Climate change - consequences? - Page 26
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1624252627 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 522
  1. #501
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    558
    Likes (Received)
    5779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dualkit View Post
    . . . I understand scientists make predictions on what available data they have, my issue is how they and their followers react to people who question their predictions. . .

    . . . I was amazed at the off topic reaction people had when Stephen Hawking died. Climate alarmists on the left saw him as the smartest guy on the planet and took everything he said as fact, when I mentioned to them he was a theoretical physicist and nothing he claims can be proven or disproven . . ..
    You might be right about followers, who may accent anything as scientific truth, without either understanding it or the "error bars" involved. But, IMO, only part right about scientists.

    This guy used to host a monthly discussion group for around 30 folks at his home in Palo Alto, who rotated giving talks: Martin L. Perl - Biographical - NobelPrize.org

    He had at least one session where another scientist was happy to call Hawking wrong and more or less made his case without calling him a liar, stupid, etc. -- just wrong. Frankly, I couldn't tell at the end whether he was right or wrong. And, while interesting, didn't much care, since I had no travel plans to the edges of the universe. No falling off ladders involved, at least for a billion years or so.

    Another (chemistry PhD) was happy to point out the old bit about how the only way science changes is when the old guard dies.

    What separates science from blind faith is that it actually has a method to question the old ideas, propose new ones (hypotheses), test them in the real world (experiments), and see how they hold up. Not perfect -- but it beats wearing a suicide vest and blowing up non believers for some number of imagined virgins awaiting you on the other side. Or blindly following some other religious / political / tribal ideology that has us doing the equivalent of climbing tall ladders and falling off.

    On climate change or COVID-19 scientists would (or should) be happy to discuss your ideas if you had a robust hypothesis and a preponderance of data to back it up.

  2. Likes fusker liked this post
  3. #502
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    LIAR! I never said it was a hoax, I said it was being hyped as something more than it was.
    Those high mortality rates that have everyone panicked ignore the probability that many more mild cases exist that were never identified as COVID-19. A percentage based on a total number that isn't actually the total is misleading.
    The high mortality rates show that over 13% of the people who catch the virus have to go into the hospital and 6% are critical, requiring massive intervention to survive.

    Fill up the hospitals by not halting the spread and the mortality rates will soar.

    That's what the statistics actually show, already. Italy, as of this moment, is running a tiny bit under 7% CFR.

    They also show that the spread of this virus can be and has been accurately predicted. Those predictions are what triggerred massive efforts in China to control the disease.

    But you and Italy know better ....

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Read it again. "Around here people with solar installations and batteries . . ." .
    I had a good friend who grew up on a farm in South Dakota. They only got city electric after she went away to college. Before that it was a windmill and a battery

    Quote Originally Posted by Dualkit View Post
    Just a quick question, what happened to the coming man made ice age they predicted in the 70's? I am pretty sure there are enough guys in here old enough to remember that.
    Yes, one guy had a theory based on his observations, he threw that idea up for inspection, others took it down. Scientific method, also used in machine shop practice "That surface sucks, I think its chatter, let's try a shorter end mill. Well shit, that didn't do it, let's try carbide and a little more feed ... Ho ! viola, no more chatter !"

    It is pretty simple where the doubters come from, as predictions based on scientific theory have been completely wrong in the past.
    The doubters come from the ranks of dumb fucks who don't use their minds in the first place, then don't bother to pay attention to people who do, then spout crap about "wrong predictions" forty years later. The actual scientific community (if such a thing exists) thought that idea was plausible, looked at it, discarded it. Forty years ago.

    Wake up, Rip.

    I was amazed at the off topic reaction people had when Stephen Hawking died.
    What's that got to do with anything ? People are nuts. Stephen Hawking is in fact dead and stocking up on toilet paper is not going to keep you from catching a virus. Crowd reactions are irrelevant, who cares what "people" do ?


    There is actually a decent writeup on the "cooling" thing that ostriches like to pull out and wave around frantically ...

    Global cooling - Wikipedia

  4. #503
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    583
    Likes (Received)
    2824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dualkit View Post
    Nice try, but just using common sense there are plenty of cases of people injuring themselves doing stupid crap on ladders. I understand scientists make predictions on what available data they have, my issue is how they and their followers react to people who question their predictions. As a climate skeptic I have been called all kinds of demeaning names and had my intelligence questioned, most of that was not here. When I turned around and challenged the people calling me a stupid moron to an I.Q. test they all backed down by increasing their 3rd grade level name calling, even some as low as saying why don't we have a "male part" measuring contest.

    Not here but on a couple boards for sports fans I was amazed at the off topic reaction people had when Stephen Hawking died. Climate alarmists on the left saw him as the smartest guy on the planet and took everything he said as fact, when I mentioned to them he was a theoretical physicist and nothing he claims can be proven or disproven like people's religious beliefs, I got ripped up one side and down the other by the lefties.
    I suggest you Google 'Dunning-Kruger syndrome' because you've got it in spades.

    Climate change is a fact and just like the tides whether you believe in it or not makes no difference at all.

    Personally I'm in favour of a sea level rise anyway.

    PDW

  5. Likes Mark Rand liked this post
  6. #504
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    Personally I'm in favour of a sea level rise anyway.
    So much for moving to Texas ...


  7. #505
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    4,184
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2152
    Likes (Received)
    2577

    Default

    Jasus stop with the global warming crap.
    You libtards need to get a life.

  8. Likes Leadfootin, Lewie liked this post
  9. #506
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Abingdon, VA
    Posts
    3,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4708
    Likes (Received)
    3324

    Default

    China currently spews out about five times more greenhouse emissions that the US. And China’s output is increasing every year (supposedly at a reduced rate of increase...?)

    Not to mention India, and the rest of Asia and Africa, are really just getting started to pump the air full of the bad stuff.

    The US has decreased total greenhouse emissions over the last three decades, one of the few industrialized nations of the world to do so.

    But, a lot of Americans are so misinformed and ignorant, they think the US is the main polluter, and that it’s up to us to save the planet.

    Give me a break...

  10. Likes Scottl, Dualkit, Lewie liked this post
  11. #507
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,389
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    421
    Likes (Received)
    2671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    China currently spews out about five times more greenhouse emissions that the US. And China’s output is increasing every year (supposedly at a reduced rate of increase...?)

    Not to mention India, and the rest of Asia and Africa, are really just getting started to pump the air full of the bad stuff.

    The US has decreased total greenhouse emissions over the last three decades, one of the few industrialized nations of the world to do so.

    But, a lot of Americans are so misinformed and ignorant, they think the US is the main polluter, and that it’s up to us to save the planet.

    Give me a break...
    Well, you make a good point, but considering how backward looking many opinions here are, it is unsurprising

    List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

    You can see that as of year 2000 this was the case, but basically the world outsourced their carbon emissions to China.

    It does not change the overall point, and when you add the graphs together, you realize that we must, along with other countries do our part

    we can neither do it ourselves nor ignore it

  12. Likes fusker liked this post
  13. #508
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    558
    Likes (Received)
    5779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    China currently spews out about five times more greenhouse emissions that the US. And China’s output is increasing every year (supposedly at a reduced rate of increase...?)

    Not to mention India, and the rest of Asia and Africa, are really just getting started to pump the air full of the bad stuff.

    The US has decreased total greenhouse emissions over the last three decades, one of the few industrialized nations of the world to do so.

    But, a lot of Americans are so misinformed and ignorant, they think the US is the main polluter, and that it’s up to us to save the planet.

    Give me a break...

    Problem is that we can't put up a wall around global problems. And, what we’re doing right now (on the political rather than technological front) is making things worse.

    It's true enough this is one we can't fix all by ourselves - other nations will have to act.

    We believe we have tremendous leverage in the world when it comes to, say, leading a war into Afghanistan or Iraq, financial leverage to take down or prop up the global economy, going it alone against nuclear nations like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, ripping up world trade agreements . . . even how tech companies should spellcheck words like rigour and honour.

    But when it comes to urging the world to burn a bit less of the oil Exxon-Mobil pulls out of Saudi Arabia – or making cars a bit more efficient – now, we're suddenly powerless?

    This is going to be long, but maybe worth a read if anyone wants to recognize how poorly we are doing in any semblance of energy policy. COVID-19, serious as it already is in places like Italy, will be a blip in time. These decisions will likely haunt us for as far ahead as we can see.

    If you look at key decision points with respect to energy policy, we have been making decisions in the interest of the oil (Exxon-Mobil etc.), refining (Koch Industries etc.), and oil-dependent (GM, Fiat-Chrysler, Boeing etc.) interests, rather than the best interests of the country. Those mistakes have cost us trillions, hurt our companies and economy, and made us less safe. In my opinion, we’re about to do it again with even more at stake.

    After the first oil crisis (1970's) we learned we were overly dependent upon oil, that it was entirely possible to improve efficiency, and that we had the options of doing better. Some good came out of it - we started to improve fuel efficiency. Motors and controls got a bit more efficient. We did a bit of scrubbing to coal plant and auto emissions. Canada had less to complain about from acid rain. Some R&D went into alternatives, more efficient lighting, etc.

    However the main response was to double down on oil. We beefed up our presence with the Fifth Fleet to assure safe passage of tankers. The cost of that exercise back then, per barrel of oil, was as large as the cost of oil itself. It was a huge hidden subsidy, paid by taxpayers. Elsewhere we had subsidies for drilling, exploration, etc.

    We also started taking sides, first with Iran, then Iraq, then a sensible intervention (Bush 1.0) and then an "easy" war in Iraq (Bush 2.0) that cost us $$$ trillions, maimed tens of thousands of vets, killed hundreds of thousands, and fomented terrorism. Add in a dozen other Middle East entanglements and we've helped destroy the middle and moderate classes in many Moslem nations, destabilized the region, seen hordes seeking asylum, provided the pretext for 9-11, caused the national debt to soar, and kept money from going into things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

    All pretty much because we doubled-down on oil rather than more aggressively pursuing efficiency, conservation, and energy independence.

    Forget solar, geothermal, hydro, pumped storage, batteries, new nuclear, wind, tides --- what we're doing today in terms of our own natural gas could likely have been done earlier. It was just "easier" back then to make the Arab world safer for US oil rigs and tankers. "Cheaper" too since the US public rather than oil drillers, refiners, and users were paying the bill for that fleet, covert operations, wars, and VA facilities attempting to treat the returning veterans.

    There are other reasons why we should have been taking a more assertive leadership role in improved efficiency, conservation, and alternatives – each of them in the $$$$ trillions of savings range: pollution, respiratory diseases, oil companies taking short cuts like Exxon Valdez in Alaska or BP in the Gulf, miners dying from respiratory diseases, the rise of oil-funded despots, and lost leadership in both the auto industry and a next generation of industries. The main point is that decisions matter and we shouldn’t leave them to oil-related companies like Exxon or Koch Industries, pipeline owners, or maybe the ‘druthers of GM’s latest CEO looking to make a faster buck. Did I mention we've become this guy's bitch?**

    Fast forward to today. Back in 1970, GM was by far the world's dominant auto company, followed by Ford and Chrysler. No one else was close. Today there is a new "Big Three." Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are now the world's largest companies. Honda one of the most respected. German and Japanese brands dominating the luxury segment. Chrysler is now an Italian company. We could have remained the leaders. Indeed, some in the auto industry think we would have fallen further still had there not been CAFE requirements keeping us in the game as the world turned towards more efficient cars. Here in the US, auto CEOs figured, quarter by quarter, they'd do better concentrated on the big gas-guzzler segments as their companies became less and less competitive globally.

    The way to have long-term success in the auto industry is to make products the next generation of consumers (increasingly around the world) wants to buy. I realize many of us have fond memories of muscle cars, want the biggest diesel truck money can buy, and think, “social distancing,” means staying 10’ clear of a Prius. We’ll still be able to do that. But, like the coal industry, that’s not the future.

    Let me add that there's still plenty of things to like in our auto and aero industries and the companies fuel them. There will be combustion engines around for decades to come. What we should be doing is making sure our next generation of tech is as world-leading as this past generation was. Maybe with a better understanding along the way of unintended consequences.

    On the tech side, our companies have been doing a decent job (if not world-leading on things like solar or hybrid technology). They’re not stupid. But they aren’t helped by a political environment that’s pushing a 1950’s version of the US as the future, where “clean” coal reigns, we go back to Edison bulbs with tungsten filaments, CAFE requirements are scrapped, solar is something only for liberal weenies, it’s OK for a dictator in Saudi Arabia to chop up journalists (who needs journalists, but the oil, that’s something we can use). We also tell the rest of the world (by withdrawing from the Paris Accords) that climate change is a hoax. About the only “plus” in this is that many countries, like kids ignoring their parents, are learning to do the opposite of what we say.

    All of these are steps to pump up the economy in the very short run, rather than save money, companies, jobs, and lives in the long run.

    We just had a thread about LED lamps in the shop. People who have installed them are delighted. Brighter. Last ages without flickering then dying. Start right up. Use almost 80% less energy. Now, cheap. But here’s what we’re being told on the poltical front: LED Light Bulbs - LED vs Incandescent - Trump and Light Bulbs

    It’s the same thing on automotive efficiency: Analysis: How Trump’s rollback of vehicle fuel standards would increase US emissions Even apart from the emissions aspect, this step will have the effect of putting what remains of the traditional US auto industry (GM, Ford) further behind the new world leaders in energy efficiency. Good for next quarter's profits. Bad for being a leader in the future.

    The Trump administration started by censoring its own scientists on publishing climate change data. Instead of understanding and monitoring the threat (as with COVID-19), if we don’t admit it exists maybe it will go away. Three year's later, a Southeast Missouri State College dropout and the media's most influential climate skeptic, gets our nation's Medal of Honor.

    The administration has also gone to great lengths making sure that citizens, rather than polluters pay the safety, health, and cleanup costs (maybe especially those showing up on, say, the DJIA) air pollution, chemical and pipeline spills, toxic substances, water pollution, etc. And while some of these regulations might truly be unnecessary, the general theme is to offload costs from producers to citizens: 95 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump - The New York Times

    One of the great things from the tech side has been the rise of our own natural gas production. It provides a bridge to the future and minimizes the costs ordinary citizens might have to pay in a sensibly planned move from fossil fuels to alternatives. My one problem is that we are not trying to understand potential damage to aquifers, but are actually denying public access to the information. This is another case of “no problem” if we provide penalties for even discussing it. My guesstimate is that while we could have “best practices” in fracking, the secrecy and lack of research will lead to at least some serious damage to aquifers. It would be fair to say that over-reaction from the far left to anything with a chemical name is part of the problem. Just because H2O and SiO2 are being injected down wells, doesn’t mean we’re all going to die. ."The public has a right to know": Fracking companies don't have to disclose chemicals linked to health concerns - Marketplace


    Water is a whole ‘nuther story that’s hand in hand with energy policy. That would be another page; and access to enough clean water will become a huge issue. Water and energy are inextricably linked - perhaps something to educate ourselves on (locally we had a presentation on the topic from one of those dreaded experts with engineering degrees and years of experience).


    Methane, as many climate skeptics point out, is an even more powerful greenhouse gas that CO2. We’re willfully not tracking it and emissions from drilling sites look to an order of magnitude larger than previously estimated. Don’t measure it and it won’t be a problem?

    Coal, in terms of the US, is an intentional political shit storm. Fortunately pure economics is changing the landscape of energy use, even as Trump declares coal the future. Trump Vowed to Save the Coal Sector, but He Can't Fight Cheap Natural Gas


    It’s been obvious for a decade, at least to me, that we have had a huge opportunity to protect US manufacturing and level the playing field, by including emissions as part of the calculation of tariffs. That way a Chinese producer has to either clean up their entire supply chain (electricity from coal plants, pollutants, inefficient and failure prone devices, etc.) or pay countervailing tariffs. At best, US producers prosper and we become the world leaders in energy efficiency and alternatives. At worse, the Germans, Chinese etc. start making better products, cleaner air, less greenhouse emissions, etc. That’s real leverage and was the way the Trump administration could have done trade and tariffs. It could also strengthen domestic supply chains.

    Problem is, that sensible trade policy would require Trump to acknowledge climate change. Whenever politically convenient (Obama born in the US, Trump’s inflated inauguration numbers, Russia as never involved in hacks, vaccines as likely unsafe (2016), coal as the future, Mexicans from other South American countries all being murderers and rapists, COVID-19 as a hoax), Trump just makes up his own alternative reality. Too many of us either blindly agree or think "you're a jerk, but thanks for the temporary tax break and pumping up the Dow with all that borrowed money." We do ourselves a great disservice by making decisions based on “alternative facts” and not anticipating some of the longer-term costs.

    Which brings us to climate change. Instead of denying the science and scuttling the Paris Accords, we stay in. Point out that on the tech side we’re cutting emissions . . . "you should too." And instead of allies and trading partners hating us for our approach on tariffs and trade agreements – they notice we’re leading the world against a shared threat. As you say, our companies are already taking good steps. Might us well take credit for it. You can bet the Chinese, French, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans and others are doing so in our absence.

    This is already way too long. The point is we DO have leverage to have other countries reduce their impacts on our shared environment. And if we start making better (fact-based) decisions it will help our citizens, economy, and neighbors prosper.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails mbs.jpg  
    Last edited by PeteM; 03-15-2020 at 06:25 PM. Reason: Beats listening to the news

  14. Likes Greg White, fusker liked this post
  15. #509
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    583
    Likes (Received)
    2824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    China currently spews out about five times more greenhouse emissions that the US. And China’s output is increasing every year (supposedly at a reduced rate of increase...?)

    Not to mention India, and the rest of Asia and Africa, are really just getting started to pump the air full of the bad stuff.

    The US has decreased total greenhouse emissions over the last three decades, one of the few industrialized nations of the world to do so.

    But, a lot of Americans are so misinformed and ignorant, they think the US is the main polluter, and that it’s up to us to save the planet.

    Give me a break...
    All that is true.

    It makes no difference to whether climate change is happening or not, though.

    The problem I have with people like you is that you want to pretend nothing is happening. It is. The cause(s) - a different argument that you want to cut off by denying that climate change is happening at all.

    PDW

  16. #510
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat
    China currently spews out about five times more greenhouse emissions that the US. And China’s output is increasing every year (supposedly at a reduced rate of increase...?)
    That's because thr US doesn't make anything anymore. When your entire economy consists of stacking shelves and handing Big Macs out a window, it's easy to drop your emissions.

    @PeteM, not disagreeing with you in general but the link about "light bulb standards" ... this is what ticks a lot of people off. Why the fuck is the goddamned federal government getting invovled in light bulbs ? People can figure out some things on their own, ya know ? Maybe if they want to put up figures - "x makes so much light, burns y much electric" that'd be okay but jeezus h christ, if we wanted to live in 1984 we'd move to the UK. That shit sucks.

    And George W Bush, the big Conservative, is the ass who signed this legislation ?

    We're doomed.

  17. #511
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    5,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5093
    Likes (Received)
    5118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    All that is true.

    It makes no difference to whether climate change is happening or not, though.

    The problem I have with people like you is that you want to pretend nothing is happening. It is. The cause(s) - a different argument that you want to cut off by denying that climate change is happening at all.

    PDW
    Talk about distorting someone's words.

    If you look at that chart provide by gustafson both China and "other countries" (everybody not named in the chart) each have roughly double the CO2 emissions of the USA. That means we, one of the largest economies in the world, contribute only one third of the total just among USA, China, and other (unlisted) countries. The EU is contributing roughly 2/3 as much as us and while India is still somewhat low the trendline is definitely rising.

    Look at the CO2 emissions per person and we are not even in the top five.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...untries%29.svg

    Tool Cat is correct. We are being disproportionately blamed.

  18. #512
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    583
    Likes (Received)
    2824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Talk about distorting someone's words.

    If you look at that chart provide by gustafson both China and "other countries" (everybody not named in the chart) each have roughly double the CO2 emissions of the USA. That means we, one of the largest economies in the world, contribute only one third of the total just among USA, China, and other (unlisted) countries. The EU is contributing roughly 2/3 as much as us and while India is still somewhat low the trendline is definitely rising.

    Look at the CO2 emissions per person and we are not even in the top five.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...untries%29.svg

    Tool Cat is correct. We are being disproportionately blamed.
    I actually don't give a damn - I *WANT* a sea level rise.

    Nor would I defend China - they're a massive CO2 emitter along with a shit-ton of other pollutants. They need to clean up their act. So does India, the USA, the EU and smaller players like Australia.

    Thing is, the Chinese don't seem to give a damn and you guys are still in denial that ANYTHING needs to be done at all.

    Hence you get mocked. Because you earn it continually.

    Just back from 3 days sailing - I see it's SSDD as per usual here...

    PDW

  19. #513
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dgfoster View Post
    Emanuel,

    You missed the point entirely. The CT as a screening tool for Covid is useless. ... The citation you offered related use of CT of the Chest to determine if very sick people had Covid pneumonia or not. That is far different than the general testing of the public for Covid.

    Secondly the suggestion that CT scans could be analyzed in seconds and therefore might be a useful screening tool is also complete rubbish. It might be possible for software to review a scan rapidly, however you would know if you ever had a scan, seen one done, or read about them that acquisition of a scan for one patient probably takes at the absolute minimum 20 minutes and under non-emergent circumstances, more. Secondly, even if scanners could be run faster, the number of scanners in existence would be woefully in adequate for large-scale screening.
    Just to update the record --

    "But if you thought you had coronavirus?

    You would be sent to a fever clinic. They would take your temperature, your symptoms, medical history, ask where you’d traveled, your contact with anyone infected. They’d whip you through a CT scan …

    Wait — “whip you through a CT scan”?

    Each machine did maybe 200 a day. Five, 10 minutes a scan. Maybe even partial scans. A typical hospital in the West does one or two an hour. And not X-rays; they could come up normal, but a CT would show the “ground-glass opacities” they were looking for.

    (Dr. Aylward was referring to lung abnormalities seen in coronavirus patients.)

    And then?

    If you were still a suspect case, you’d get swabbed. But a lot would be told, “You’re not Covid.” People would come in with colds, flu, runny noses. That’s not Covid."


    Inside China’s All-Out War on the Coronavirus - The New York Times

    I know it's the Times but still an informative article, worth a few minutes .... according to the WHO team who was there, using CT for diagnosis is not "rubbish".

    Except maybe in backwards third-world shitholes .... not possible, hunh ? who missed the point ?

    Bellingham is nice, Mikey liked it

  20. #514
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    2257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Just to update the record --

    "But if you thought you had coronavirus?

    You would be sent to a fever clinic. They would take your temperature, your symptoms, medical history, ask where you’d traveled, your contact with anyone infected. They’d whip you through a CT scan …

    Wait — “whip you through a CT scan”?

    Each machine did maybe 200 a day. Five, 10 minutes a scan. Maybe even partial scans. A typical hospital in the West does one or two an hour. And not X-rays; they could come up normal, but a CT would show the “ground-glass opacities” they were looking for.

    (Dr. Aylward was referring to lung abnormalities seen in coronavirus patients.)

    And then?

    If you were still a suspect case, you’d get swabbed. But a lot would be told, “You’re not Covid.” People would come in with colds, flu, runny noses. That’s not Covid."


    Inside China’s All-Out War on the Coronavirus - The New York Times

    I know it's the Times but still an informative article, worth a few minutes .... according to the WHO team who was there, using CT for diagnosis is not "rubbish".

    Except maybe in backwards third-world shitholes .... not possible, hunh ? who missed the point ?

    Bellingham is nice, Mikey liked it
    It is nice you have figured out the answer to the need for rapid screening. I think you should call the CDC and WHO and let them know how they could solve the problem.

    Denis

  21. #515
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dgfoster View Post
    It is nice you have figured out the answer to the need for rapid screening. I think you should call the CDC and WHO and let them know how they could solve the problem.
    Still going to stick with "rubbish" hunh ? Okay, here's clue - Aylward is a big dog at WHO.

    He already knows. He's the one who said that.

    CDC, god only knows what those people use to keep their ears from imploding. But whatever it is, it's high-strength because there is a tremendous vacuum up there.

    My Experience With CDC

  22. #516
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    2257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Still going to stick with "rubbish" hunh ? Okay, here's clue - Aylward is a big dog at WHO.

    He already knows. He's the one who said that.

    CDC, god only knows what those people use to keep their ears from imploding.
    i am sure those ignorant asses at CDC just need a wakeup call, Emanuel. I just can’t understand why they can’t see the obvious. It is your duty to convince us and inform them..

    Denis

  23. #517
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dgfoster View Post
    i am sure those ignorant asses at CDC just need a wakeup call, Emanuel. I just can’t understand why they can’t see the obvious. It is your duty to convince us and inform them..
    Nah, I wouldn't want to mess with their record. Check the facts. They are doing super ! Just look at their performance ! Awesome ! On top of this every step of the way !

  24. #518
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    2257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Nah, I wouldn't want to mess with their record. Check the facts. They are doing super ! Just look at their performance ! Awesome ! On top of this every step of the way !
    I am confident, given your superior insight and intellect, that you could do a much better job than those dummies. What seems difficult for them and the rest of the world is so simple for you. I really don’t think you should hold back.

    Denis

  25. #519
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    5,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5093
    Likes (Received)
    5118

    Default

    No need to worry about Climate Change anymore, folks. We have a new horror story to whip the population into a frenzy so they'll accepts whatever we tell them to do.

    911 failed to get it done.

    SARS< MERS, etc. failed to get it done.

    This time we have a winner, the dreaded COVID-19 super virus, and people are begging government to regulate their lives in order to save them.

  26. Likes digger doug liked this post
  27. #520
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Beaverdam, Virginia
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    914
    Likes (Received)
    3905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    I'm sure i read that Germany is going away from Windfarms because they're no-where near as cost effective as they were supposed to be and is full steam ahead on a new coal power station?
    I used to live close to a very large wind farm and even toured it a dozen years ago. The issue with the turbines is they must spin at a fairly consistent speed for maximum efficiency, unless something changed, the braking systems used to maintain consistent speed are a huge maintenance cost. Wind generated power on a large scale is the most expensive per KWH of all the green power.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •