• Why Lung Cancer Doctors Should Care About Climate Change

    From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 16 08:45:53 2022
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Tue Aug 16 08:57:43 2022
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    gobal warming is an old fake


    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    7 views
    Subscribe
    a a’s profile photo
    a a
    11:11 (6 hours ago)
    to
    -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

    -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to a a on Tue Aug 16 09:01:14 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    gobal warming is an old fake


    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    7 views
    Subscribe
    a a’s profile photo
    a a
    11:11 (6 hours ago)
    to
    -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.


    -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).


    Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Tue Aug 16 09:17:03 2022
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 18:01:19 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    gobal warming is an old fake


    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    7 views
    Subscribe
    a a’s profile photo
    a a
    11:11 (6 hours ago)
    to
    -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic
    storms.

    -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).
    Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.
    kiss my as

    coronary mass ejection
    is my definition of the subset of CMEs, targeting the Earth,
    as accepted by NASA, ESA, NOAA

    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    as described above

    nothing wrong since globally accepted

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com on Tue Aug 16 09:47:58 2022
    On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    What nonsense.

    Less wood and dung burning to keep warm, less indoor particulates that
    cause cancer. That's real.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Tue Aug 16 19:57:10 2022
    Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in news:e8c695a5-c336-422a-b072-04bae250bc15n@googlegroups.com:

    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly
    associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by
    climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lu ng-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung
    Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-ch ange-increases-lung-cancer


    There was an article in Playboy back in the '70s. I was a kid then and
    I actually used to read the articles. Well, they had one and one of
    the Playboy artists made a rendering of what man would evolve to look
    like in a polluted world. He did some weird thing with his nostrils.
    I wonder if I can find it...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to a a on Tue Aug 16 19:59:27 2022
    a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216- a3b1b8d3c9cen@googlegroups.com:

    targeting the Earth,

    Oh boy! They're alive!

    Targeting the Earth!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to a a on Tue Aug 16 19:57:42 2022
    a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a- 8cfe15d0b012n@googlegroups.com:

    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth

    GO AWAY, IDIOT CHILD.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Tue Aug 16 13:10:13 2022
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:57:49 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a- 8cfe15...@googlegroups.com:
    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    kis my as

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Tue Aug 16 13:16:04 2022
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:59:33 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216- a3b1b8...@googlegroups.com:

    targeting the Earth,

    Oh boy! They're alive!

    Targeting the Earth!
    CMEs resemble human's heart


    --A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    Call NOAA if you have more questions

    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Coronary is a good and smart term for the desctiption of the Sun's heart beat

    =====

    Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

    coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal. Coronary - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

    Overview
    As adjective

    Coronary (from Latin Corona 'Crown') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
    • Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
    Wikipedia ·CC-BY-SA
    Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

    25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …


    Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

    coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal. Coronary - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

    Overview
    As adjective

    Coronary (from Latin Corona 'Crown') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
    • Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
    Wikipedia CC-BY-SA
    Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

    25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John S@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Tue Aug 16 16:31:47 2022
    On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    gobal warming is an old fake


    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    7 views
    Subscribe
    a a’s profile photo
    a a
    11:11 (6 hours ago)
    to
    -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic
    storms.

    -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).


    Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.

    a a is a fake. Or a fuck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to John S on Tue Aug 16 13:47:28 2022
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 22:31:27 UTC+2, John S wrote:
    On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    gobal warming is an old fake


    -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
    7 views
    Subscribe
    a a’s profile photo
    a a
    11:11 (6 hours ago)
    to
    -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest
    forecast model from NOAA:

    -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic
    storms.

    -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).



    In my theory, the Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a heart, ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

    since coronary flares match human's heart circulation


    ===



    Coronary circulation
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigation
    Jump to search
    Coronary circulation
    Coronary arteries.svg
    Coronary arteries labeled in red text and other landmarks in blue text. Identifiers
    MeSH D003326
    Anatomical terminology
    [edit on Wikidata]

    Coronary circulation is the circulation of blood in the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle (myocardium). Coronary arteries supply oxygenated blood to the heart muscle. Cardiac veins then drain away the blood after it has been deoxygenated.
    Because the rest of the body, and most especially the brain, needs a steady supply of oxygenated blood that is free of all but the slightest interruptions, the heart is required to function continuously. Therefore its circulation is of major importance
    not only to its own tissues but to the entire body and even the level of consciousness of the brain from moment to moment. Interruptions of coronary circulation quickly cause heart attacks (myocardial infarctions), in which the heart muscle is damaged by
    oxygen starvation. Such interruptions are usually caused by coronary ischemia linked to coronary artery disease, and sometimes to embolism from other causes like obstruction in blood flow through vessels.
    Contents

    1 Structure
    1.1 Anastomoses
    1.2 Variation
    1.2.1 Coronary artery dominance
    2 Function
    2.1 Supply to papillary muscles
    2.2 Changes in diastole
    2.3 Changes in oxygen demand
    3 Branches
    4 Coronary anatomy
    4.1 Cardiac veins
    4.2 Coronary arteries
    5 Additional images
    6 See also
    7 References

    Structure
    Schematic diagram of the coronary arteries and veins.
    Schematic view of the heart
    An anterior left coronary artery.
    Base and diaphragmatic surface of heart.

    Coronary arteries supply blood to the myocardium and other components of the heart. Two coronary arteries originate from the left side of the heart at the beginning (root) left ventricle. There are three aortic sinuses (dilations) in the wall of the
    aorta just superior to the aortic semilunar valve. Two of these, the left posterior aortic sinus and anterior aortic sinus, give rise to the left and right coronary arteries, respectively. The third sinus, the right posterior aortic sinus, typically does
    not give rise to a vessel. Coronary vessel branches that remain on the surface of the heart and follow the sulci of the heart are called epicardial coronary arteries.[1]

    The left coronary artery distributes blood to the left side of the heart, the left atrium and ventricle, and the interventricular septum. The circumflex artery arises from the left coronary artery and follows the coronary sulcus to the left. Eventually,
    it will fuse with the small branches of the right coronary artery. The larger anterior interventricular artery, also known as the left anterior descending artery (LAD), is the second major branch arising from the left coronary artery. It follows the
    anterior interventricular sulcus around the pulmonary trunk. Along the way it gives rise to numerous smaller branches that interconnect with the branches of the posterior interventricular artery, forming anastomoses. An anastomosis is an area where
    vessels unite to form interconnections that normally allow blood to circulate to a region even if there may be partial blockage in another branch. The anastomoses in the heart are very small. Therefore, this ability is somewhat restricted in the heart so
    a coronary artery blockage often results in myocardial infarction causing death of the cells supplied by the particular vessel.[1]

    The right coronary artery proceeds along the coronary sulcus and distributes blood to the right atrium, portions of both ventricles, and the heart conduction system. Normally, one or more marginal arteries arise from the right coronary artery inferior to
    the right atrium. The marginal arteries supply blood to the superficial portions of the right ventricle. On the posterior surface of the heart, the right coronary artery gives rise to the posterior interventricular artery, also known as the posterior
    descending artery. It runs along the posterior portion of the interventricular sulcus toward the apex of the heart, giving rise to branches that supply the interventricular septum and portions of both ventricles.[1]
    Anastomoses
    Cast of coronary arteries (right = yellow, left = red)

    There are some anastomoses between branches of the two coronary arteries. However the coronary arteries are functionally end arteries and so these meetings are referred to as potential anastomoses, which lack function, as opposed to true anastomoses like
    that in the palm of the hand. This is because blockage of one coronary artery generally results in death of the heart tissue due to lack of sufficient blood supply from the other branch. When two arteries or their branches join, the area of the
    myocardium receives dual blood supply. These junctions are called anastomoses. If one coronary artery is obstructed by an atheroma, the second artery is still able to supply oxygenated blood to the myocardium. However, this can only occur if the atheroma
    progresses slowly, giving the anastomoses a chance to proliferate.[citation needed]

    Under the most common configuration of coronary arteries, there are three areas of anastomoses. Small branches of the LAD (left anterior descending/anterior interventricular) branch of the left coronary join with branches of the posterior
    interventricular branch of the right coronary in the interventricular sulcus (groove). More superiorly, there is an anastomosis between the circumflex artery (a branch of the left coronary artery) and the right coronary artery in the atrioventricular
    groove. There is also an anastomosis between the septal branches of the two coronary arteries in the interventricular septum. The photograph shows area of heart supplied by the right and the left coronary arteries.[citation needed]
    Variation

    The left and right coronary arteries occasionally arise by a common trunk, or their number may be increased to three; the additional branch being the posterior coronary artery (which is smaller in size). In rare cases, a person will have the third
    coronary artery run around the root of the aorta.[citation needed]

    Occasionally, a coronary artery will exist as a double structure (i.e. there are two arteries, parallel to each other, where ordinarily there would be one).[citation needed]
    Coronary artery dominance

    The artery that supplies the posterior third of the interventricular septum – the posterior descending artery (PDA)[2] determines the coronary dominance.[3]

    If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the right coronary artery (RCA), then the coronary circulation can be classified as "right-dominant."
    If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the circumflex artery (CX), a branch of the left artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as "left-dominant."
    If the posterior descending artery is supplied by both the right coronary artery and the circumflex artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as "co-dominant."

    Approximately 70% of the general population are right-dominant, 20% are co-dominant, and 10% are left-dominant.[3] A precise anatomic definition of dominance would be the artery which gives off supply to the AV node i.e. the AV nodal artery. Most of the
    time this is the right coronary artery.[citation needed]
    Function
    Supply to papillary muscles

    The papillary muscles attach the mitral valve (the valve between the left atrium and the left ventricle) and the tricuspid valve (the valve between the right atrium and the right ventricle) to the wall of the heart. If the papillary muscles are not
    functioning properly, the mitral valve may leak during contraction of the left ventricle. This causes some of the blood to travel "in reverse", from the left ventricle to the left atrium, instead of forward to the aorta and the rest of the body. This
    leaking of blood to the left atrium is known as mitral regurgitation. Similarly, the leaking of blood from the right ventricle through the tricuspid valve and into the right atrium can also occur, and this is described as tricuspid insufficiency or
    tricuspid regurgitation.[citation needed]

    The anterolateral papillary muscle more frequently receives two blood supplies: left anterior descending (LAD) artery and the left circumflex artery (LCX).[4] It is therefore more frequently resistant to coronary ischemia (insufficiency of oxygen-rich
    blood). On the other hand, the posteromedial papillary muscle is usually supplied only by the PDA.[4] This makes the posteromedial papillary muscle significantly more susceptible to ischemia. The clinical significance of this is that a myocardial
    infarction involving the PDA is more likely to cause mitral regurgitation.[citation needed]
    Changes in diastole

    During contraction of the ventricular myocardium (systole), the subendocardial coronary vessels (the vessels that enter the myocardium) are compressed due to the high ventricular pressures. This compression results in momentary retrograde blood flow (i.e.
    , blood flows backward toward the aorta) which further inhibits perfusion of myocardium during systole. However, the epicardial coronary vessels (the vessels that run along the outer surface of the heart) remain open. Because of this, blood flow in the
    subendocardium stops during ventricular contraction. As a result, most myocardial perfusion occurs during heart relaxation (diastole) when the subendocardial coronary vessels are open and under lower pressure. Flow never comes to zero in the right
    coronary artery, since the right ventricular pressure is less than the diastolic blood pressure.[5]
    Changes in oxygen demand

    The heart regulates the amount of vasodilation or vasoconstriction of the coronary arteries based upon the oxygen requirements of the heart. This contributes to the filling difficulties of the coronary arteries. Compression remains the same. Failure of
    oxygen delivery caused by a decrease in blood flow in front of increased oxygen demand of the heart results in tissue ischemia, a condition of oxygen deficiency. Brief ischemia is associated with intense chest pain, known as angina. Severe ischemia can
    cause the heart muscle to die from hypoxia, such as during a myocardial infarction. Chronic moderate ischemia causes contraction of the heart to weaken, known as myocardial hibernation.[citation needed]

    In addition to metabolism, the coronary circulation possesses unique pharmacologic characteristics. Prominent among these is its reactivity to adrenergic stimulation.[citation needed]
    Branches

    The following are the named branches of the coronary circulation in a right-dominant heart:[citation needed]

    Aorta
    Left coronary artery / Left main coronary artery (LMCA)
    Left circumflex artery (LCX)
    Obtuse marginal artery #1 (OM1)
    Obtuse marginal artery #2 (OM2)
    Left anterior descending artery (LAD)
    Diagonal artery #1
    Diagonal artery #2
    Right coronary artery (RCA)
    Atrioventricular nodal branch
    Right marginal artery
    Posterior descending artery (PDA)
    Posteriolateral artery #1 (PL#1)
    Posteriolateral artery #2 (PL#2)

    Coronary anatomy
    Cardiac veins

    The vessels that remove the deoxygenated blood from the heart muscle are known as cardiac veins. These include the great cardiac vein, the middle cardiac vein, the small cardiac vein, the smallest cardiac veins, and the anterior cardiac veins. Cardiac
    veins carry blood with a poor level of oxygen, from the myocardium to the right atrium. Most of the blood of the coronary veins returns through the coronary sinus. The anatomy of the veins of the heart is very variable, but generally it is formed by the
    following veins: heart veins that go into the coronary sinus: the great cardiac vein, the middle cardiac vein, the small cardiac vein, the posterior vein of the left ventricle, and the vein of Marshall. Heart veins that go directly to the right atrium:
    the anterior cardiac veins, the smallest cardiac veins (Thebesian veins).[6] Coronary arteries

    The vessels that deliver oxygen-rich blood to the myocardium are the coronary arteries. When the arteries are healthy, they are capable of autoregulating themselves to maintain the coronary blood flow at levels appropriate to the needs of the heart
    muscle. These relatively narrow vessels are commonly affected by atherosclerosis and can become blocked, causing angina or a heart attack. The coronary arteries that run deep within the myocardium are referred to as subendocardial. The coronary arteries
    are classified as "end circulation", since they represent the only source of blood supply to the myocardium; there is very little redundant blood supply, that is why blockage of these vessels can be so critical.[citation needed]
    Additional images

    Anterior view of coronary circulation

    Anterior view of coronary circulation
    Posterior view of coronary circulation

    Posterior view of coronary circulation
    Illustration of coronary arteries

    Illustration of coronary arteries
    The human heart viewed from the front and from behind

    The human heart viewed from the front and from behind


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_circulation

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 17 11:00:02 2022
    On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:49:12 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    thank you for your support

    --Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a human's heart,
    ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

    since coronary flares match human's heart coronary circulation


    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    -THE IMPACTS HAVE BEGUN: A minor CME hit Earth's magnetic field on Aug. 17th (0303 UT). It could be the first of several CME strikes in the days ahead. NOAA forecasters say their cumulative effect could cause strong G3-class geomagnetic storms,
    especially on Aug. 18-19. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as Illinois and Oregon (geomagnetic latitude 50 degrees). Cameras with sensitive night-sky settings may record auroras even farther south than tha

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to a a on Wed Aug 17 17:49:02 2022
    a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:dba826a5-40c1-4b1c-ba6b- 9fd3fc7cd16cn@googlegroups.com:

    From: a a <manta103g@gmail.com>

    Snipped obsessed idiot rants.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Wed Aug 17 20:35:17 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Aug 17 21:24:51 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Aug 18 03:58:48 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 05:35:21 UTC+2, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.


    Barack is a shame for America
    just read
    ----
    Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number
    By Richard Tol , | Fox News

    Facebook
    Twitter
    Flipboard
    Comments
    Print
    Email

    FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

    FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But
    do they?

    The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May,
    2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

    The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.

    What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

    Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a
    carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was
    seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

    Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their
    data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

    The remainder of Cook’s “evidence” is papers that said that humans caused some climate change and, more importantly, papers that Cook’s colleagues thought said as much.

    There is vigorous debate about how much humans have contributed to climate change, but no one argues the effect is zero. By emitting greenhouse gases, changing the landscape, rerouting rivers, and huddling together in cities, we change the climate –
    perhaps by a little, perhaps by a lot – but not one expert doubts we do. However, a true consensus – 100 per cent agreement – does not serve to demonize those experts who raise credible concerns with the state of climate research.

    The trouble does not end there. Cook has been reluctant to share his data for others to scrutinize. He has claimed that some data are protected by confidentiality agreements, even when they are not. He was claimed that some data were not collected, even
    when they were. The paper claims that each abstract was read by two independent readers, but they freely compared notes. Cook and Co. collected data, inspected the results, collected more data, inspected the results again, changed their data
    classification, collected yet more data, inspected the results once more, and changed their data classification again, before they found their magic 97 percent. People who express concern about the method have been smeared.

    We would hope that the president of the United States of America does not spend time checking such trivia. That is the job of the editor of the journal, Dan Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley, who unfortunately has chosen to ignore all
    issues I and others raised about them. Similarly, the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, and Cook’s employer, the University of Queensland, have turned a deaf ear to my concerns. What was an incompetent piece of research has become a
    highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

    And for what? If Cook’s results are to be believed, 97 percent of experts agree that climate change is real and largely human-made. This does not tell us anything about the risks of climate change, let alone how these compare to the risks of climate
    policy.

    That is a difficult trade-off, and it should be informed by the best possible science rather than dodgy work like Cook’s.
    Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Robertson@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Aug 18 06:45:37 2022
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
    another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

    I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
    extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

    Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
    stands to be making money.

    Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

    Just ask the Mayans.

    Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
    glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
    does the climate have to be to support a forest?

    https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

    In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
    Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
    covered the forests

    Medieval Warm Period anyone?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

    John :-#(#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Thu Aug 18 07:03:05 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 15:45:47 UTC+2, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

    I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
    extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

    Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.

    Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

    Just ask the Mayans.

    Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
    glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
    does the climate have to be to support a forest?

    https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

    In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
    Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
    covered the forests

    Medieval Warm Period anyone?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

    John :-#(#
    Just watch how Twin Sun pulsates

    https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows, Panta rhei

    1-month/1-year Short Time Climate Changes are due to fluctions in solar acitivity
    due to huge ejections of coronary mass, directed to the Earth

    https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Aug 18 07:23:32 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 16:20:37 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.
    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up
    fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.
    I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
    It was intended to be satirical.
    Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.
    Climate change denial is sold pretty hard, but the fossil carbon extraction industry is making a lot of money.
    Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

    Just ask the Mayans.
    Not as quickly as it is at the moment.
    Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
    does the climate have to be to support a forest?

    https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

    In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and covered the forests

    Medieval Warm Period anyone?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
    Local warming and cooling happens all the time. We know about El Nino and La Nina because they last for a year or so,

    We only worked out that Atlantic Mulitdecadal Oscillation was going on in in 1994.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

    Anthropogenic global warming really is global (though it is worse above the Arctic circle. You could work out why if you read the science.
    Anthropogenic global warming
    is fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas to Europe

    since H2O water, water vapor, water retention account for 99.9% of so called greenhouse effect

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Thu Aug 18 07:20:33 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.

    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up
    fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

    I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

    It was intended to be satirical.

    Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.

    Climate change denial is sold pretty hard, but the fossil carbon extraction industry is making a lot of money.

    Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

    Just ask the Mayans.

    Not as quickly as it is at the moment.

    Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
    glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
    does the climate have to be to support a forest?

    https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

    In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
    Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
    covered the forests

    Medieval Warm Period anyone?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

    Local warming and cooling happens all the time. We know about El Nino and La Nina because they last for a year or so,

    We only worked out that Atlantic Mulitdecadal Oscillation was going on in in 1994.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

    Anthropogenic global warming really is global (though it is worse above the Arctic circle. You could work out why if you read the science.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Aug 18 08:52:07 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a
    summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does
    have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Aug 18 09:16:34 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a
    summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does
    have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.

    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei

    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth

    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Thu Aug 18 09:24:34 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:45:47 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    That statement is just uninformed sovereign state cynical mindset.

    Most climate scientists are funded by federal tax dollars to conduct studies on climate change. And a big part of their job is to bring in funding for the "organization" or what have you. Is it any wonder then that they're finding tangible evidence of
    climate change?

    https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223#:~:text=What%20GAO%20Found,fiscal%20years%202010%20through%202017.



    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

    I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

    Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.

    Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

    Just ask the Mayans.

    Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
    glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
    does the climate have to be to support a forest?

    That forest was buried by a melting glacier. You think trees can't grow in cold climates?

    https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/trees-cold-climate


    https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

    In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
    Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
    covered the forests

    Ummm- no- that's when the glaciers started melting in earnest.


    Medieval Warm Period anyone?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

    We're entering the finishing it off phase now:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/glacial-lake-outburst-floods-a-new-climate-related-threat-from-above/

    Any mountainous area with accumulated ice a high elevation should be considered an extreme threat.



    John :-#(#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to a a on Thu Aug 18 09:51:33 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is
    a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It
    does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei

    That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.


    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth

    The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.


    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Aug 18 09:57:28 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis
    is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It
    does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei
    That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
    The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.

    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    --- Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices


    who is the People ?

    Putin and his team ?
    Kremlin ?

    cut off money poured into pockets of Global Warming fakers by Putin
    and fake is over

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Aug 18 10:12:12 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis
    is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It
    does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei
    That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
    The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.

    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    ----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices


    ---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    Climate changes or Climate Changes is
    is a scientifically proven fact

    so combining the two

    "Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,

    so what we get is exactly
    Tautology ( read below)



    In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true,
    regardless of the colour of the ball.

    since
    Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation

    so
    Climate Changes
    is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows, Panta rhei

    and aphorism has nothing to do with tautology or science

    URGENT !!

    Go back to school and collect tuition money

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to a a on Thu Aug 18 11:33:40 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:12:18 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and
    thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality.
    It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei
    That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
    The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.

    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    ----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices


    ---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    Climate changes or Climate Changes is
    is a scientifically proven fact

    so combining the two

    "Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,

    so what we get is exactly
    Tautology ( read below)



    In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true,
    regardless of the colour of the ball.

    since
    Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation

    Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.

    The Panta rhei thing is pseudo-observation, it's not even a principle.


    so
    Climate Changes
    is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows, Panta rhei

    and aphorism has nothing to do with tautology or science

    URGENT !!

    Go back to school and collect tuition money

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Aug 18 12:16:54 2022
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 20:33:44 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:12:18 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
    https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
    Wherein they state:
    So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
    about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
    changing the climate.
    This widespread agreement is documented not by a
    single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
    the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
    analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
    The evidence is
    overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
    arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
    The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
    waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
    oceans are acidifying.

    More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
    :
    An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and
    thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

    I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

    He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality.
    It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

    Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
    Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
    Everything flows Panta rhei
    That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
    to fluctuations in solar activity,
    reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
    The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.

    which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    ----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices


    ---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

    Climate changes or Climate Changes is
    is a scientifically proven fact

    so combining the two

    "Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,

    so what we get is exactly
    Tautology ( read below)



    In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always
    true, regardless of the colour of the ball.

    since
    Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation
    Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.

    The Panta rhei thing is pseudo-observation, it's not even a principle.

    -URGENT !!

    --Go back to school and collect tuition money

    Panta rhei, everything flows is Top Level, General Tautology in case of climate

    We were fooled for years by Putin paid fakers, that climate is almost fixed for the span of thousands of years

    than Global Warming fakers , sponsored by UN agencies, IPCC, Prof. Mann, Al Gore, Putin, Kremlin,
    started to
    spread the Global Warming by humans gospel world-wide

    It tooks me 10 years to switch Global Warming fakers into Climate Change Tautology
    to be read:
    Climate is not constant and is not fixed

    supported by Prof. Mann's ice hockey chart

    but nobody before me every studied how fluctuations in solar activity
    can clock 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes

    Today it's now clear,
    the Sun controls the Earth's climate
    in 1-month/1-year Short Term cycles

    H2O, water, water vapor, water retention account for 99.9% of so-called greenhouse effect ( human's acitivity fake is still sponsored by Putin and Kremlin to make easy money selling natural gas)

    ===
    ---Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.

    you are stupid dog

    Climate Change is studied by thousands of top researchers and scientists world-wide, by every UN agency, NASA, NOAA, ESA, China's gov
    under mathematical logics standards

    What comes today is called
    Twin Sun effect

    and can be easily live studied
    since thermal energy of the Sun can double
    by Huge Coronary Mass Ejections directed to the Earth


    https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

    ---
    ----Go back to school and collect tuition money

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 18 19:17:34 2022
    On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:45:37 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
    wrote:


    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    It's like homelessness. A growth industry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Aug 18 20:20:54 2022
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 12:17:43 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:45:37 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com> wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud >nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they >MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    It's like homelessness. A growth industry.

    Homelessness isn't any kind of industry. It's just a problem. Building houses to house the homeless might be an industry, but nobody seems to be doing that.

    Climate change denial is the real growth industry. There wasn't any until the mid-1990s. Documenting climate change got under way rather earlier when Charles Keeling started recording atmospheric CO2 levels in 1958, but global warming didn't start
    emerging from the noise floor until about 1990, and only then did the fossil carbon extraction industry realise that they had a problem and that they had to start lying about it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Fri Aug 19 00:12:02 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:45:47 AM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
    nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.

    Absolutely false; if you talk of scientists, you are specifying persons
    whose concern is knowledge, understanding: in a word, science.

    Some shills claim to be scientists, of course; that's a fraud, though.

    The "climate scientists' phrase isn't how meteorologists, atmospheric
    chemists, etc. call themselves; you might find a lot of politically slanted commentary
    if you were to search on that phrase.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Sat Aug 20 16:59:44 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    This is just more fear mongering. For example, air pollution has dropped DRAMATICALLY over the last several decades, yet they say that global warming is causing pollutants to INCREASE:
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139418/air-pollutant-emissions-by-type-us/#:~:text=In%201970%2C%20approximately%2026.8%20million,tons%20between%201990%20and%202021.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Aug 20 17:03:38 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:24:55 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    WRONG, Bozo. Here is why: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Aug 20 17:09:36 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer >>>
    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.
    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
    name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
    that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up
    fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

    LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!

    Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Aug 20 21:42:12 2022
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:09:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote: >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than they thought.
    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging
    up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

    LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!

    Wrong. The extra CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere buy burning fossil carbon contains less C-13 than natural CO2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

    Keeling nailed it back in 1979. Suess saw it earlier in radiocarbon dating, but the effect was confounded by atmospheric nuclear testing which injected a bit of extra C-13.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Aug 20 21:32:43 2022
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:03:41 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:24:55 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 :

    WRONG. Here is why:

    https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

    It doesn't even refer to the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science paper,

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

    which didn't have the problems they make a fuss about.

    You can always find lying counter-propaganda - that's what the climate change denial propaganda machine is there to churn out. They do have to pitch it at idiots like you. More intelligent people than you - about 99% of the population - can see through
    it (though probably not all of that 99% - John Larkin can't).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Aug 21 15:51:55 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:09:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote: >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than they thought.
    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
    mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging
    up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

    LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!
    Wrong. The extra CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere buy burning fossil carbon contains less C-13 than natural CO2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

    Keeling nailed it back in 1979. Suess saw it earlier in radiocarbon dating, but the effect was confounded by atmospheric nuclear testing which injected a bit of extra C-13.

    --
    Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

    LOL! That just says which CO2 molecules are coming from fossil fuel burning - it says NOTHING about "anthropogenic temperature change."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Aug 21 16:52:19 2022
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 8:51:59 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:09:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
    On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

    https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

    Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

    https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

    The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

    It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

    The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

    They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

    Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
    MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
    they thought.
    That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
    Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
    another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
    mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

    Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of
    digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

    LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!
    Wrong. The extra CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere buy burning fossil carbon contains less C-13 than natural CO2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

    Keeling nailed it back in 1979. Suess saw it earlier in radiocarbon dating, but the effect was confounded by atmospheric nuclear testing which injected a bit of extra C-13.

    LOL! That just says which CO2 molecules are coming from fossil fuel burning - it says NOTHING about "anthropogenic temperature change."

    Nothing that Gnatguy can understand. The idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so that more CO2 in the atmosphere means higher temperatures at the surface of the earth is much too complicated for him to get his head around.

    The people that sell the fossil carbon that gets burnt as fuel deny the connection, and Gnatguy is gullible enough to believe them. That's his Santa Claus/Easter Bunny mythology and he throws a tantrum if anybody suggests that he has been deluded.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)