Obama emphasizes threat to public health as part of climate change push | US news | The Guardian
Murthy said the issue was “personal” for him, since he once lost an uncle to a severe asthma attack. “We have more people exposed to triggers that can cause asthma attacks, and more asthma attacks mean more days of school missed. They mean more days of work missed. They mean more costly trips to the doctor,” Murthy said. “And they most importantly mean more scary moments for parents and for children.” In a background call with reporters ahead of the event, administration officials identified the elderly, children, minorities, the sick and low-income individuals as being at particularly high risk levels for injuries caused by extreme weather.
Posts
4 comments:
Climate change as a cause of CO2 is about as absurd as it gets.
Asthmatics breathe out more CO2 than they breathe in by a couple of orders of magnitude because the body produces CO2.
If pollution is the cause, then demonizing the pollutants is the way to go.
Wrongly targeting CO2 is detrimental to the environmental movement and its goal to reduce pollution because sooner or later the public will wake up and realize they have been duped.
President Lincoln's words on the subject of fooling the public still resonate.
Big Government and telling the truth?
"Truth? massa, why he gone fishing".... and a sad tale about a dead duck Democrat President who is hell bent on signing up the world to a lunatic commitment, whereby enforcing a carbon emissions statutory limitations scheme [saddling industry with a CO² tax] redistribution scheme, [nobody voted for this!] and the northern taxpayer is made to subsidize the rest of the world = ha, ha, ha, ha! that's so funny - what does Obama understand[if anything] - about democracy?
AND - CO² at 390 even 400 ppm isn't gonna kill you or even have an effect but this will............
Many years ago we upgraded our car for a larger diesel model. Three children, along with pushchairs, travel cots and child seats meant we no longer fitted inside a 'family' car and we ended up with a people carrier.
Our first-ever diesel was a tank. It handled like a bad-tempered elephant, smelt like a dirty chip shop and rattled like a pneumatic drill.
But despite the noise and sluggish performance, we believed the sacrifice was worth it because it was a greener car, emitting less of the global-warming gas carbon dioxide than petrol models, and was kinder to the environment and our wallets.
We weren't alone. Thanks to clever marketing, a dramatic improvement in the performance of diesel engines, and tax breaks from a succession of governments obsessed with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, Britain has experienced an extraordinary 'dash for diesel' over the past 15 years.
Today, half of the two million new cars bought each year in the UK are diesel, compared with just 18 per cent in 2001. There are nine million diesel cars on the road — more than at any time in history — and three million diesel vans.
But increasingly it seems that we have all been conned.
For now that the Government has successfully persuaded us to invest in diesel, it has emerged that the fuel is not only less efficient than we were led to believe, but dirtier and more damaging to the environment than petrol. So much so, in fact, that it is killing us in our tens of thousands.
This week, Professor Frank Kelly, chairman of the Department of Health's committee on air pollution, said diesel engines could be responsible for more than 7,000 deaths a year because of the pollutants they emit. He added that governments had taken the 'wrong route' for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol. [/quote]
Daily Mail link
Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. Only existing data and the relation between physics and math are needed or used. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com .
The “solution” regarding concern about carbon dioxide lies in understanding entropy and thermodynamics and recognizing that force fields create temperature gradients, not back radiation. You need to study what happens in real experiments and real studies, such as mine which shows real world data confirming water vapor cools rather than warms. You need to realize that rain forests with 4% water vapor are not 50 degrees hotter than drier regions, that the Sun’s radiation cannot make the surface hotter than it makes the middle of the troposphere and that mankind can do nothing about climate change which is 100% natural.
A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can read about that process at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.
* Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.
Post a Comment