Damn you global warming!!!

[seeking1]

 

This makes me very mad.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Anesthetic+gases+contribute+global+warming+study/3922840/story.html

[hking03]

it's interesting that they want to rock our world with the statement that gases used in surgeries=1 million cars...

 

but, how many surgeries are being done to equate to 1 million cars? i couldn't find that in the article... it would be interesting to see if it's like 10 million surgeries or something like that... not that having more makes it better, but it would certainly take away from the surgery=1 million cars polluting the atmostphere argument.

 

on a side note... don't the computers we use everyday contribute to global warming? i thought i remembered reading that in a study... online:P

 

still, global warming sucks...

[yamahac]

This would have been HUGE news two or three years ago. AGW supporters would have gone around calling for a reduction to these types of procedures. Celebrities would have gone on international tours, asking people to refuse anesthesia just like they ask people to use only one square of one-ply toilet paper when going to the washroom.

 

Thank God people have gotten their senses back.

 

Are you insinuating that AGW is not true? I'd expect better from a premed.

[Apixaban85]

I am sure there is some (minimal) contribution to the overall climate change but the overall shift is due to natural forces, at least imo. In 2006-7, I was a big believer but the mainstream scientific community has since moved away from such a bold position in recent years. New data shows that the CO2 level increase came as a result of temperature increase, not the other way around

 

On top of that, there have been multiple reports of bad science and false-reporting from those that support this hypothesis. Also, the whole notion of the UN and its affiliates making AGW an issue back in the early 90s really has some big questions.

 

I agree, I think it is a bit overblown by some. One thing's for sure, the planet will be just fine despite whatever CO2 us humans can put out

[Apixaban85]

Caring for sick people is not environmentally friendly. There's no real way around it. Hospitals consume massive amounts of resources and produce plenty of garbage. There is increasing use of disposable products in the interest of safety and convenience, and it takes even more energy to ensure the proper disposal of biohazardous, carcinogenic, and radioactive waste. Sure, it would be nice if greener methods were developed, but, in the mean time, should modern medical methods and the health and safety of patients and staff be sacrificed in the name of the environment? Of course not.

 

Hospitals can reduce their environmental impact without reusing syringes or pinning down patients for their surgeries. Green construction, recycling programs, and improved public transit access can go a long way without interfering with appropriate modern medical care.

 

I liked this one quote in the comments section

 

So? Really, whats your point? A waste of money to do the study in the first place and a waste of newspaper space to write about it. Whats the alternative, biting down on a piece of wood?

 

Seriously, I can't believe research funding is going to pointless studies like this

[nosuperman]

Hypnosis has zero emissions.

[Apixaban85]

Hypnosis has zero emissions.

 

That whole clip is awesome

[seeking1]

Even though I think this whole issue is extremely overblown, I do think this study is worth doing but maybe not having the whole Global warming thing wrapped around it. Instead, they should just look at these gases affecting all aspects of the environment, including its effect on the ozone, local air pollution, etc. Making global warming the central issue in your study in 2010 reduces its impact since climate change science has lost its luster in recent years.

 

This made me laugh, lol. Someone help me find the study itself. I merely posted the newspaper article to bring attention. Pretending that we're analyzing the study and the science without looking at the paper means little.

[seeking1]

Found it:

 

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/111/1/92.abstract

[hEALTH]

On top of that, there have been multiple reports of bad science and false-reporting from those that support this hypothesis.

 

Well not that much, compared to what has been produced for the case against GW, but yes, far too much for not spurring some healthy and legitimate skepticism.

 

Also, the whole notion of the UN and its affiliates making AGW an issue back in the early 90s really has some big questions.

 

Sorry, I don't see your point here. Please expand. Thanks

 

Found it:

 

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/111/1/92.abstract

 

Thanks

 

As for the whole situation, I'm kind of annoyed how the environmental discussion has been sapped by global warming theory but mostly by how we approach scientific research with "ubber-vulgarized lens", little context and stand back. Yes, I get it that scientific communicators are not the best in their field and we being at large, scientifically illiterate makes it harder for them, and for them and the media to have this "portementeau" environmental concept makes it easier. But what about sustainability, resource management, protection of biodiversity, etc. all things that are relevant still outside of a global warming scare?

[Wayward son]

I am sure there is some (minimal) contribution to the overall climate change but the overall shift is due to natural forces, at least imo. In 2006-7, I was a big believer

 

Scientific evidence should never be about belief but either the acceptance or rejection of evidence.

 

but the mainstream scientific community has since moved away from such a bold position in recent years.

 

No it hasn't.

 

New data shows that the CO2 level increase came as a result of temperature increase, not the other way around

 

This is wrong on so many levels. Scientists have long known that cycles of warming in the distant past were caused by an initial warming triggering an increase in CO2 levels and then both of those continuing to trigger each other. There always has to be an initial forcing factor and in the distant past, as there were not a bunch of humans throwing ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that initial forcing factor was generally brought on by Milankovich cycles. There is no Milankovich cycle effect for the current warming and the evidence is that human caused increase in CO2 is responsible. This is not controversial among the scientific community.

 

On top of that, there have been multiple reports of bad science and false-reporting from those that support this hypothesis.

 

These so-called controversies are generally nothing but a pile of crap being spread by deniers with financial interests which are then spread again by the media which is far more interested in controversy than truth.

 

Here is one of the many posts that have been written about the climategate manufactroversy.

 

Also, the whole notion of the UN and its affiliates making AGW an issue back in the early 90s really has some big questions.

 

Like what? The IPCC is one of many intergovernmental scientific organizations. You seem to think it is some kind of political worldwide conspiracy.

[Morzan]

It's the cows again. First they blame cars, now doctors? Damn cows ousmarting the human race.

[sgt.pepper]

I farted. OOPs

[seeking1]

First, for those who think that the science is as hot now as it was years ago clearly haven't kept up with recent research, where there are more and more paper suggesting the opposite.

 

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and ( the perception of AGW – and the use of AGW – by non-scientists.

The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong:

 

1. There is a rough correlation but little discussion on causation, at least now since well before this theory was even considered between the human emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

 

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

 

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present. This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

 

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

 

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

 

On top of all of this, there are countries, such as China, that have vested interest in this debate. A shift to a greener economy would be nothing but beneficial to to the growth of China, Brazil, and Russia at least in the near future with all of these countries clearly making strides in "green" production and policy. Even the US and Europe know that this is the future. You guys claim that AGW-negative politicians have been paid off by big corporations but say and know little about the opposite, which many documents talk about at the level of the IPCC. Even the former head of the IPCC has HUGE money invested in such green techonology.

 

Protip: Citations, or else this is all irrelevant.

[seeking1]

Cato Institute Press

 

Hahahaha! Oh boy, here we go. Look up "market failures" to understand why this book you're mentioning is irrelevant. Unless these authors are practicing, publishing climate scientists, then I don't care what type of academic praises them.

 

Citations, from you, now. Prove to me that the scientific consensus is that global warming isn't a big deal.

 

And before we exchange internet shouts about who is a commie-socialist, realize that my firm belief is the following: through capitalist market incentives and plans, we can shift towards sustainable, cleaner energy.

[AndrewB]

Are you insinuating that AGW is not true? I'd expect better from a premed.

 

You're right. Premeds should definitely just jump on every bandwagon. Thank you for finally standing up and stifling rational debate.

 

But obviously the debate is far from settled so I think you're pretty stupid. On a side note, I recently had the chance to discuss AGW with a geoclimatologist from Japan. Interesting stuff. He is a skeptic by the way.

[Charon]

You're right. Premeds should definitely just jump on every bandwagon. Thank you for finally standing up and stifling rational debate.

 

That's what Alexis de Tocqueville deplored about democracy in America. I'm happy you brought this up.

 

This discussion sure is relevant as there seems to be scientifics from both sides.

[yamahac]

You're right. Premeds should definitely just jump on every bandwagon. Thank you for finally standing up and stifling rational debate.

 

But obviously the debate is far from settled so I think you're pretty stupid. On a side note, I recently had the chance to discuss AGW with a geoclimatologist from Japan. Interesting stuff. He is a skeptic by the way.

 

Right, bandwagon, do you also think H1N1 was just media hype?

 

You're wrong on the bolded. There is pretty much consensus that AGW is real. On a side note, I'm taking a class on global warming this semester, maybe you should do the same and inform yourself better.

[yamahac]

[yamahac]

I don't share the views of the following pic but it sure is funny:

 

Not really. Unless you're an idiot who would give equal weight to something found on a random person's blog to peer reviewed journal articles from scientists in the relevant fields.

[Apixaban85]

Right, bandwagon, do you also think H1N1 was just media hype?

 

You're wrong on the bolded. There is pretty much consensus that AGW is real. On a side note, I'm taking a class on global warming this semester, maybe you should do the same and inform yourself better.

 

No there isn't, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and all countries would be willing to fund this 'problem'

 

Now, on the other hand, there is pretty much consensus that our cells use oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, but who knows...some researcher might come out in 10 years saying that we can also respire sulfur!

[seeking1]

ssd,

 

I looked into the two authors you mentioned, the ones who wrote the Cato Institute book. They publish little or no original research in their field. Moreover, they have funding ties to oil companies and the George C. Marshall Institute (look this up, they question the link between smoking and cancer).

 

Comparatively, the IPCC is a conservative peer-review process of thousands of climate scientists, with original research spanning the past 100 years.

 

Your turn to tell me why basically every major scientific body in the world has released an official statement backing global warming caused by humans.

 

Not that it matters, really. The world is changing anyways, people are fazing out mined oil for a multitude of reasons. Its a matter of time and capitalism, really.

[Wayward son]

Go and watch the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary (link in a earlier post of mine), which summarizes all the issues from science to politics.

 

Well as you have now mentioned this documentary three times, I might as well add my approval. Yes go watch this documentary. Then go watch House of Numbers (an HIV-AIDS denial doc - also check out Gary Null's HIV/AIDS denial doc), then Ben Stein's Expelled, then some vaccines cause autism (and every other thing imaginable too) documentaries, then some documentaries about the new world order, fluoride being used to pacify us and stop us from thinking, and of course the 25 or so documentaries by Alex Jones. The Swindle is on par with most of those excellent documentaries.

[seeking1]

LOL, that rant fits right into that flowchart I put up. The reality is that scientific skepticism for AGW is a lot bigger that for AIDs, vaccines causing autism, NWO, and fluoride.

 

Its ok to point-counterpoint but it isn't ok to get emotionally and personally offended by healthy skepticism. Science requires criticism from all sides of the equation; with climate change, however, any denier is immediately called names and personally attacked when they make a good, foolproof point. There has NEVER actually been a good and healthy debate about this in an official format. If you went to a climate change conference in the 90s, it is clear that they purposely skipped over the debate of the issue and onto how to solve the problem. I am not denying that AGW can or does exist, I am just pointing out that the science and support isn't as foolproof and therefore, there is a good chance that its not true.

 

Actually, its perfectly fine for anyone to get emotionally and personally offended by healthy skepticism. Its a human reaction, and it happens in all sciences, because science is a human endeavor.

 

The problem with your skepticism, following on the second thing I bolded, is that you think that everything needs to be figured out for us to take action.

 

Guess what: it doesn't. There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Argue over whatever else you want, but there is no arguing this point.

 

I gave a passing glance to the documentary you are obsessing over. Its wrong, and thats that. You're in science, you should get that when you're wrong, you're wrong. Take a look at the complaints received by the TV regulator: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb114/ (scroll down a little to see the listing for the documentary)

[seeking1]

lol, in reading your post again, ssd, it makes it sound like you think that

 

objectivity = absolute natural knowledge

 

like producing information on global warming will be like how it is portrayed in textbooks - without connection to people or places or values.

 

I already said you can mitigate global warming through capitalist channels.

 

And yeah, Wayward son was right to criticize you on your choice of documentary. It is that bad.

 

Never mind all of this still doesn't make reference to my original post. I was merely interested in hearing about how anesthetics have a chemical property as a greenhouse gas.