Comments on: Global warming may increase prevalence of kidney stones disease

By: Kidney Stones and Global Warming - Again « Watts Up With That?

Kidney Stones and Global Warming - Again « Watts Up With That? — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:09:49 +0000

[...] http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/global-warming-may-increase-prevalence-of-kidney-sto… [...]

By: DarcsFalcon

DarcsFalcon — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:34:22 +0000

And now the Chicago Tribune is passing this stupidity along! Here’s the link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-kidney-stone-global-warming-web-jul15,0,2820429.story

By: Bill F.

Bill F. — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:02:06 +0000

One of the big worries, and a pointed ‘example’ of Global Warming was the melting of the 1000 year old glacier in Glacier National Park. Which then would follow that 1100 years ago, there was no Glacier in Glacier National park? At that time Norsemen had settled Greenland were cultivating the land and shipping food back to Europe, on land which is.. currently covered by Glaciers. So it follows, as a matter of science, that one might assume, and by temperture records from Ice Cores, show, that the Earth was warmer 1100 years ago then it was today. Then shit got cold in a big damn hurry. Was it CO2? Of course not. It was the sun. Its always been the sun, its the sun now.

All those who say based on science we should be experiencing colder weather this year. Guess what? We are!!!!

All those worried about the Polar Bears, don’t you worry. They didn’t go extinct last time it was this warm, you know 1100 years ago. And it is very possible the Northern Polar cap did a pretty good job of melting away those years as well. Bears are Omnivores, they’ll find food. Warm weather is good for the fish and the fish are eaten by seals and more seals means.. more chances for Bears to eat. Plus Polar Bear total population appears to be up, substantially. This sort of flies in the face of all of that worry. I’d worry more about hunters killing every large life form on Africa if I was you.

Global Warming is complete nonsense, not the fact that temperatures have moved around a bit, no, the fact that someone thinks its Mankind that’s done it. That’s the most unscientific conclusion I’ve ever seen. And no one can say I’m an oil company shill. I’d just as soon shoot those assholes on sight for the nonsense they’ve pulled in the last few years regarding the price and availability of their fine ‘products’.

A simple phrase to repeat to those who have caught the Global Warming Cult . “Its the sun you dummy.”
Its caused the ice ages and its caused the tropical ages. For those who care to look up this sort of thing look up ‘variable stars’. All of them are variable, some more then others, ours, not very much, but how much is really needed to change our temperature radically… not much.

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Global warming causes kidney stones!

Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Global warming causes kidney stones! — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:10:32 +0000

[...] Watts reports: From the “You’ve got to be freakin kidding me department” comes this proof positive that [...]

By: Timothy Birdnow » Kidney Stones Caused by Global Warming

Timothy Birdnow » Kidney Stones Caused by Global Warming — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:46:26 +0000

[...] it`s official; absolutely everything is caused by global [...]

By: Ww

Ww — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:23:40 +0000

It’s simple- if you can link it to global warming/climate change you can get a grant.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:10:51 +0000

tty: Dead right about biofuels causing extinctions.

By: jeez

jeez — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:08:14 +0000

tty, I agree with your estimation of uncertainty and was leaving short answers. It is the computer modeled projections of extinctions of unknown species with which I have issues.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:07:28 +0000

Critters go extinct in undeveloped countries. Demographers have no trouble understanding this: they are well aware that every developed country protects its environment and no undeveloped country has ever sufficiently protected its environment. It’s human nature. Only when we and our families are well fed and provided for does the environment EVER become a real concern to us.

When the third and fourth world develops (it is to be hoped without wiping out too many species) they will clean up their acts. We can and should help them in their development.

Then and ONLY then will extinctions cease. If we hold down the third and fourth world with burdensome regulations and lack of assistance, we will not only create a human tragedy but, in the long run, more environmental damage, not less.

Population is not the problem. We house a hundred where ten were housed before–and with far more elbow-room per individual. I live in a railroad flat slum designed for 16 people (c. 5 per room). Today it is illegal to occupy it with more than 5. A few blocks away, there is a mammoth high-rise that houses in comfort, thousands where a hundred were jam-packed together.
Besides, birthrates have plummeted since 1990.

And the club of Rome was dead wrong: resources are virtually unlimited (don’t get me started).

Killing (or half-strangling) the golden goose isn’t going to save the environment. It is a false choice. Only by petting and cosseting that goose will we get anywhere in longterm protection of endangered species.

By: tty

tty — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:07:49 +0000

There are many more than 785 recently extinct species. The (known) birds and mammals alone are about that number. However it isn’t possible to say that there has been no acceleration in recent decades. It is very rarely possible to provide an exact date for an extinction (except when the last individual was in captivity). Normally a species isn’t classed as extinct until it has not been seen for a long time (usually decades) and thorough searches of the remainig habitat have failed to turn any up. Consequently most recent extinctions are still “in the pipeline”. Even so I can add a couple of species to that ten-year list, the Nukupu’u and the Yangtse River Dolphin have both gone extinct in the last decade.

That said, there is not the slightest evidence that climate change has caused any of the recent extinctions. They are mostly due to habitat destruction (usually deforestation) and introduction of alien predators or parasites. Indeed the biofuel hysteria will probably cause many more extinctions than any possible climate change.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:38:02 +0000

Any historian worth his carbon knows that a return to the “Good Old Days” before the internal combustion engine would be a complete and utter environmental disaster.

Europe used to be one big forest. But not for many centuries . . .

By: Roger in Texas

Roger in Texas — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:38:27 +0000

My kidney stone decided to “abort” itself in January, our coldest month here! I wonder if Al Gore has an explanation for this? I think this falls right in with the Hurricane projections the past 2 seasons – they are revising them downward. I believe it’s a right-wing conspiracy.

By: jeez

jeez — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:50:27 +0000

Looks like perhaps five species identified in the last ten years.

Madeiran Large White, Pieris brassicae wollastoni, 29-30 October 2007

Western Black Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis longipes, 8 June 2006

Po’o-uli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, 28 November 2004

Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus Monkey, Procolobus badius waldronae, 2000-2001

http://extinctanimals.petermaas.nl/

Pyrenean Ibex, Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica, 6 January 2000

By: jeez

jeez — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:46:34 +0000

There are 785 known extinct species.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/search.php?freetext=&modifier=phrase&criteria=wholedb&taxa_species=1&redlistCategory%5B0%5D=EX&country%5B0%5D=all&cty_default=1&aquatic%5B0%5D=all&aqu_default=1&regions%5B0%5D=all&reg_default=1&habitats%5B0%5D=all&threats%5B0%5D=all&redlistAssessyear%5B0%5D=all&growths%5B0%5D=all&extendedResults=0&terrestrial=0&marine=0&freshwater=0&sortorder%5B0%5D=spcscientificname&sortorder%5B1%5D=genname&sortorder%5B2%5D=spcname&sortorder%5B3%5D=spcauthor&sortorder%5B4%5D=spcinfrarank&sortorder%5B5%5D=spcinfraepithet&sortorder%5B6%5D=spcinfrarankauthor&sortorder%5B7%5D=spcstockname&sortorder%5B8%5D=comname_comp&sortorder%5B9%5D=rlcabb&sortorder%5B10%5D=rlscriteria&sortorder%5B11%5D=poptrend_code&sortorder%5B12%5D=rlcatcrit2001&sortorder%5B13%5D=rlscaveat&sortorder%5B14%5D=rlspetition&sortorder%5B15%5D=spcrecid&sortorder%5B16%5D=kingname&newsort=&debug=0&kingname=&phyname=&claname=&ordname=&famname=&genname=&spcname=&taxa_subspc=0&taxa_stock=0&cty_intro=0&cty_vagrant=0&cty_uncert=0&aqu_intro=0&aqu_vagrant=0&aqu_uncert=0&reg_intro=0&reg_vagrant=0&reg_uncert=0&spc_petition=0&spc_caveat=0&offset=0

There is no acceleration in recent decades.

Many of these went extinct decades or hundreds of years ago, not having anything to do with pogification or even industrialization. Hey Anthony, that’s another site for your reference list.

By: jeez

jeez — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:44:34 +0000

There are 785 known extinct species.

There is no acceleration in recent decades.

Many of these went extinct decades or hundreds of years ago, not having anything to do with pogification or even industrialization. Hey Anthony, that’s another site for your reference list.