Why Lung Cancer Doctors Should Care About Climate Change...

[Fred Bloggs]

Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
gobal warming is an old fake

-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
7 views
Subscribe
a a’s profile photo
a a
11:11 (6 hours ago)
to
-A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

-This could be a \"Cannibal CME\" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

-In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
gobal warming is an old fake


-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
7 views
Subscribe
a a’s profile photo
a a
11:11 (6 hours ago)
to
-A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

-This could be a \"Cannibal CME\" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

-In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees)..

Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren\'t tracking very well with your cyclic \"coronary\" ejections, they\'re steadily increasing.

 

[server]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

What nonsense.

Less wood and dung burning to keep warm, less indoor particulates that
cause cancer. That\'s real.

 

[server]

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e8c695a5-c336-422a-b072-04bae250bc15n@googlegroups.com:

Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly
associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by
climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lu
ng-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung
Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-ch
ange-increases-lung-cancer

There was an article in Playboy back in the \'70s. I was a kid then and
I actually used to read the articles. Well, they had one and one of
the Playboy artists made a rendering of what man would evolve to look
like in a polluted world. He did some weird thing with his nostrils.
I wonder if I can find it...

 

[server]

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a-
8cfe15d0b012n@googlegroups.com:

> -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth

GO AWAY, IDIOT CHILD.

 

[server]

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216-
a3b1b8d3c9cen@googlegroups.com:

> targeting the Earth,

Oh boy! They\'re alive!

Targeting the Earth!

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:57:49 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a-
8cfe15...@googlegroups.com:
-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth

kis my as

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:59:33 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216-
a3b1b8...@googlegroups.com:

targeting the Earth,

Oh boy! They\'re alive!

Targeting the Earth!
CMEs resemble human\'s heart

--A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

Call NOAA if you have more questions

https://www.spaceweather.com/

Coronary is a good and smart term for the desctiption of the Sun\'s heart beat

====
Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal.
Coronary - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

Overview
As adjective

Coronary (from Latin Corona \'Crown\') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
• Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
Wikipedia ·CC-BY-SA
Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …


Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal.
Coronary - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

Overview
As adjective

Coronary (from Latin Corona \'Crown\') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
• Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
Wikipedia CC-BY-SA
Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …

 

[John S]

On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
gobal warming is an old fake


-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
7 views
Subscribe
a a’s profile photo
a a
11:11 (6 hours ago)
to
-A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

-This could be a \"Cannibal CME\" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

-In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).


Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren\'t tracking very well with your cyclic \"coronary\" ejections, they\'re steadily increasing.

a a is a fake. Or a fuck.

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 22:31:27 UTC+2, John S wrote:

On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
gobal warming is an old fake


-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
7 views
Subscribe
a a’s profile photo
a a
11:11 (6 hours ago)
to
-A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

-This could be a \"Cannibal CME\" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

-In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).

In my theory, the Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a heart,
ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

since coronary flares match human\'s heart circulation


==


Coronary circulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Coronary circulation
Coronary arteries.svg
Coronary arteries labeled in red text and other landmarks in blue text.
Identifiers
MeSH D003326
Anatomical terminology
[edit on Wikidata]

Coronary circulation is the circulation of blood in the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle (myocardium). Coronary arteries supply oxygenated blood to the heart muscle. Cardiac veins then drain away the blood after it has been deoxygenated. Because the rest of the body, and most especially the brain, needs a steady supply of oxygenated blood that is free of all but the slightest interruptions, the heart is required to function continuously.. Therefore its circulation is of major importance not only to its own tissues but to the entire body and even the level of consciousness of the brain from moment to moment. Interruptions of coronary circulation quickly cause heart attacks (myocardial infarctions), in which the heart muscle is damaged by oxygen starvation. Such interruptions are usually caused by coronary ischemia linked to coronary artery disease, and sometimes to embolism from other causes like obstruction in blood flow through vessels.
Contents

1 Structure
1.1 Anastomoses
1.2 Variation
1.2.1 Coronary artery dominance
2 Function
2.1 Supply to papillary muscles
2.2 Changes in diastole
2.3 Changes in oxygen demand
3 Branches
4 Coronary anatomy
4.1 Cardiac veins
4.2 Coronary arteries
5 Additional images
6 See also
7 References

Structure
Schematic diagram of the coronary arteries and veins.
Schematic view of the heart
An anterior left coronary artery.
Base and diaphragmatic surface of heart.

Coronary arteries supply blood to the myocardium and other components of the heart. Two coronary arteries originate from the left side of the heart at the beginning (root) left ventricle. There are three aortic sinuses (dilations) in the wall of the aorta just superior to the aortic semilunar valve. Two of these, the left posterior aortic sinus and anterior aortic sinus, give rise to the left and right coronary arteries, respectively. The third sinus, the right posterior aortic sinus, typically does not give rise to a vessel. Coronary vessel branches that remain on the surface of the heart and follow the sulci of the heart are called epicardial coronary arteries.[1]

The left coronary artery distributes blood to the left side of the heart, the left atrium and ventricle, and the interventricular septum. The circumflex artery arises from the left coronary artery and follows the coronary sulcus to the left. Eventually, it will fuse with the small branches of the right coronary artery. The larger anterior interventricular artery, also known as the left anterior descending artery (LAD), is the second major branch arising from the left coronary artery. It follows the anterior interventricular sulcus around the pulmonary trunk. Along the way it gives rise to numerous smaller branches that interconnect with the branches of the posterior interventricular artery, forming anastomoses. An anastomosis is an area where vessels unite to form interconnections that normally allow blood to circulate to a region even if there may be partial blockage in another branch. The anastomoses in the heart are very small. Therefore, this ability is somewhat restricted in the heart so a coronary artery blockage often results in myocardial infarction causing death of the cells supplied by the particular vessel.[1]

The right coronary artery proceeds along the coronary sulcus and distributes blood to the right atrium, portions of both ventricles, and the heart conduction system. Normally, one or more marginal arteries arise from the right coronary artery inferior to the right atrium. The marginal arteries supply blood to the superficial portions of the right ventricle. On the posterior surface of the heart, the right coronary artery gives rise to the posterior interventricular artery, also known as the posterior descending artery. It runs along the posterior portion of the interventricular sulcus toward the apex of the heart, giving rise to branches that supply the interventricular septum and portions of both ventricles.[1]
Anastomoses
Cast of coronary arteries (right = yellow, left = red)

There are some anastomoses between branches of the two coronary arteries. However the coronary arteries are functionally end arteries and so these meetings are referred to as potential anastomoses, which lack function, as opposed to true anastomoses like that in the palm of the hand. This is because blockage of one coronary artery generally results in death of the heart tissue due to lack of sufficient blood supply from the other branch. When two arteries or their branches join, the area of the myocardium receives dual blood supply. These junctions are called anastomoses. If one coronary artery is obstructed by an atheroma, the second artery is still able to supply oxygenated blood to the myocardium. However, this can only occur if the atheroma progresses slowly, giving the anastomoses a chance to proliferate.[citation needed]

Under the most common configuration of coronary arteries, there are three areas of anastomoses. Small branches of the LAD (left anterior descending/anterior interventricular) branch of the left coronary join with branches of the posterior interventricular branch of the right coronary in the interventricular sulcus (groove). More superiorly, there is an anastomosis between the circumflex artery (a branch of the left coronary artery) and the right coronary artery in the atrioventricular groove. There is also an anastomosis between the septal branches of the two coronary arteries in the interventricular septum. The photograph shows area of heart supplied by the right and the left coronary arteries.[citation needed]
Variation

The left and right coronary arteries occasionally arise by a common trunk, or their number may be increased to three; the additional branch being the posterior coronary artery (which is smaller in size). In rare cases, a person will have the third coronary artery run around the root of the aorta.[citation needed]

Occasionally, a coronary artery will exist as a double structure (i.e. there are two arteries, parallel to each other, where ordinarily there would be one).[citation needed]
Coronary artery dominance

The artery that supplies the posterior third of the interventricular septum – the posterior descending artery (PDA)[2] determines the coronary dominance.[3]

If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the right coronary artery (RCA), then the coronary circulation can be classified as \"right-dominant.\"
If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the circumflex artery (CX), a branch of the left artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as \"left-dominant.\"
If the posterior descending artery is supplied by both the right coronary artery and the circumflex artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as \"co-dominant.\"

Approximately 70% of the general population are right-dominant, 20% are co-dominant, and 10% are left-dominant.[3] A precise anatomic definition of dominance would be the artery which gives off supply to the AV node i.e. the AV nodal artery. Most of the time this is the right coronary artery.[citation needed]
Function
Supply to papillary muscles

The papillary muscles attach the mitral valve (the valve between the left atrium and the left ventricle) and the tricuspid valve (the valve between the right atrium and the right ventricle) to the wall of the heart. If the papillary muscles are not functioning properly, the mitral valve may leak during contraction of the left ventricle. This causes some of the blood to travel \"in reverse\", from the left ventricle to the left atrium, instead of forward to the aorta and the rest of the body. This leaking of blood to the left atrium is known as mitral regurgitation. Similarly, the leaking of blood from the right ventricle through the tricuspid valve and into the right atrium can also occur, and this is described as tricuspid insufficiency or tricuspid regurgitation.[citation needed]

The anterolateral papillary muscle more frequently receives two blood supplies: left anterior descending (LAD) artery and the left circumflex artery (LCX).[4] It is therefore more frequently resistant to coronary ischemia (insufficiency of oxygen-rich blood). On the other hand, the posteromedial papillary muscle is usually supplied only by the PDA.[4] This makes the posteromedial papillary muscle significantly more susceptible to ischemia. The clinical significance of this is that a myocardial infarction involving the PDA is more likely to cause mitral regurgitation.[citation needed]
Changes in diastole

During contraction of the ventricular myocardium (systole), the subendocardial coronary vessels (the vessels that enter the myocardium) are compressed due to the high ventricular pressures. This compression results in momentary retrograde blood flow (i.e., blood flows backward toward the aorta) which further inhibits perfusion of myocardium during systole. However, the epicardial coronary vessels (the vessels that run along the outer surface of the heart) remain open. Because of this, blood flow in the subendocardium stops during ventricular contraction. As a result, most myocardial perfusion occurs during heart relaxation (diastole) when the subendocardial coronary vessels are open and under lower pressure. Flow never comes to zero in the right coronary artery, since the right ventricular pressure is less than the diastolic blood pressure.[5]
Changes in oxygen demand

The heart regulates the amount of vasodilation or vasoconstriction of the coronary arteries based upon the oxygen requirements of the heart. This contributes to the filling difficulties of the coronary arteries. Compression remains the same. Failure of oxygen delivery caused by a decrease in blood flow in front of increased oxygen demand of the heart results in tissue ischemia, a condition of oxygen deficiency. Brief ischemia is associated with intense chest pain, known as angina. Severe ischemia can cause the heart muscle to die from hypoxia, such as during a myocardial infarction. Chronic moderate ischemia causes contraction of the heart to weaken, known as myocardial hibernation.[citation needed]

In addition to metabolism, the coronary circulation possesses unique pharmacologic characteristics. Prominent among these is its reactivity to adrenergic stimulation.[citation needed]
Branches

The following are the named branches of the coronary circulation in a right-dominant heart:[citation needed]

Aorta
Left coronary artery / Left main coronary artery (LMCA)
Left circumflex artery (LCX)
Obtuse marginal artery #1 (OM1)
Obtuse marginal artery #2 (OM2)
Left anterior descending artery (LAD)
Diagonal artery #1
Diagonal artery #2
Right coronary artery (RCA)
Atrioventricular nodal branch
Right marginal artery
Posterior descending artery (PDA)
Posteriolateral artery #1 (PL#1)
Posteriolateral artery #2 (PL#2)

Coronary anatomy
Cardiac veins

The vessels that remove the deoxygenated blood from the heart muscle are known as cardiac veins. These include the great cardiac vein, the middle cardiac vein, the small cardiac vein, the smallest cardiac veins, and the anterior cardiac veins. Cardiac veins carry blood with a poor level of oxygen, from the myocardium to the right atrium. Most of the blood of the coronary veins returns through the coronary sinus. The anatomy of the veins of the heart is very variable, but generally it is formed by the following veins: heart veins that go into the coronary sinus: the great cardiac vein, the middle cardiac vein, the small cardiac vein, the posterior vein of the left ventricle, and the vein of Marshall. Heart veins that go directly to the right atrium: the anterior cardiac veins, the smallest cardiac veins (Thebesian veins).[6]
Coronary arteries

The vessels that deliver oxygen-rich blood to the myocardium are the coronary arteries. When the arteries are healthy, they are capable of autoregulating themselves to maintain the coronary blood flow at levels appropriate to the needs of the heart muscle. These relatively narrow vessels are commonly affected by atherosclerosis and can become blocked, causing angina or a heart attack. The coronary arteries that run deep within the myocardium are referred to as subendocardial. The coronary arteries are classified as \"end circulation\", since they represent the only source of blood supply to the myocardium; there is very little redundant blood supply, that is why blockage of these vessels can be so critical.[citation needed]
Additional images

Anterior view of coronary circulation

Anterior view of coronary circulation
Posterior view of coronary circulation

Posterior view of coronary circulation
Illustration of coronary arteries

Illustration of coronary arteries
The human heart viewed from the front and from behind

The human heart viewed from the front and from behind


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_circulation

 

[server]

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:dba826a5-40c1-4b1c-ba6b-
9fd3fc7cd16cn@googlegroups.com:

> From: a a <manta103g@gmail.com>

Snipped obsessed idiot rants.

 

[a a]

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:49:12 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
thank you for your support

--Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a human\'s heart,
ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

since coronary flares match human\'s heart coronary circulation


https://www.spaceweather.com/

-THE IMPACTS HAVE BEGUN: A minor CME hit Earth\'s magnetic field on Aug. 17th (0303 UT). It could be the first of several CME strikes in the days ahead.. NOAA forecasters say their cumulative effect could cause strong G3-class geomagnetic storms, especially on Aug. 18-19. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as Illinois and Oregon (geomagnetic latitude 50 degrees). Cameras with sensitive night-sky settings may record auroras even farther south than tha

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn\'t be that mean, not that they admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

Gnatguy\'s assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[a a]

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 05:35:21 UTC+2, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

Barack is a shame for America
just read
----
Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number
By Richard Tol , | Fox News

Facebook
Twitter
Flipboard
Comments
Print
Email

FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But do they?

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.

What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter.. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

The remainder of Cook’s “evidence” is papers that said that humans caused some climate change and, more importantly, papers that Cook’s colleagues thought said as much.

There is vigorous debate about how much humans have contributed to climate change, but no one argues the effect is zero. By emitting greenhouse gases, changing the landscape, rerouting rivers, and huddling together in cities, we change the climate – perhaps by a little, perhaps by a lot – but not one expert doubts we do. However, a true consensus – 100 per cent agreement – does not serve to demonize those experts who raise credible concerns with the state of climate research.

The trouble does not end there. Cook has been reluctant to share his data for others to scrutinize. He has claimed that some data are protected by confidentiality agreements, even when they are not. He was claimed that some data were not collected, even when they were. The paper claims that each abstract was read by two independent readers, but they freely compared notes. Cook and Co. collected data, inspected the results, collected more data, inspected the results again, changed their data classification, collected yet more data, inspected the results once more, and changed their data classification again, before they found their magic 97 percent. People who express concern about the method have been smeared.

We would hope that the president of the United States of America does not spend time checking such trivia. That is the job of the editor of the journal, Dan Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley, who unfortunately has chosen to ignore all issues I and others raised about them. Similarly, the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, and Cook’s employer, the University of Queensland, have turned a deaf ear to my concerns. What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

And for what? If Cook’s results are to be believed, 97 percent of experts agree that climate change is real and largely human-made. This does not tell us anything about the risks of climate change, let alone how these compare to the risks of climate policy.

That is a difficult trade-off, and it should be informed by the best possible science rather than dodgy work like Cook’s.
Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

 

[John Robertson]

On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn\'t be that mean, not that they admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

Gnatguy\'s assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
they thought.

Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
another religion (\"You MUST believe!\") - as if adding science to the
name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
stands to be making money.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

Just ask the Mayans.

Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
does the climate have to be to support a forest?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
covered the forests

Medieval Warm Period anyone?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

John :-#(#

 

[a a]

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 15:45:47 UTC+2, John Robertson wrote:

On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn\'t be that mean, not that they admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

Gnatguy\'s assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
they thought.

Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
another religion (\"You MUST believe!\") - as if adding science to the
name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
stands to be making money.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

Just ask the Mayans.

Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
does the climate have to be to support a forest?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
covered the forests

Medieval Warm Period anyone?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

John :-#(#
Just watch how Twin Sun pulsates

https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
Everything flows, Panta rhei

1-month/1-year Short Time Climate Changes are due to fluctions in solar acitivity
due to huge ejections of coronary mass, directed to the Earth

https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:

On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn\'t be that mean, not that they admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

Gnatguy\'s assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
they thought.

That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.

Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
another religion (\"You MUST believe!\") - as if adding science to the
name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

It was intended to be satirical.

> Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.

Climate change denial is sold pretty hard, but the fossil carbon extraction industry is making a lot of money.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

Just ask the Mayans.

Not as quickly as it is at the moment.

Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
does the climate have to be to support a forest?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
covered the forests

Medieval Warm Period anyone?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

Local warming and cooling happens all the time. We know about El Nino and La Nina because they last for a year or so,

We only worked out that Atlantic Mulitdecadal Oscillation was going on in in 1994.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Anthropogenic global warming really is global (though it is worse above the Arctic circle. You could work out why if you read the science.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[a a]

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 16:20:37 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

The statement \"Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening\" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.

The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.

They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn\'t be that mean, not that they admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

Gnatguy\'s assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
they thought.
That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
another religion (\"You MUST believe!\") - as if adding science to the
name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.
I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
It was intended to be satirical.
Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.
Climate change denial is sold pretty hard, but the fossil carbon extraction industry is making a lot of money.
Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

Just ask the Mayans.
Not as quickly as it is at the moment.
Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
does the climate have to be to support a forest?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
covered the forests

Medieval Warm Period anyone?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
Local warming and cooling happens all the time. We know about El Nino and La Nina because they last for a year or so,

We only worked out that Atlantic Mulitdecadal Oscillation was going on in in 1994.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Anthropogenic global warming really is global (though it is worse above the Arctic circle. You could work out why if you read the science.

Anthropogenic global warming
is fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas to Europe

since H2O water, water vapor, water retention account for 99.9% of so called greenhouse effect