a "vandal" if you want, but considering the information you give out freely on the net, I feel justified in calling you a stupid idiot.

Your email remains intact, is that restraint or vandalism on my part?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2016
Your email remains intact, is that restraint or vandalism on my part?


I never did send him anything either. And I didn't bug him with trolling phone calls. And I didn't send anything to house either. But some way he thinks I am vandal stalker criminal bully.

But I will tell you one thing true Estevan-Skippy. glam-Skippy DOES send out annoying spam like threatening emails if he has a place to send them.

But then every time he hurls a "scared", a "goober", a "liar", a "not in the business", a "don't have the background", a "wiki-warrior", a "mad", a "ego", a "beat you at" or any other such like, you can take it to the banks that it is him. He flings those rocks because he thinks if he flings it first nobody will think to call him what he is.

Yeah, he really is stupid like that.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2016
P.S.I got a picture of me standing on the U.S.S. Hornet in San Fransisco. I suppose I am qualified to call my self a Naval Architect, or an expert in the business of aircraft carrier operations.

Yeah, he really did send me a picture of him in an Air Force hat to prove he was in the trenches and was a super duper elite Air Force guy, not just a lowly radio tech. Well I will tell you one more true thing. Nobody wearing that hat ever got close to being in a war, it was as shiny and new as it was the day it came off the factory floor.

Oh yeah, I almost forget so it will be two true things I will tell you about the hat picture. That was one butt ugly hat, it was even more silly looking than the silly looking pointy caps I pass out.

My papa was in the Vietnam war and I got lots of pictures of when he was. His hats were worn and tattered and wrinkled. And looks manly and mean,,,, not girly like the one glam-Skippy had on. (Maybe that was more glam-Skippy than the hat, eh?)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2016
Nobody wearing that hat ever got close to being in a war, it was as shiny and new as it was the day it came off the factory floor.
You can buy anything on the internet no?

I'm not saying that george kamburoff didn't have the right to wear it, only that he does not have the right to claim to be an expert in anything just because there is a picture of him wearing it.

Can you imagine what potential employers would think of george kamburoffs reasoning abilities if they read his comments here and found out that he actually thinks this way?

Would you trust an auto mechanic who thought that showing you a picture of him wearing a Mr goodwrench hat would convince you he was a mechanic?

Would you hire someone whom you knew actually tried to get away with something like that, ESPECIALLY in a public forum which would turn up in a routine Web search???

Unbelievable.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.