Saturday, December 17, 2011
PILL DISSOLVED IN ESOPHAGUS.... BURNS, HELP!!!?
I just swallowed a causal pill with water, not a lot but still with water. I walk around for like 5 minutes and then it seemed to like explode in my throat and my esophagus began to BURN really bad!!! Also I felt like I was going to puke, but i didnt. Im extremely tierd, and was wondering if there was any household remides that would stop the burning and nausea. I want it to be able to be made without me leaving my house. I took some Peptobismal, but it didnt realy work. I just want something that will stop, or help this at least for the night. Also, is this going to have longterm effects, or will it be fine by tommorow morning??|||Lots of water or milk. I've had that happen and it can really hurt. Keep drinking until it starts to let up. Just don't drink until you get an upset stomach. It's remotely possible to drink too much and over hydrate yourself. If this doesn't help, perhaps you should see your doctor for a check.
Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. Concerning individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered. For example, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..." Currently, there are several theories of evolution.
Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism. In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:
"Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons."
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums. Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and why the fossil record is counter evidence to the evolutionary position.
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.|||it doesn't promote it by itself, but is often USED to promote it|||evoloution and its theory for me natural selection didnt come about the only way animals could transform into new species would have to be by breaking natures code in breeding different related types and thats with human interfearance. all these creatures like lucy were only monkeys nothing more.
|||That's not a question. However, no the ToE does not promote any religious or nonreligious worldview. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't about religion. In fact, many religions accept ToE, including Catholicism, several varieties of Protestantism and several varieties of Islam.|||it just show the truth does not promote anything ppl reactios do this things
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. Concerning individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered. For example, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..." Currently, there are several theories of evolution.
Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism. In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:
"Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons."
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums. Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and why the fossil record is counter evidence to the evolutionary position.
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.|||it doesn't promote it by itself, but is often USED to promote it|||evoloution and its theory for me natural selection didnt come about the only way animals could transform into new species would have to be by breaking natures code in breeding different related types and thats with human interfearance. all these creatures like lucy were only monkeys nothing more.
Report Abuse
|||That's not a question. However, no the ToE does not promote any religious or nonreligious worldview. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't about religion. In fact, many religions accept ToE, including Catholicism, several varieties of Protestantism and several varieties of Islam.|||it just show the truth does not promote anything ppl reactios do this things
What do you think was/is going on with the Earth's climate, *using numbers*?
I more or less asked this before, but didn't get very good answers, probably at least in part because I used the word "precisely" and people took issue with that rather than answering the question.
There are several subquestions here. Where I ask about temperatures, please use numbers (eg "2 or 3 degrees C", "5 degrees F", "less than 1 kelvin", whatever); for the last question, please give some kind of percentage or percentages.
1. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so?
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK)
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate?
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Remember, I want answers with numbers in, not "more or less the same" or "rising catastrophically" or whatever. Ranges are fine (though please keep them small enough to be meaningful, saying that average global temperatures have stayed within 20 degrees of the same value is a fairly meaningless statement in this context)|||1 ) It has been rising; there is some natural variation of perhaps +/- 0.1C, also an underlying warming of around 0.8C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global鈥?/a>
Before this, the long term trend was one of gradual cooling of around 0.01C/century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
2 ) Mainly anthropogenic. Some of the warming in the early 20th century was probably due to an increase in solar activity, but with the sun cooling for the last 50 or so years, I think it doubtful that much of the present increase can be put down to 'solar'.
... and with everything else pretty stable, that only leaves the increase in GHG's ... and that is down to us!
Here is what should be happening if the world was in equilibrium energy wise. Energy in = energy out.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
By increasing the amount of (mainly) CO2 in the atmosphere, we are slowing the rate that some infrared wavelengths are escaping to space, this putting the planet out of radiative balance. The response is the warming of the surface and this will continue until radiative equilibrium is restored.
3 ) For any combination of forcings and feedbacks, there will be an equilibrium temperature that the system will try to reach. The rate of warming is proportional to the difference between the actual temperature and the equilibrium value.
What I think is happening is that, while CO2 levels continue to rise, the rise in temps is being partly offset by the thermal inertia of the oceans. In other words the full increase is kept low, while we continue to push the equilibrium value higher and higher.
But the oceans can't damp down the increase without warming themselves. As this happens, they will be less effective as dampers; they will also start to emit CO2 rather than absorb it, thereby further raising the equilibrium temperature.
The net result will be an accelerating rate of increase, at least initially.
With a positive balance of other feedbacks, I think 6C or 7C is quite likely over several hundred years, but the bulk of that; 4C or 5C would occur this century.
4 ) If drastic measures were taken, the above would still occur, but the amount would be less. Even if we could stop all anthropogenic GHG's tomorrow, I think we have already committed ourselves to around 2C of warming and I would expect to see most of that in this century.
5 ) This is where I am less certain: Sea levels HAVE to rise; there's no way around that, and at a faster rate than we have seen so far. Similarly, global precipitation HAS to increase.
But what changes would occur regionally, I'm not so sure. I guess the bottom line is, can we afford to take a chance? Do we have the right to take the gamble? ... leaving future generations to pick up the tab?
My feeling is that we can't ... and we don't!
6 ) For 3 and 4; fairly confident, about 90% for both scenarios. I would be less confident if there was a credible alternative explanation for the warming we have already seen, but there isn't!
For 1 and 2; very confident, better than 95%.
For 5; I'm not so sure, I'll say 70% that it would be more bad than good, but within that 70% there is a real possibility that it would be really bad!
It is that possibility we need to avoid.
---------------------------------------鈥?br>
Edit: There was a problem with the first links I used; these have now been replaced and seem to be ok. They are not significantly different from the originals.|||Thanks.
On reflection, I'm not quite as confident of (4) as I am of (3). Certainly, if we took active steps to recover the CO2, such that we had negative emissions, I'm sure we could zero out the warming fairly quickly.
|||I'll just index the list: ~64%.|||. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so? Probably risen about a half degree F.
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK). I don't think I know and I know no one else does either. Some think they do.
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate? It is hard to say. We seem to heading into a cooling period but the jury is still out. That would be much worse than a continuation of moderate warming IMO, alarmists shrill cries to the contrary notwithstanding.
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
Don't know. Drastic anti AGW will likely cause poverty and misery.
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
I doubt that it will matter to your average butterfly if it is a degree warmer.
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Since I am confident of my ignorance as well as everyone else I would give it high confidence.|||1. I think global average temperatures have been rising by perhaps as much as 1C.
2. I believe there two main causes: solar and human. I'm not entirely sure of the exact solar mechanism however evidence for Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory may be one of several plausible solar mechanisms. For the human mechanism, it is a combination of land use change, urbanization and altering the atmosphere composition (i.e. especially CO2 levels). Out of all of the possible and plausible warming mechanisms, I put a percentage on CO2 emissions as a range of 2-30%.
3. Well I don't think there is any significant effect we can cause by limiting CO2 emissions. And I mean that from the perspective of not being able to reduce them greatly (enough) and what we do reduce will have much less effect than natural variability. As far as natural variability, I'd look to the Sun again. I don't like the prediction that's it's going to enter a prolonged minimum. If that happened, I'd think we'd see temperatures gradually drop perhaps up to .5C over the next 60 years.
4. Not much different that answer #3 other than perhaps we would make it slightly colder by say .1C.
5. If what I say in answer #3 is close to be correct, then it will be very bad. Much worse than if temperatures went up by the same amount.
6. Betting odds: 1. 90%. 2. 50%. 3. 50%. 4. 50%. 5. 80%.|||I'll refer to my last answer of this question for the accuracy of any predictions. But given you are asking for guesses and estiamted levels of certainty, I'll give it a whirl, wtih little to no confidence.
1. and 2) Aaverage temp of the planet has increased over the last century by about 0.8 degrees celsius, with about 50% being caused by man's increased production of CO2. Other fall under normal fluctuation and coming out of the little ice age, some warming is to be expected.
In the next century, given that we do absolutely nothing to curb the CO2 production (or nothing more) the temps will continue to rise by about 1.3 degrees for each doubling of CO2. I would expect to double once around 2050 adding about 1.3 degrees to be felt by 2070. At around 2050, I would expect that we will be forced to move to more renewable resources or nuclear due to the cost of fossil fuel extraction. This will cause a decrease in CO2 production. Now I think a good estimate of the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere (the general cycle, not one atom of CO2) is about 25 years. so that by 2100 we will be at our current levels of atmospheric CO2. Now given that it takes time for the temps to come back down upon less CO2 in the air, I estimate this to follow a half-life of about 25 years as well. So by quarter century (assuming that today is +0.4 degrees higher that what should normally be the case, I would estimate the following:
2010: +0.4
2025: +0.8
2050: +1.4
+1.7 as high between these 2
2075: +1.5
2100: +1.1
2125: +0.6
2150: +0.2
The above is the warming caused by man. Now the effect would be slightly bad, but manageable. I am not convinced of negative weather pattern changes, but there will certainly be less agrable land due to ocean rises, but more due to higher elevation and latitude land becoming available. The effect will largely be monetary due to movement of the populations from more established location to less. The human life toll would be dependent upon man's actions, which is entirely to variable to guess.
My confidence in my prediction is obviously low due mostly to the specificity of the numbers provided. In fact meeting all of the numbers within the significant digits used I would only give a %26lt;0.1% chance. My justification for such numbers, however, should be intuitively obvious. I doubt many warmers would argue against my numbers if I stated that these were the effects of CO2 warming alone minus all of the positive feedbacks. Simply put, I do not believe that the positive feedback outnumber the negative feedbacks, or more specifcally the huge negative feedback of the oceans. Simply put, the oceans serve as an extremely huge capacitor. One look at the amount of energy that the oceans can hold, with raising even 1 degree would give us all a clue as to their ability to serve as a capacitor. It would take a lot more evidence than the warmers have currently provided for me to believe that the positive feedback have overcome the negative feedback of the oceans. That being said, my confidence in my overall rationale is high. Following the logic of human-caused change in temps and follwoing within say 0.3 degrees of all the numbers I have used, I would put as up to 40% likely. That is to say this 40% is my belief and can certainly be changed by new information or information I do not know.
Hey Dook,
What are you talking about? You act like this question does not have meaning when it has more meaning than all of your questions. Clearly no one knows the future, but this really gets at the heart of where you stand on the issue. You want to pretend we "must" do such-and-such yet you can't answer this question? You want me to sacrifice for your "something bad may happen" garbage? No! In fact, how can I tell if you are scare-mongering some garbage about the world being uninhabitable if you are unwilling to at least hazard what you would consider an educated guess. Further, how much value does my answer provide you, if you paid attention? You might notice that I don't completely disagree and would be willing for some change, which would certianly be a start from the current stalemate.
Edit again for Dook: What lies have I told? I suppose you do not want to use CO2 taxes or really want the govt to regulate any changes at all. I also suppose that preparing for a 5 ft tidal wave and a 20 foot tidal wave requires the same level of preparation, at least according to you.|||Too many subquestions, Chem. It is more like questionaire than a question with subparts. Whatever it is, however, it is far from your best post here.
If you build a child-size sand castle near the ocean's edge shortly after low tide, it is of little use asking about the average velocity of the last 5 incoming waves, the speed and predicted direction of the wind, how many minutes longer the walls around the castle will last if you use the most drastic available little plastic shovel to make the walls higher and thicker, or how the projected changes in the tide level will affect the height and shape of the castle.
In other words, Chem, this question strikes me as bogus. You can get at best a wide range of numbers on all these sub-points, if you consult IPCC etc., so what is the point of asking the deniers, arm-chair scientists, and high school students here, for their obviously much less reliable "numbers"?
Edit to Expel: How about limiting your lies to science, and stop lying about other answers. I never said anything like what you falsely claim: that "we "must" do such-and-such"
There are several subquestions here. Where I ask about temperatures, please use numbers (eg "2 or 3 degrees C", "5 degrees F", "less than 1 kelvin", whatever); for the last question, please give some kind of percentage or percentages.
1. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so?
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK)
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate?
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Remember, I want answers with numbers in, not "more or less the same" or "rising catastrophically" or whatever. Ranges are fine (though please keep them small enough to be meaningful, saying that average global temperatures have stayed within 20 degrees of the same value is a fairly meaningless statement in this context)|||1 ) It has been rising; there is some natural variation of perhaps +/- 0.1C, also an underlying warming of around 0.8C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global鈥?/a>
Before this, the long term trend was one of gradual cooling of around 0.01C/century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
2 ) Mainly anthropogenic. Some of the warming in the early 20th century was probably due to an increase in solar activity, but with the sun cooling for the last 50 or so years, I think it doubtful that much of the present increase can be put down to 'solar'.
... and with everything else pretty stable, that only leaves the increase in GHG's ... and that is down to us!
Here is what should be happening if the world was in equilibrium energy wise. Energy in = energy out.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
By increasing the amount of (mainly) CO2 in the atmosphere, we are slowing the rate that some infrared wavelengths are escaping to space, this putting the planet out of radiative balance. The response is the warming of the surface and this will continue until radiative equilibrium is restored.
3 ) For any combination of forcings and feedbacks, there will be an equilibrium temperature that the system will try to reach. The rate of warming is proportional to the difference between the actual temperature and the equilibrium value.
What I think is happening is that, while CO2 levels continue to rise, the rise in temps is being partly offset by the thermal inertia of the oceans. In other words the full increase is kept low, while we continue to push the equilibrium value higher and higher.
But the oceans can't damp down the increase without warming themselves. As this happens, they will be less effective as dampers; they will also start to emit CO2 rather than absorb it, thereby further raising the equilibrium temperature.
The net result will be an accelerating rate of increase, at least initially.
With a positive balance of other feedbacks, I think 6C or 7C is quite likely over several hundred years, but the bulk of that; 4C or 5C would occur this century.
4 ) If drastic measures were taken, the above would still occur, but the amount would be less. Even if we could stop all anthropogenic GHG's tomorrow, I think we have already committed ourselves to around 2C of warming and I would expect to see most of that in this century.
5 ) This is where I am less certain: Sea levels HAVE to rise; there's no way around that, and at a faster rate than we have seen so far. Similarly, global precipitation HAS to increase.
But what changes would occur regionally, I'm not so sure. I guess the bottom line is, can we afford to take a chance? Do we have the right to take the gamble? ... leaving future generations to pick up the tab?
My feeling is that we can't ... and we don't!
6 ) For 3 and 4; fairly confident, about 90% for both scenarios. I would be less confident if there was a credible alternative explanation for the warming we have already seen, but there isn't!
For 1 and 2; very confident, better than 95%.
For 5; I'm not so sure, I'll say 70% that it would be more bad than good, but within that 70% there is a real possibility that it would be really bad!
It is that possibility we need to avoid.
---------------------------------------鈥?br>
Edit: There was a problem with the first links I used; these have now been replaced and seem to be ok. They are not significantly different from the originals.|||Thanks.
On reflection, I'm not quite as confident of (4) as I am of (3). Certainly, if we took active steps to recover the CO2, such that we had negative emissions, I'm sure we could zero out the warming fairly quickly.
Report Abuse
|||I'll just index the list: ~64%.|||. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so? Probably risen about a half degree F.
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK). I don't think I know and I know no one else does either. Some think they do.
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate? It is hard to say. We seem to heading into a cooling period but the jury is still out. That would be much worse than a continuation of moderate warming IMO, alarmists shrill cries to the contrary notwithstanding.
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
Don't know. Drastic anti AGW will likely cause poverty and misery.
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
I doubt that it will matter to your average butterfly if it is a degree warmer.
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Since I am confident of my ignorance as well as everyone else I would give it high confidence.|||1. I think global average temperatures have been rising by perhaps as much as 1C.
2. I believe there two main causes: solar and human. I'm not entirely sure of the exact solar mechanism however evidence for Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory may be one of several plausible solar mechanisms. For the human mechanism, it is a combination of land use change, urbanization and altering the atmosphere composition (i.e. especially CO2 levels). Out of all of the possible and plausible warming mechanisms, I put a percentage on CO2 emissions as a range of 2-30%.
3. Well I don't think there is any significant effect we can cause by limiting CO2 emissions. And I mean that from the perspective of not being able to reduce them greatly (enough) and what we do reduce will have much less effect than natural variability. As far as natural variability, I'd look to the Sun again. I don't like the prediction that's it's going to enter a prolonged minimum. If that happened, I'd think we'd see temperatures gradually drop perhaps up to .5C over the next 60 years.
4. Not much different that answer #3 other than perhaps we would make it slightly colder by say .1C.
5. If what I say in answer #3 is close to be correct, then it will be very bad. Much worse than if temperatures went up by the same amount.
6. Betting odds: 1. 90%. 2. 50%. 3. 50%. 4. 50%. 5. 80%.|||I'll refer to my last answer of this question for the accuracy of any predictions. But given you are asking for guesses and estiamted levels of certainty, I'll give it a whirl, wtih little to no confidence.
1. and 2) Aaverage temp of the planet has increased over the last century by about 0.8 degrees celsius, with about 50% being caused by man's increased production of CO2. Other fall under normal fluctuation and coming out of the little ice age, some warming is to be expected.
In the next century, given that we do absolutely nothing to curb the CO2 production (or nothing more) the temps will continue to rise by about 1.3 degrees for each doubling of CO2. I would expect to double once around 2050 adding about 1.3 degrees to be felt by 2070. At around 2050, I would expect that we will be forced to move to more renewable resources or nuclear due to the cost of fossil fuel extraction. This will cause a decrease in CO2 production. Now I think a good estimate of the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere (the general cycle, not one atom of CO2) is about 25 years. so that by 2100 we will be at our current levels of atmospheric CO2. Now given that it takes time for the temps to come back down upon less CO2 in the air, I estimate this to follow a half-life of about 25 years as well. So by quarter century (assuming that today is +0.4 degrees higher that what should normally be the case, I would estimate the following:
2010: +0.4
2025: +0.8
2050: +1.4
+1.7 as high between these 2
2075: +1.5
2100: +1.1
2125: +0.6
2150: +0.2
The above is the warming caused by man. Now the effect would be slightly bad, but manageable. I am not convinced of negative weather pattern changes, but there will certainly be less agrable land due to ocean rises, but more due to higher elevation and latitude land becoming available. The effect will largely be monetary due to movement of the populations from more established location to less. The human life toll would be dependent upon man's actions, which is entirely to variable to guess.
My confidence in my prediction is obviously low due mostly to the specificity of the numbers provided. In fact meeting all of the numbers within the significant digits used I would only give a %26lt;0.1% chance. My justification for such numbers, however, should be intuitively obvious. I doubt many warmers would argue against my numbers if I stated that these were the effects of CO2 warming alone minus all of the positive feedbacks. Simply put, I do not believe that the positive feedback outnumber the negative feedbacks, or more specifcally the huge negative feedback of the oceans. Simply put, the oceans serve as an extremely huge capacitor. One look at the amount of energy that the oceans can hold, with raising even 1 degree would give us all a clue as to their ability to serve as a capacitor. It would take a lot more evidence than the warmers have currently provided for me to believe that the positive feedback have overcome the negative feedback of the oceans. That being said, my confidence in my overall rationale is high. Following the logic of human-caused change in temps and follwoing within say 0.3 degrees of all the numbers I have used, I would put as up to 40% likely. That is to say this 40% is my belief and can certainly be changed by new information or information I do not know.
Hey Dook,
What are you talking about? You act like this question does not have meaning when it has more meaning than all of your questions. Clearly no one knows the future, but this really gets at the heart of where you stand on the issue. You want to pretend we "must" do such-and-such yet you can't answer this question? You want me to sacrifice for your "something bad may happen" garbage? No! In fact, how can I tell if you are scare-mongering some garbage about the world being uninhabitable if you are unwilling to at least hazard what you would consider an educated guess. Further, how much value does my answer provide you, if you paid attention? You might notice that I don't completely disagree and would be willing for some change, which would certianly be a start from the current stalemate.
Edit again for Dook: What lies have I told? I suppose you do not want to use CO2 taxes or really want the govt to regulate any changes at all. I also suppose that preparing for a 5 ft tidal wave and a 20 foot tidal wave requires the same level of preparation, at least according to you.|||Too many subquestions, Chem. It is more like questionaire than a question with subparts. Whatever it is, however, it is far from your best post here.
If you build a child-size sand castle near the ocean's edge shortly after low tide, it is of little use asking about the average velocity of the last 5 incoming waves, the speed and predicted direction of the wind, how many minutes longer the walls around the castle will last if you use the most drastic available little plastic shovel to make the walls higher and thicker, or how the projected changes in the tide level will affect the height and shape of the castle.
In other words, Chem, this question strikes me as bogus. You can get at best a wide range of numbers on all these sub-points, if you consult IPCC etc., so what is the point of asking the deniers, arm-chair scientists, and high school students here, for their obviously much less reliable "numbers"?
Edit to Expel: How about limiting your lies to science, and stop lying about other answers. I never said anything like what you falsely claim: that "we "must" do such-and-such"
Can someone check my work?
Can someone check this for me?
1. The two branches of statistical methods are
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||I think you should look at 8,9,10 again. 9 is correct, but there is a slightly more concise term (and a much more concise abbreviation) for what you said. Good luck.
1. The two branches of statistical methods are
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||I think you should look at 8,9,10 again. 9 is correct, but there is a slightly more concise term (and a much more concise abbreviation) for what you said. Good luck.
Is Nicotine the dark horse of Cannabis psychosis?
Cannabis psychosis studies have a major flaw by not including the potential brain damaging effects of nicotine. Also, there is a close correlation between mental illness levels in both tobacco and Cannabis users. This needs to be explained.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on a fascinating question... unfortunately I don't think I can answer it. However, I'd like to question the following:
"Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals."
Surely that should read "ONLY in some predisposed individuals." - I've suffered from massive bouts of depression since I was a kid, culminating in suicidal tendencies when I was about 14, which funnily enough is about a year after I started smoking (tobacco) - I tried cannabis for the first time at about 16, and started smoking regularly (like, every day or at least 4-5 days a week) when I was about 19. I'm now 27 and I smoke about 1/8oz per week - I tend to mix my joints about 60% tobacco (or alternative smoking mix) and 40% weed, but I don't smoke tobacco on its own any more. In the last 8 years, I have only had relapses of depression during periods where I couldn't get hold of any weed (what with it being illegal, and with me being an irregularly working self-employed musician with little cash, it can be tricky).
Some would say that if I hadn't smoked weed in the first place, I wouldn't get depressed at all and that now my depression has become a withdrawal symptom, however I know this is not the case as I have a history of mental illness massively predating my weed smoking. For me, this goes to show that THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) affects different people in different ways. Personally, I can't help but believe there's a good chance I would've offed myself by now if I hadn't been a stoner. As it happens, I'm very happy, getting married in June, have a 3 year old son, 2 dogs and managed to get a first class degree in Music, majoring in production. I'm currently building a recording studio. So screw all the nay-sayers. I'm as motivated and happy as I ever have been.|||Quote, Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, mmmkay?
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on a fascinating question... unfortunately I don't think I can answer it. However, I'd like to question the following:
"Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals."
Surely that should read "ONLY in some predisposed individuals." - I've suffered from massive bouts of depression since I was a kid, culminating in suicidal tendencies when I was about 14, which funnily enough is about a year after I started smoking (tobacco) - I tried cannabis for the first time at about 16, and started smoking regularly (like, every day or at least 4-5 days a week) when I was about 19. I'm now 27 and I smoke about 1/8oz per week - I tend to mix my joints about 60% tobacco (or alternative smoking mix) and 40% weed, but I don't smoke tobacco on its own any more. In the last 8 years, I have only had relapses of depression during periods where I couldn't get hold of any weed (what with it being illegal, and with me being an irregularly working self-employed musician with little cash, it can be tricky).
Some would say that if I hadn't smoked weed in the first place, I wouldn't get depressed at all and that now my depression has become a withdrawal symptom, however I know this is not the case as I have a history of mental illness massively predating my weed smoking. For me, this goes to show that THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) affects different people in different ways. Personally, I can't help but believe there's a good chance I would've offed myself by now if I hadn't been a stoner. As it happens, I'm very happy, getting married in June, have a 3 year old son, 2 dogs and managed to get a first class degree in Music, majoring in production. I'm currently building a recording studio. So screw all the nay-sayers. I'm as motivated and happy as I ever have been.|||Quote, Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, mmmkay?
Is Nicotine the dark horse of Cannabis psychosis?
Cannabis psychosis studies have a major flaw by not including the potential brain damaging effects of nicotine. Also, there is a close correlation between mental illness levels in both tobacco and Cannabis users. This needs to be explained.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||This is a very good point and I think it does need to be looked into more. However I would say that they would already be doing research on this, it just may be that the public is not made aware until there is concrete proof. Try do some reading on it you might find something - maybe look on a sait called EROWID
Secondly to the first 2 people to answer this question, why would you bother answering if you have nothing productive to say - your cheap quick insults do nothing and they are not even funny - seriously you guys are the ones with too much time on your hands, if you have time to answer this question, with nothing but useless comments|||And You have not enough brain in Your head.|||You have too much time on your hands.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||This is a very good point and I think it does need to be looked into more. However I would say that they would already be doing research on this, it just may be that the public is not made aware until there is concrete proof. Try do some reading on it you might find something - maybe look on a sait called EROWID
Secondly to the first 2 people to answer this question, why would you bother answering if you have nothing productive to say - your cheap quick insults do nothing and they are not even funny - seriously you guys are the ones with too much time on your hands, if you have time to answer this question, with nothing but useless comments|||And You have not enough brain in Your head.|||You have too much time on your hands.
What justice is there in making marijuana illegal?
Washington, DC: Police arrested 847,864 persons for marijuana violations in 2008.Marijuana arrests now comprised one-half (49.8 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States.
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
Commenting on the 2008 figures, NORML Director Allen St. Pierre said: “Federal statistics released just last week indicate that larger percentages of Americans are using cannabis at the same time that police are arresting a near-record number of Americans for pot-related offenses. Present enforcement policies are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and having no impact on marijuana availability or marijuana use in this country. It is time to end this failed policy and replace prohibition with a policy of marijuana regulation, taxation, and education.”
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano added, “According to a just-released Rasmussen poll, a majority of American adults believe, correctly, that marijuana is less harmful than booze. The public has it right; the law has it wrong.”
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.
Now tell me what justice is in making marijuana illegal.|||I don't understand why it's illegal either. It's no more harmful than any legal drugs out there. But the fact of the matter is, marijuana is going to stay illegal unless enough people are willing to make a stand to change it. In general, people are unwilling to do this, because if they stand up for legalization, they are viewed by the rest of society as being a "pot head" or "druggie", regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.|||Justice has nothing to do with law. They're completely separate concepts - one relates to ethics and one relates to the State.
Understand that you are the property of the State and a slave to its will. Whatever laws it decides to arbitrarily make bind you regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong".|||Thank you for posting an intelligent argument for the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
I agree completely. The War has failed, time to try something else.|||I basically agree I don't smoke nor would I if legal.
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public areas where the second smoke can affect others. Nor should kids be allowed to smoke ( just like alcohol and tobacco ) It should be taxed and require warning labels. Driving while stoned should be same as dui. Employers
should be able to insist that no one is high at work same with being drunk
or watching porn|||I disagree with some of your so called facts. Just as I disagree with most of the myths. However, that is another discussion. The reason marijuana is still illegal is simple. The Government makes a lot more money keeping it that way then they would by legalizing it. You know the old saying about history, and those who don't learn from it being damned to repeat it? Well, this is a great example of not learning from history. The United States tried to prohibit alcohol way back in the early part of this past century. This proved beyond all doubt in my mind anyway, that you can not legislate morality. Yet, Congress keeps trying.|||I wouldn't call it justice but if marijuana was legalized it would be better for all concerned. I've read that California spends 171 million dollars per year trying to eradicate marijuana usage. 54 million dollars of that money goes towards incarceration of basically non violent pot smokers. Another 71 million dollars is spent on court costs.
Despite the law and all the money spent on law enforcement weed is still relatively cheap and easy to find. Worse yet we have Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminal organizations getting rich from the profits the take in from the cultivation and distribution of illegal cannabis.
Remember in California alone it's estimated that the underground marijuana industry amounts to something like 14 billion dollars per year. We have a situation quite similar to what was happening during prohibition back in the 1920's.
Fact: According to NORML 56% of Californians think marijuana should be legalized then taxed and regulated just like alcohol. 51% of Californians believe alcohol is not only harder not only on ones body but causes more damage to society.
Granted marijuana is a mind altering substance with a distinct potential for abuse but then again so is alcohol so it's not for everybody. Still I can't recall the last time anyone has ever died from a marijuana overdose or for that matter marijuana withdrawals because unlike alcohol marijuana isn't physically addictive.
I also can't seem to recall any event I ever been to that was ruined because somebody got too stoned...I do however remember plenty of times when some fools got too drunk and rowdy which resulted in the police showing up shutting the event down.
I never knew a pothead that made a routine practice of beating up his wife or girlfriend every time he got stoned...but I've ran across plenty of drunks who do it all the time. Alcoholism and domestic violence go hand in hand.
By the way California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. If AB 390 passes it will legalize then tax and regulate marijuana just like alcoholic beverages. It's expected that a legal marijuana industry in California will generate something like 1.2 billion dollars per year in tax revenues alone.
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
Commenting on the 2008 figures, NORML Director Allen St. Pierre said: “Federal statistics released just last week indicate that larger percentages of Americans are using cannabis at the same time that police are arresting a near-record number of Americans for pot-related offenses. Present enforcement policies are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and having no impact on marijuana availability or marijuana use in this country. It is time to end this failed policy and replace prohibition with a policy of marijuana regulation, taxation, and education.”
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano added, “According to a just-released Rasmussen poll, a majority of American adults believe, correctly, that marijuana is less harmful than booze. The public has it right; the law has it wrong.”
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.
Now tell me what justice is in making marijuana illegal.|||I don't understand why it's illegal either. It's no more harmful than any legal drugs out there. But the fact of the matter is, marijuana is going to stay illegal unless enough people are willing to make a stand to change it. In general, people are unwilling to do this, because if they stand up for legalization, they are viewed by the rest of society as being a "pot head" or "druggie", regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.|||Justice has nothing to do with law. They're completely separate concepts - one relates to ethics and one relates to the State.
Understand that you are the property of the State and a slave to its will. Whatever laws it decides to arbitrarily make bind you regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong".|||Thank you for posting an intelligent argument for the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
I agree completely. The War has failed, time to try something else.|||I basically agree I don't smoke nor would I if legal.
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public areas where the second smoke can affect others. Nor should kids be allowed to smoke ( just like alcohol and tobacco ) It should be taxed and require warning labels. Driving while stoned should be same as dui. Employers
should be able to insist that no one is high at work same with being drunk
or watching porn|||I disagree with some of your so called facts. Just as I disagree with most of the myths. However, that is another discussion. The reason marijuana is still illegal is simple. The Government makes a lot more money keeping it that way then they would by legalizing it. You know the old saying about history, and those who don't learn from it being damned to repeat it? Well, this is a great example of not learning from history. The United States tried to prohibit alcohol way back in the early part of this past century. This proved beyond all doubt in my mind anyway, that you can not legislate morality. Yet, Congress keeps trying.|||I wouldn't call it justice but if marijuana was legalized it would be better for all concerned. I've read that California spends 171 million dollars per year trying to eradicate marijuana usage. 54 million dollars of that money goes towards incarceration of basically non violent pot smokers. Another 71 million dollars is spent on court costs.
Despite the law and all the money spent on law enforcement weed is still relatively cheap and easy to find. Worse yet we have Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminal organizations getting rich from the profits the take in from the cultivation and distribution of illegal cannabis.
Remember in California alone it's estimated that the underground marijuana industry amounts to something like 14 billion dollars per year. We have a situation quite similar to what was happening during prohibition back in the 1920's.
Fact: According to NORML 56% of Californians think marijuana should be legalized then taxed and regulated just like alcohol. 51% of Californians believe alcohol is not only harder not only on ones body but causes more damage to society.
Granted marijuana is a mind altering substance with a distinct potential for abuse but then again so is alcohol so it's not for everybody. Still I can't recall the last time anyone has ever died from a marijuana overdose or for that matter marijuana withdrawals because unlike alcohol marijuana isn't physically addictive.
I also can't seem to recall any event I ever been to that was ruined because somebody got too stoned...I do however remember plenty of times when some fools got too drunk and rowdy which resulted in the police showing up shutting the event down.
I never knew a pothead that made a routine practice of beating up his wife or girlfriend every time he got stoned...but I've ran across plenty of drunks who do it all the time. Alcoholism and domestic violence go hand in hand.
By the way California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. If AB 390 passes it will legalize then tax and regulate marijuana just like alcoholic beverages. It's expected that a legal marijuana industry in California will generate something like 1.2 billion dollars per year in tax revenues alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)