B-Man Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 The Sound Of Settled Science Accountable Science; The new peer-reviewed paper, authored by a team of prominent researchers led by Dr. Corrine Keet of John's Hopkins Children's Center, studied over 23,000 U.S. children and found no statistically significant difference in asthma rates between those who live in inner-city neighborhoods (and are thus subject to higher pollution levels) and those who do not (once controlling for other factors). Instead, researchers concluded that poverty was a greater predictor for higher asthma rates than outdoor air pollution. The study still points to air pollution as a cause for asthma, only it's indoor air pollution--think second hand smoke, rodents, mold, etc.--that may be the main culprit. It's a radical finding. The study upends more than half a century of research that assumed outdoor air pollution in cities was to blame for higher asthma rates--a hypothesis repeatedly used by EPA regulators to justify the agency's regulations. The study couldn't come at a worse time for the agency. EPA is preparing to tighten national standards for ground-level ozone (the main ingredient in smog) by as much as 20 percent. To justify the move, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argued she was "following science" to "protect those most at-risk--our children, our elderly, and people already suffering from lung diseases like asthma."
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 The Sound Of Settled Science Accountable Science; The new peer-reviewed paper, authored by a team of prominent researchers led by Dr. Corrine Keet of John's Hopkins Children's Center, studied over 23,000 U.S. children and found no statistically significant difference in asthma rates between those who live in inner-city neighborhoods (and are thus subject to higher pollution levels) and those who do not (once controlling for other factors). Instead, researchers concluded that poverty was a greater predictor for higher asthma rates than outdoor air pollution. The study still points to air pollution as a cause for asthma, only it's indoor air pollution--think second hand smoke, rodents, mold, etc.--that may be the main culprit. It's a radical finding. The study upends more than half a century of research that assumed outdoor air pollution in cities was to blame for higher asthma rates--a hypothesis repeatedly used by EPA regulators to justify the agency's regulations. The study couldn't come at a worse time for the agency. EPA is preparing to tighten national standards for ground-level ozone (the main ingredient in smog) by as much as 20 percent. To justify the move, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argued she was "following science" to "protect those most at-risk--our children, our elderly, and people already suffering from lung diseases like asthma." can't open the abstract to the actual paper for some reason but i don't see the lead author specifically discussing pollution. she's discussing povery and urban living as an independent risk factor and i suspect that's what the study was powered to answer. there a plenty of studies linking asthma severity and pollution. here's just one:http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/06/106861/early-life-air-pollution-linked-childhood-asthma-minorities-study. when i get a chance will link abstract or actual paper if j of allergy and clinical immunology allows.
Gary M Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 e> we can't do anything about it. right? stop heating with wood burning stoves and continue emission controls on industry and cars. around here many people heat with wood cuz they can't afford to heat any other way. pay a living wage and that changes. There are lots of people around me that heat with wood, and some you wouldn't consider poor. The air here in the winter is crisp and clear, I hunt rabbits for hours and don't have any issue breathing.
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 arch coal lost 30 cents a ton on coal sold last quarter. anr and peabody about the same. anr and arch have dropped below a dollar a share recently and are both now just above it.http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/01/will-coal-stocks-rebound-in-2014.aspx they're dying. http://www.trefis.com/stock/btu/articles/279763/u-s-coal-producers-facing-unprecedented-times/2015-02-10 Energy prices are down across the board in the past year...but only coal is dying, based on the last quarter's results, even though demand was up on an annual basis last year? Do you ever think through what you post?
Nanker Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Of course he doesn't. They have not the courage to stop what they're doing wrt energy consumption in order to lead by example. They just want to carp about things and tell others what THEY should do, because they know the truth!
Gary M Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Of course he doesn't. They have not the courage to stop what they're doing wrt energy consumption in order to lead by example. They just want to carp about things and tell others what THEY should do, because they know the truth altered data points! fixed
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 fixed There are valid reasons to "alter" data in scientific research, you know. Changes in measurement techniques require adjustments to legacy data, for example. I don't know if they apply in this case...but then, neither do you, since neither one of us has read the research that specifies the reason or methodology for the adjustment. Looking at graphs is not enough.
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Energy prices are down across the board in the past year...but only coal is dying, based on the last quarter's results, even though demand was up on an annual basis last year? Do you ever think through what you post? from my 2nd citation: As Nomura analyst Curt Woodworth told the Financial Times, “I think you’re going to see multiple bankruptcies in U.S. coal over the next 12 to 18 months.”. so, i'm certainly not alone in this belief. you can find many other financial analysts saying the same thing right about now. this decline was deep well before the saudi's engineered the massive drop in oil prices but the true death rattle worsened then. There are lots of people around me that heat with wood, and some you wouldn't consider poor. The air here in the winter is crisp and clear, I hunt rabbits for hours and don't have any issue breathing. ever read first hand accounts of london from as little as 75 years ago? buses had a guy with a flashlight guiding the way through the smog. in the country, it's more dilute but it ultimately pollutes the same finite atmosphere. and as promised, it's as i said. conclusion mentions nothing about pollution. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)01676-5/abstract. this is a dodgy leap of faith by an agenda driven right wing rag. Edited February 10, 2015 by birdog1960
Alaska Darin Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 f. Carbon credits !@#$ing retards.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Is it OK if I continue to use my fire places?
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Looks like Obama did come through on his promise to bankrupt the coal industry.
birdog1960 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Is it OK if I continue to use my fire places? oh wow. you have multiples. how cool, i mean hot. personally, i like the natural gas one better. doesn't stink up the furniture all spring, summer and fall.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 ever read first hand accounts of london from as little as 75 years ago? buses had a guy with a flashlight guiding the way through the smog. Not from wood smoke.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 oh wow. you have multiples. how cool, i mean hot. personally, i like the natural gas one better. doesn't stink up the furniture all spring, summer and fall.Just two: one in the great room, and a second in the smaller formal living room. And I don't think I'd want to make the switch to gas; I enjoy the rustic charm of wood burning. I've never had an issue with smoke or soot getting into the carpets or upholstery, though I suppose that's a reasonable concern.
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Not from wood smoke. We'll have no inconvenient truths from you now.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 from my 2nd citation: As Nomura analyst Curt Woodworth told the Financial Times, “I think you’re going to see multiple bankruptcies in U.S. coal over the next 12 to 18 months.”. so, i'm certainly not alone in this belief. you can find many other financial analysts saying the same thing right about now. this decline was deep well before the saudi's engineered the massive drop in oil prices but the true death rattle worsened then. Coal companies declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean coal is dead. It means industry consolidation, at worst. But an entire industry that can generate net cash flow on depletion costs alone is not going to die, particularly when demand for their product is projected to increase. Your stupid-ass excuse for a post makes it sound like the Powder River Basin is going to sit idle. Just two: one in the great room, and a second in the smaller formal living room. And I don't think I'd want to make the switch to gas; I enjoy the rustic charm of wood burning. I've never had an issue with smoke or soot getting into the carpets or upholstery, though I suppose that's a reasonable concern. You probably open the flue.
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 oh wow. you have multiples. how cool, i mean hot. personally, i like the natural gas one better. doesn't stink up the furniture all spring, summer and fall. Look up "damper".
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) You probably open the flue. Thanks a lot for giving away a long held "Tasker" family secret. Edited February 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
birdog1960 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Not from wood smoke. they burned coal mostly. so what. similar in particulate matter produced. wood may even produce more. educate me. Edited February 11, 2015 by birdog1960
B-Man Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 There are valid reasons to "alter" data in scientific research, you know. Changes in measurement techniques require adjustments to legacy data, for example. I don't know if they apply in this case...but then, neither do you, since neither one of us has read the research that specifies the reason or methodology for the adjustment. Looking at graphs is not enough. FTA: “Well these are reputable scientific institutions. They wouldn’t be making these adjustments without good reason.” And I’d agree with you. That’s certainly what one would reasonably hope and expect. But the odd thing is that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from any of the institutions which have been making these adjustments. Not from NASA GISS. Nor from NOAA, which maintains the dataset known as the Global Historical Climate Network. Nor from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which, with the Met Office, maintains the third of the world’s three surface data records, known as Hadcrut. About as close as we’ve got to an attempted justification is this piece by Zeke Hausfather – Understanding Adjustments To Temperature Data – at the website of Judith Curry. The explanations he offers for the basic principles of temperature adjustments are plausible enough. They include things like the Urban Heat Island effect; weather stations which have moved locations; weather stations which appear to give false readings which need to be adjusted in line with their neighbours; changes in measuring equipment; changes in the time of day measurements are taken (formerly in the afternoon, now more usually in the morning,) and so on. In other words it’s a case of “move along. Nothing to see here” and “trust the Experts. They know best.” The problem with Hausfather’s explanations is that though they’re fine on the theory they don’t seem to bear much relation to the actuality of the adjustments that have been made around the world. Take, for example, the Urban Heat Island effect. This is where weather stations, over time, have become surrounded by buildings or other heat sources and which therefore record hotter temperatures than they used to. You’d expect, as a result of this, that recent (ie late 20th century) raw temperature readings from urban areas would be adjusted downwards in order to make them more accurate. Rarely though, is this the case. More usually, the adjustments appear to have been made in the other direction, so that the late twentieth century readings are made hotter still – while the early twentieth century readings have been adjusted to make them look cooler. And this isn’t just an issue with the adjustments to the Paraguay stations by the way. It has happened all over the world. more at the link: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/ .
Recommended Posts