Question for Global Warming skeptics

[IHOPSkins]

If the estimates given weren't constantly exagerated, that would help with credibilty

[alexey]

If the estimates given weren't constantly exagerated, that would help with credibilty

You are right, for example Al Gore lost credibility by exaggerating rising sea levels and such.

The question is, what kind of hard observed evidence would it take to change your mind? How many years of record temps? How frequently would 100-year or 500-year floods would have to happen for you to think that something is wrong? How many record snowfalls?

[Ken]

The people getting at 4 mg/mL or higher in their water are also getting fluoride from those places too so it isn't 1.2 mg/mL + extra fluoride compared to 4 mg/mL or higher.

The benefits to teeth aren't dubious.

Please post all of your evidence that it is beneficial, because all I see is it "strengthens teeth and prevent cavities". 97% of Europe does not fluoridate.

Here is the definitive study that I have put a lot of weight into that looks at the real factors of fluoride and any perceived benefit. Fluoride failed to do anything for the enamel of the tooth and causes multiple health problems.

http://www.iaomt.org/articles/files/files196/IAOMT%20Fluoridation%20Position.pdf

[Skins24]

Are you suggesting that we wanted the famine in Ethiopia to happen?

Yes, but at what cost?

Not really that anyone wanted, but more like no one really cared. No one on Earth has to experience a famine.

Yes, but adaption costs money and time. In the past, in these discussions and essentially in this one, you are talking about massive population shifts. That's going to cost money.

That was exaggerated solution for an exaggerated example. Really, massive population shifts like that won't be necessary.

That's because most climate shifts are due to changes in the orbital pattern of the Earth. Because those changes are slow, the climate change is slow. That is not the current situation.

You're joking right? LOL

That isn't even close to being the current situation

The current glacial retreat according to everyone and their mother, began thousands of years ago. Even if you start from the LIA (which was not a true glacial advance) that's still hundreds of years, and everything talked about in this thread wouldn't come close to occurring (if it were, which is of course not guaranteed) until hundreds of years from present. This is on par with previous retreats and advances.

Aren't all climate changes "temporary" as climate is never constant?

Temporary as in a disruption to the general trend.

And yes the climate is never constant. Climate change has occurred every second this Earth has been around.

Who knows how our current climate would be different if the Younger Dryas hadn't happened?

We'd probably be much warmer than we are now. Since it sort of hit the reset button.

[alexey]

Peter,

You may have noticed that Skins24 is yet to answer the OP and present any criteria for evidence that would change his mind. In light of this, I seriously doubt that any argument you can present would have any effect. Please consider a possibility that your time is better spent doing other things.

[PeterMP]

Please post all of your evidence that it is beneficial, because all I see is it "strengthens teeth and prevent cavities". 97% of Europe does not fluoridate.

Here is the definitive study that I have put a lot of weight into that looks at the real factors of fluoride and any perceived benefit. Fluoride failed to do anything for the enamel of the tooth and causes multiple health problems.

http://www.iaomt.org/articles/files/files196/IAOMT%20Fluoridation%20Position.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855.full.pdf

"Results 214 studies were included. The quality of

studies was low to moderate.Water fluoridation was

associated with an increased proportion of children

without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth

affected by caries. The range (median) of mean

differences in the proportion of children without

caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median)

of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled

primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth.

A dose*dependent increase in dental fluorosis was

found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated

12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of

exposed people would have fluorosis that they would

find aesthetically concerning."

[PeterMP]

Not really that anyone wanted, but more like no one really cared. No one on Earth has to experience a famine.

I'll actually agree with that, but it still happen when precipitation patterns shift and existing populations of people are no longer able to produce their own food, and that's not likely to change, and existing population distributions are based on the "current" "normal" distribution of where food is grown.

That was exaggerated solution for an exaggerated example. Really, massive population shifts like that won't be necessary.

How do you know?

You're joking right? LOL

That isn't even close to being the current situation

The current glacial retreat according to everyone and their mother, began thousands of years ago. Even if you start from the LIA (which was not a true glacial advance) that's still hundreds of years, and everything talked about in this thread wouldn't come close to occurring (if it were, which is of course not guaranteed) until hundreds of years from present. This is on par with previous retreats and advances.

Until about 100 years ago, it was.

Anyway, I'm not sure of your whole point. "The rule" for climate changes is they happen slowly. The change in the orbital patterns is slow and so are the related climate changes.

IF the causing change happens fast, as appears to have happened with Younger Dryer situation, then the resulting climate change can happen fast.

Our production of CO2 is happening fast. Much faster than the changes in the Earth's orbits. There is no reason to believe the time scales of those changes that are the "rule" is at all relevant. We are clearly looking an exception with respect to the causes (as happnened in the Younger Dryas case) and therefore an exception in the time frame for changes in climate is completely expected.

Temporary as in a disruption to the general trend.

And yes the climate is never constant. Climate change has occurred every second this Earth has been around.

We'd probably be much warmer than we are now. Since it sort of hit the reset button.

That isn't how chaotic system behave. The "starting" point affects the end point.

[Ken]

http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855.full.pdf

"Results 214 studies were included. The quality of

studies was low to moderate.Water fluoridation was

associated with an increased proportion of children

without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth

affected by caries. The range (median) of mean

differences in the proportion of children without

caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median)

of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled

primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth.

A dose*dependent increase in dental fluorosis was

found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated

12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of

exposed people would have fluorosis that they would

find aesthetically concerning."

From the Same study:

"Conclusions

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of

public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that

little high quality research has been undertaken. As

such, this review should provide both researchers and

commissioners of research with an overview of the

methodological limitations of previous research.

The evidence of a reduction in caries should be

considered together with the increased prevalence of

dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential

negative effects was found. This evidence on positive

and negative effects needs to be considered along with

the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and

legal issues that surround any decisions about water

fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and

efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with

appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the

existing evidence base."

I mean, hardly convincing evidence here. Ya, it improved dental caries but also had a higher rate of Fluorosis.

[PeterMP]

From the Same study:

"Conclusions

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of

public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that

little high quality research has been undertaken. As

such, this review should provide both researchers and

commissioners of research with an overview of the

methodological limitations of previous research.

The evidence of a reduction in caries should be

considered together with the increased prevalence of

dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential

negative effects was found. This evidence on positive

and negative effects needs to be considered along with

the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and

legal issues that surround any decisions about water

fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and

efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with

appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the

existing evidence base."

I mean, hardly convincing evidence here. Ya, it improved dental caries but also had a higher rate of Fluorosis.

Yeah, but they don't see an increase in fluorsis at a real health care concern level:

"At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated

12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of

exposed people would have fluorosis that they would

find aesthetically concerning."

Some people are ending up with more white streaks than they'd like on their teeth. Not a really big concern AND the federal government reccomends LESS than 1 ppm for much of the country.