



I. Background


PAM infection
[Image Source: Trevor Haggie]


N. Fowleri



PAM incidents by year


II. Hypothesis: Warming is To Blame






III. The Boy Who Cried Warming (Hypothesis Invalidated)

  3. Urban population (people use more crowded water resources)
  5. Mutations (hardy strains survive in new habitats)


PAM Correlation




PAM Correlation

NOAA warming by state
[Image Source: EPA]




Comments     Threshold


By cactusdog on 6/28/2013 8:57:47 AM , Rating: 4
If only you spent all that energy debunking anti-global warming claims. I don't know why you would run a story that affects 0.00000001% of the population when there are plenty of real stories from climate scientists that will affect every one of us. With 99% of scientists saying global warming is a serious problem, this site gives way too much voice to the other side, which really isn't a side, its a tiny minority of conservatives and fossil fuel interests.

RE: hmmmm

62-66 5
67-71 13
72-76 5
77-81 20
82-86 9
87-91 16
92-96 10
97-01 14
02-06 12


RE: hmmmm



RE: hmmmm

RE: hmmmm
By JPForums on 6/28/2013 11:19:42 AM , Rating: 3
What a wonderfully political argument you make. Let's claim 99% of the intellectual crowd (scientist) for ourselves without giving any information to suggest its true. Let's misrepresent what they really say about it. Finally, let's call the opposition insignificant to isolate them and stereotype them into an undesirable group of people willing to "sacrifice the planet and everyone in it for their own short term agenda".

First, if you want to opposition to take you seriously, you have to admit there is opposition. More than just a tiny minority oppose the prevailing AGW theory.

Second, you need to understand their standpoint. You are never going to convince someone they are wrong if you don't even have a grasp on what they believe. I'm not sure how many people have seen the data and dismiss global warming entirely, but there seems to be a serious dispute over how much is due to man's contribution and how much man can do about it. Hence the opposition to AGW not necessarily global warming in general.

Third, if you are going to claim the intellectual high ground, you'd better be prepared to back it up. I don't believe you when you say that 99% of scientist are saying global warming is a serious problem. I might be inclined to believe that 99% of climatologists believe that global warming exists. I'd believe significantly less agree that man has a significant contribution or that man can do much about it. I personally know of more than a few climatologists that think the planet was better off 400 million years ago, when atmospheric carbon levels were over 6000ppm (less than 400 ppm today) and plants flourished So I'd wager significantly more than one percent don't perceive it to a serious problem. Some see it as desirable, some probably see it as a wash, more probably see it as a problem, but not necessarily a serious one.

Finally, you'll get a lot more support if you push a sensible solution to the problem. Blasting the opposition with no solution in mind is a side step at best. There should be no blank checks to do "whatever is necessary" to "save the earth". The earth will be here long after we are gone. What we are really doing is saving ourselves. Therefore, there is an upper limit to what we can reasonably do to keep the earth enjoyable for future generations. You should be selling the opposition on the long term benefits of any course of action.

Point of interest: most reasonable courses of action have auxiliary benefits. Moving over to cleaner sources of energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) - You'd have less dependence on foreign oil (I think even the U.S. far right wing can get behind this). It will eventually be cheaper as cost goes down and the prices of non-renewable resources goes up. You'd keep pollution down. Come visit the industrial areas of Bangladesh and east India and you'll see the kind of pollution the U.S. had back in the industrial revolution. Then, you can decide the worth of pollution control.

Researching methods to collect pollution (carbon?) at the output of industrial smoke stacks would be of much greater benefit than simply charging them for carbon credits or forcing them to buy them from others. That's a cost they push along to the consumer without ever really reducing their output. While pollution collectors would also push cost to the consumer, there is a tangible benefit. If someone could find a method for separating the carbon from impurities relatively cheaply, then the output could be put back into production for things like carbon nanotubes and some of the cost could be reclaimed.

There are many other (probably better) examples, but I digress.

RE: hmmmm


RE: hmmmm

RE: hmmmm
By tng on 6/28/2013 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 1
Good sensible post.

I see this allot in the AGW community as a whole, people take the political rhetoric as scientific method and then discount the actual science behind both the pro and con.

IMO this is mainly just a way to make money off of peoples fears.

RE: hmmmm






RE: hmmmm


RE: hmmmm


RE: hmmmm




RE: hmmmm
If one can' should read in the last sentence.


