[Athos]

NY needs are not the same as the states in the Midwest etc. The only logical response is regional ones

Exactly. The response, centrally directed to move support where and as needed, can be as direct as county level. When we know that some hospitals nationwide are still experiencing shortages, the central distribution point is the most effective. Daily reports can be submitted to the central planning point and the necessary support can be immediately moved to where it's needed. At present, the needed support goes unresolved for days and weeks.

Just as importantly, a central response can once and for all provide a UNITED message to the country. At present, the messages are all over the place. There are still people who believe the virus is a hoax!

Everyone keeps denying the reality of herd immunity

Tom, no one is denying the reality of herd immunity. What is being denied is its effectiveness. Do you understand that letting the virus to spread on its own to achieve herd immunity will cost 70% of Americans to be infected with a death rate in the millions. Do the math. Even a vaccine will take time to achieve herd immunity. There is enough evidence to know that preventive measures are effective. Masks, hygiene, social distancing, etc. The data is available.

These are not fringe epidemiologists . Listen to the scientists !!! .

They ARE fringe epidemiologists!!! The scientists are saying the opposite of herd immunity as you describe. By all means, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

[paraclete]

The scientists are saying the opposite of herd immunity as you describe. By all means, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

Now why would you listen to scientists? they are not considered creditable on climate change, why should they be considered creditable on the pandemic? In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists. It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large. Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic, which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate and take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives. The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media

The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic

YEAR	DEATH RATE	GROWTH RATE
2020	7.612	0.440%
2019	7.579	0.440%
2018	7.546	-0.320%
2017	7.570	-0.320%

[jlisenbe]

The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media

Pretty good question.

[Athos]

Now why would you listen to scientists? they are not considered creditable on climate change, why should they be considered creditable on the pandemic?

Most people and most scientists consider science very credible on climate change. You're in a tiny minority if you think otherwise. As to COVID-19, they should be considered credible because they are epidemiologists and this is precisely their field of study and expertise.

In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists.

Not true! There is near unanimous agreement on both climate change and COVID-19.

It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large.

By that reasoning, medical science should do nothing about ANY disease or medical problem or, say, drunk driving or rape.

Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic

Do you consider millions of deaths scientifically induced panic?

which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate

Should we just let people die in the street where they lie?

take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives.

That's what we're doing and trying our best to cope with the disaster.

but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media

The only psychosis I see is coming from the White House deniers and from people who claim it's all a hoax. The media has mainly told the truth about the pandemic. It's impossible not to tell the truth AND cover the news.

The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic

The world death rate may be naturally declining as medicine and health in general improve. The pandemic has not yet hit full stride. The precautions against COVID may be responsible for a declining death rate. For example, lockdowns have drastically reduced the number of accidental deaths - the third leading cause of death. Auto deaths are down due to the virus. In other words, your stand-alone statistics could use a major interpretation.

In any case, is a declining death rate a reason to NOT react to a pandemic?

[paraclete]

Athos, you think you have refuted my arguments but my opinions are based on fact not hypothesis, the so called science on climate change is a hypothesis, a modern day religion, where the "priests" of this religion condemn non-believers but there are many reasons for heating of the planet and humans are not in charge of anything but observation. We once considered the idea of a spherical Earth nonsense yet this fact was known from ancient times, the flat earth is a hypothesis not born out by facts and I consider the climate change priests flat earthers and the panic merchants of the pandemic no different. Did I say we should not react, no we should take sensible precautions, personal isolation, social distancing, but shutdown, it is an over reaction. We are not in the times of the great plague though the media would have us believe we are. A certain percentage will be infected no matter what we do. As to the interpretation of statistics, I leave that to politicians who exploit them for their own ends and just say look at the bigger picture, humans are not in change of anything outside of their personal space.

I did not say the death rate was declining, only that it really is not significantly worse, which might be expected. Yes other reasons for death have taken a holiday, less auto accidents, less gun deaths, less crime all this reinforces my thoughts that you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long

[Athos]

Athos, you think you have refuted my arguments but my opinions are based on fact not hypothesis, the so called science on cli.............................................re ligion, where the "priests" of this religion condemn non-believers but there are many reasons for heating of the planet and humans are not in charge of anything but observation. We .............................arth nonsense yet this fact was known from ancient times, the flat earth is a hypothesis not born out by facts and I consider the climate change priests flat earthers and the panic merchants of the pandemic n........................................not in the times of the great plague though the media would have us believe we are. A certain percentage will be infecte.................... interpretation of statistics, I leave that to polit............................................. ...........s and just say look at the bigger picture, humans are not in change of anything outside of their personal space.

This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.

you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long

That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.

[paraclete]

This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.

nothing hysterical about it and you only consider it a rant because it contravenes those "truths" you hold "self evident". I glad you know where I'm coming from but you don't know where I've been

That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.

classic quote "what is truth?" The truth is we all die, the only questions; how and when? the truth; no man knows the hour

[jlisenbe]

I don't know of very many people who argue that global temps have not risen marginally over the past fifty or sixty years, or that atmospheric CO2 levels have not risen substantially over the past century. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. People like AOC are going around shrieking that civilization will be over by 2030 if we don't adopt her Green New Deal. If anything has the potential to wipe out civilization by 2030, it's the GND with its impossible emissions standards and catastrophic budget requirements. And then JB wants to stop fracking which gave us the natural gas revolution with its resulting drop in CO2 over the past decade. So if the global warming alarmists want to be taken seriously, then they have to come up with a more serious and workable solution than the GND, abandoning natural gas, or the Paris Accords.

[paraclete]

I don't know of very many people who argue that global temps have not risen marginally over the past fifty or sixty years, or that atmospheric CO2 levels have not risen substantially over the past century. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. People like AOC are going around shrieking that civilization will be over by 2030 if we don't adopt her Green New Deal. If anything has the potential to wipe out civilization by 2030, it's the GND with its impossible emissions standards and catastrophic budget requirements. And then JB wants to stop fracking which gave us the natural gas revolution with its resulting drop in CO2 over the past decade. So if the global warming alarmists want to be taken seriously, then they have to come up with a more serious and workable solution than the GND, abandoning natural gas, or the Paris Accords.

The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective. is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas and although the particles are far apart any that earth comes in contact with must have an effect eventually? Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable

[jlisenbe]

The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective

The thinking amongst some is that going to renewables would cut CO2 emissions and reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would be prohibitively expensive, would have to be enforced globally, would wreak havoc on the economies of third world nations, and would result in, at best, an unstable and unreliable power grid. I'd say your question is a really, really good one.

Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable.

I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.

[talaniman]

The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective. is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas and although the particles are far apart any that earth comes in contact with must have an effect eventually? Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable

I agree Clete but man CAN control what he does to contribute to climate change and he should even if its just a little. It can be built on.

The thinking amongst some is that going to renewables would cut CO2 emissions and reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would be prohibitively expensive, would have to be enforced globally, would wreak havoc on the economies of third world nations, and would result in, at best, an unstable and unreliable power grid. I'd say your question is a really, really good one.

All good points JL, and you point to many obstacles but they can be mitigated and overcome in TIME. We don't have a perfect plan YET, but we can and should be developing one. Some are doing just that. Seems we have discussed that before.

I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.

See response to Clete above.

[paraclete]

I agree Clete but man CAN control what he does to contribute to climate change and he should even if its just a little. It can be built on.

It is not established that man contributes much to climate change, it is all the mystique of computer models and facts only measure outcomes not cause. Something triggered the big thaw 12,000 years ago and the climate has been warming ever since. There were not sufficient humans to trigger that

[jlisenbe]

but we can and should be developing one.

Fine with me. Let us know when it's done, but I'm not going to pretend that the GND is it. It's a foolish disaster.

[Athos]

is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas [causing global warming]?

It's only you. Hot nebula gas, tho', is catchy.

Life as we know it is always under threat.................... from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable

Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.

Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.

[paraclete]

It's only you. Hot nebula gas, tho', is catchy

but it is a fact, but not one that can be modelled.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.

That is the theory, but it is only a theory

Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.

Temperatures are not rising as significantly as predicted, there are many factors that are not included in the models such as the positioning of heat sinks near instruments. The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbon

[jlisenbe]

Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.

That's somewhat like saying that inventing a giant CO2 eating machine would be a huge step in the right direction. Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be nice for sure, but it is completely unworkable both now and in the foreseeable future. Every renewable is too unreliable to be a primary source of electricity other than hydro and, in a few cases, geothermal, but they are largely maxed out and aren't available for expansion.

The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbon

Not sure what you mean there. You say that our problem is that we think we are in control of our environment, which seems to imply that we are not, but then you make all kinds of suggestions of how we can, indeed, control our environment. You are certainly correct, however, that the models have not proven to be accurate. Having loonies around like AOC and Thunberg making crazy suggestions doesn't help at all.

Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

[paraclete]

Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Water vapour on the atmosphere is a natural occurring aspect of the way our atmosphere operates, CO2 is not pollution, methane is pollution so shut down the oil industry and let's get back to the dark ages. Rising Population is the the biggest contributor to man man emissions and is the reason why all these reliance on renewables is so much pissing in the wind.

You can disagree with your politicians as much as you like but unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future. Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.

In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed

[jlisenbe]

unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future.

Bingo.

Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.

Gasoline cars quite possibly will be on the way out in twenty more years.

In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed

Food production is presently not a major problem. Not sure how to control population.

[talaniman]

The article was from 2008 and hasn't been updated. More data has been collected at Nasa.gov though and...

https://www.greenandgrowing.org/is-w...reenhouse-gas/

If the Earth warms and man helps it that can't be good for humans or other life. If you're saying do NOTHING and keep polluting I think you're asking for trouble sooner rather than late.

[jlisenbe]

Therefore, they confirmed that the role of the gas is a critical component of climate change. Moreover, the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is so dangerous that it may double the warming events determined by high CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Did you read that from your article? In what possible way does that negate the absolute fact that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas?

Not suggesting we do nothing. We are already decreasing CO2 emissions and have been for several years thanks to natural gas production enabled by the very fracking that JB wants to stop. The GND is idiotic so we need some people with some brains to come up with some real world solutions.