[lit-ideas] Re: Global Warming Hysteria
- From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:53:50 -0400
> You would have preferred, "Being a Snow Bird Causes Kidney Stones," or
> "Drinking Coffee Causes Kidney Stones," or "Playing Too Much Squash Causes
> Kidney Stones"?
>
> I read the story this morning. I take your point, but for those who haven't
> read the piece...it's about kidney stones and dehydration--warmer planet,
> more dehydration.
But even stated that way, it reminds me of an old thermodynamics
professor (old, being one of mine a long time ago, not that HE was
old, although, he wasn't spry either, but I didn't want to slight him
and I also couldn't let a post go without a parenthetical expression
that was longer than the rest of the post either).
He would put a 'proof' up on the board and between two 'steps' I'd be
thinking "HUH?" because as he had just shown "it can be seen that"
equation x clearly simplifies to equation y even though the verbose
proof had an additional 4 or 5 'steps' between the ones he had
revealed to us.
But unlike, his ACTUAL mathematical proof, this is a bit of an
'HYPOTHESIS", let's call it.
To say that global warming causes kidney stones is a fucking gross
exaggeration of a certain postulate:
1) Global Warming (by definition) -->
2) Warmer Weather -->
3) Human's need for more hydration -->
3x)INTERMEDIATE (and not reliable on a group basis) STEP
SOME humans may not realize that they need an extra glass of water
Back to proof: -->
4)An undertermined portion of those humans MAY have higher
concentrations of uric acid, crystine, calcium or other salts building
up, an infection causing ammonia buildup, or a hereditary
predisposition to any of the above
5) An even more undetermined portion of those humans who have any of
these conditions MAY develop what are commonly known as kidney stones
exacerbated by the insufficient intake of water to compensate for the
very small increase in sweat expulsion due to "global warming".
So, it is my proffered scoffing that renders this verbose proof as
"tenuous" at best and 'specious' at worst. And that was my intial, gut
reaction even before I had read the article which actually, sort of,
hinted at this.
paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
