The increase is autism is exponential at 10 to 17% per year and we are all worried about a tenth of one degree

Question

According to the CDC autism occurs in as many as 1 in every 150 births. This is an increase from 1 in 2,500 births in 1995. The increase is exponential at 10 to 17% per year. At one time a preservative in children’s vaccines was blamed but the cases kept increasing after AMATEUR MEDICAL EXPERTS WITH LUCRATIVE BOOK DEALS had the offending preservative removed. This could be mankind’s worse nightmare.

Global warming also has AMATEUR WEATHER EXPERTS, SOME WITH BOOK AND MOVIE DEALS, willing to rid society of anything and at any price to correct a problem that is rather trivial compared to what is happening to human babies. We need to prioritize. Couldn’t Al Gore solve the autism epidemic as quickly as he solved the global warming problem? Of course, you could all solve this tomorrow. A lack of practical knowledge is what made you such very fine weather predictors that you'll actually sign your name critizing real meteorologists who have doctored in the science because they are dummies.

Answer 1

the increase is more to do with better diagnostic practice there is no way to know if there is an actual increase. also where did you get 1 in 150 from?

lets look at global warming on the other hand there is plenty of everdence that we should act but we still do nothing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Answer 2

This has already been discussed in a European research article which said for much LESS money we could get fresh clean water to everyone in the world, and also solve all of the malaria deaths worldwide.

Thus preventing millions of unnecessary deaths------ rather than wasting even MORE money on a NON-ISSUE like global warming. Quoting from the Congressional Budget Office report on carbon credit taxes---

" 'Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.'

Answer 3

It's the vaccinations, and the c**p they put in the soil, environment, and non nutritious foods, in addition to all the fertility drugs.

The world is getting scarier. As for global warming?  The sun is heating up.  The sun is a star, and stars always go supernova before blowing up, right?

Answer 4

Why bother? there is to many words in that question and nobody will be bothered to read it...

Answer 5

Excellent observations!  I've given thousands of vaccines injections, and I never bought the thimersol explanation, although I feel sorry for those parents.  A can of tunafish is probably more dangerous.  I think the classification of the "high functioning" subtypes within the diagnosis is encouraging and promising.  So are the breakthroughs in communication that are starting to occur with the severe cases.

Yes I agree it doesn't seem likely to me that Al Gore is any more likely to solve the problem of Global Warming than he would be with the problem of autism.  Obviously he's far more likely to solve both than the people who deny the existence of the problems.  I doubt Al is trying to solve anything.  He is publicizing an important issue.  Autism could use a champion with his name recognition.  It is an urgent concern.

Let me throw a few numbers at you and see if it explains why Global Warming is also an urgent concern.

The earth has a natural cycle where it cools down about 10 degrees and then warms back up to about where we are right now.  Life seems to do just fine through these cool periods, with only a few changes.  If the natural cycle was in control of the climate we would be beginning one of these cooldowns right now (actually, for the last 30-50 years).

Much less often the earth has periods when it warms up a little, on no particular schedule.  These are smaller than the cooldowns, more like 4-5 degrees, sometimes less.  When these reach about 4 degrees mass extinctions occur.  A mass extinction is where most of the higher forms of life die off, and only simple organisms survive.

Instead of getting cooler as we would if the natural cycle were in control, global air temperatures have risen between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century. The rate of warming in the last 50 years was double the rate observed over the last 100 years.   If we compare this to the mass extinctions, it takes thousands of years for natural causes like volcanos to raise the temperature 4 degrees.  That would be about 0.0005 degree/year.  In the last 50 years, we've actually risen about 0.06-0.07  degrees.  If we go on at that rate, we could easily reach mass extinction level in less than 100 years.  But as before the rate of increase is still rising.  Major new players have industrialized, like China, India, and the Pacific Rim countries.  We don't have much time, do we?

You can find these number in many scientific sources.  The presentation is mine.