Scientific American compares carbon dioxide to 9/11 attacks

View Comments (34)

• advance amounts prosecute

• This really an extension of "political science". Since the results are predetermined to avance a political agenda, this is political science, & it should be criminal. When you consider that the actual results are disgarded to come to a predetermined outcome, & that taxpayer money is involved, it should be considered fraud. The ammounts of money involved should make this a top priority to prosicute & get rid of.

  You could also use the term "junk science" as well, which in the end, is what "political science" really is.

• Remember when scientists came up with things that made our life better?

  • Where is the cure for all cancers that we have been promised decades and decades ago? 100 billions of dollars into cancer research and what is going on with that?

    • A lot of people are surviving that would have beeen dead when I was a child. I agree to an extent, but part of the problem is that "CAMCER" is not one illness like TB or the measles. It is a collection of diseases in which the body's normal processes breakdown and start producing weird, non functional cells. The exact symptomology and the treatment or cure varies greatly. Drugs that bring breast cancer to its knees have absolutely not effect on blood cancers like leukemia. Hell, even leukemia has several different types, all requiring different treatment. People ARE being cured, but it isn't as easy as finding an antibiotic, treating an illness with it and and the disease vaporizes. It is far more complicated, and is appearing more and more to be driven by issues with the immune system.

      • That is the thing people aren't really being cured. The cancer can go on remission, but there is always a possibility that the cancer can come back or it can go to another part of the body. There is no real cure for cancer. It can be stayed and the person can be given some more time, but there is nothing that really kills the cancer so there is no reoccurance and there is no actual vaccine AGAINST cancer in order to prevent it. It is complicated I understand but with all the time and all the money the technology and the pharmaceuticals have not advance just like other things have advance and that doesn't make any sense to me. Why are we stagnant? I find that weird and like Flash mentions the job of a scientist is to go beyond the stagnancy and they are not doing it.

        • I have to disagree in part with that. There ARE cures for cancer. A great many children have been cured of leukemia and are now adults , years later with no recurrance. Same with Breast cancer, none cancer and kidney cancer just to name a few. We aren't stagnant, and we have come a long way in the identification and treatment of various cancers. I do agree with your earlier post that there are many things in nature that are curative for a lot if things, and we are just scratching the surface of what is out there. Digitalis, a heart drug is now produced synthetically but originated in the foxglove plant. Aspirin,. long hailed as a miracle drug, is from willow bark. Another reason I am concerned that so many forests and green areas are being destroyed. We don't know what may be in there that could be the next huge discovery.

      • And that's what scientists SHOULD be doing.

    • They're "working on it"... meanwhile the insanely overpriced poisons they are pushing on the population.. oh pardon me "medicine".. are causing many more issues.

      My Doctor has tried pushing medicines on me that A) "could" destroy my immune system. B) may destroy my thyroid and causes thyroid cancer in mice, and C) may cause my pancreas to wither and die. And that's not even mentioning the assorted stomach problems, headaches, suicidal thoughts, etc. He gets so mad at me because I go home and read the warnings before I fill the prescriptions.

      Why should they cure any diseases when they can keep making money hand over fist pushing poison that might, maybe, make your symptoms a bit better - while destroying other parts of your body.

      • This is what I am talking about. In some cases they are still using the same methodologies and "cures" of over 30 or 40 years ago. Why using the same methods of decades pasts when technology has advanced to the point that when I buy a cellphone it was already old the second it left the factory? A lot of these methods increase the problems and a lot of real cures are already in nature. I truly believe that the cures for cancers are in nature already placed there by G-d, but these people do not want to study the possibility of nature curing diseases because like you said it is not going to put that money in their pockets. Scientists instead of trying to get old men's penises to rise or worrying about the Earth that can take care of herself, should focus on you know easing world hunger, finding cures for diseases and so on. It is astonishing to me that billions upon billions upon billions and decades and decades have gone by and there is no TRUE cure for any cancer it is all poison which if the person is not lucky enough will die of the poison before dying of the disease. It is insane to me.

• It's articles like this that make me think that liberal media consciously thinks of themselves as something like cowboys on a cattle drive driving the herd in specific directions at certain times.

  • Most of them thought of themselves that way since grammar school. They are hard-wired that way. It's why that field (along with education and social work) is filled with them.

    Not only that, but they see themselves as martyrs. They are willing to go to such great lengths to do what is good for us DESPITE all the protest and resistance we put up.

    • I used to love my Discover and Scientific American magazines. Read them as avidly as my Sports Illustrated. It eventually got to the point where the liberal brainwashing was more than I could stand and I cancelled my subscriptions to all three. The preachiness in the science magazines was galling enough, but having Sports Illustrated lecture me about gun control was way too much. I am the prime example of why magazines and newspapers can't make money anymore - those three magazine collected my money for decades, then lost me because of their political blindness.

      • Not to pick semantic nits, but if only they were politically blind. Unfortunately, they are politically blind AND also imagine they see and "know" all sorts of things. IMO, they are all (sports, home and garden, weather, food, whatever - speaking of reporters, not actual practitioners of those things), Bob Woodward wanna-be's.

        I gave up on Sci-Amer a long time ago. My most recent disconnect was with Weather Channel.

      • SI became impossible to read. I had a subscription from about 1972-2006. Finally let it go when they pushed global warming bs what seemed week after week.

        • I haven't had any use for SI for years, except for the swimsuit issue.
          I used to subscribe to Scientific American, before GW-BS became fashionable.

        • I've never really looked at SI. I have no interest in their kind of sports, and from what I've seen of the promos, the swimsuit issue sucks too.

• It might even be comparable to the discovery that 90% of the people we thought were using scientific methods are actually frauds.

• One wonders at the sheer stupidity of some of these "scientific" people, and how they can continue to spew out and publish such rubbish. Who do they think believes it any more?

  The planet has "endured" CO2 levels of 1000 ppm or more before, and the world has been much warmer, and life generally has thrived. Warm is good. CO2 is good.

  The only thing that's guaranteed to kill us off, is cold - and that's more than likely what we're going to get over the next few decades.

• Plants demand C02! We need to end the war on plants!

  • No prob. We're cutting down plants as fast as we possibly can, so that decreases the demand for CO2. One of the details no one wants to admit. Paving over every inch of green, or stripping mountains of all their vegetation reduces the planet's ability to reabsorb CO2. I figure in the long run. the planet will be fine. WE, on the other hand will not.

• These people are so desperate for a carbon tax, no lie is too big.

  • But what is the point of a carbon tax? To make us use less of it? But then to go to where? There is nothing else that is AS GOOD or better. It is insane!

• I want to find out where they buy their dope!

  • California and Colorado.

    • Or they have a contact in Laredo or El Paso.

• Funny CO2 has been rising, temperature's been flat for about 15 years. I wonder how these idiots correlate that one?

  • Their latest excuse is that all the heat is disappearing into the deep ocean. They have no data to back it up - they have inferred deduced it.

    • So how do these super geniuses explain the heating or cooling through the ages while we had oceans the whole time? Desperation, it reeks.

      • The heat is escaping through the hole in the Ozone layer that was created by that nefarious Freon.
        What I can't figure out is, if we go back to living in caves and stone age lifestyles, what do we need scientists for?

        • They'll slip into the role of shaman perfectly.

        • LOL at both of your posts. So true. What do these people want?
          For us to live without civilization? If that is what they want then no need for them. It is insane.

  • Global chaos.