Climate Change Isn't Our Top Public Health Threat
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 12/4/13
Hysteria: The Environmental Protection Agency chief says global warming is the most urgent threat to public health. Given that the whole climate change frightfest has fallen apart, how do people keep saying such things?
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says she has dedicated her life to protecting the environment. It's too bad she is not more dedicated to reality. If she were, her comments Monday before the left-wing Center for American Progress would have been different.
But McCarthy knew who she was speaking to and told the group what it wanted to hear when she said, "I really see no greater issue and no more urgent threat to public health than climate change."
Obviously this government functionary has missed the news that the world might be entering a post-antibiotic era in which organisms resistant to the drugs that remarkably increased health and longevity in the 20th century will pose grave dangers.
Already, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 2 million people become infected each year in the U.S. "with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections."
In addition, the CDC's "Threat Report 2013" says that "many more people die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection."
And how many Americans die each year due to man-made global warming? The answer is none, of course.
When confronted with this fact, the alarmists will seamlessly shift to global warming's future threat. The danger, they say, is out there — somewhere. Just trust them. It is. Even though the climate disasters they've predicted and so tightly embraced have not occurred.
Consequently, we are left to wonder: If the real threat is to come, how many will die due to man-made global warming in coming years?
No one can say for sure, but we'll venture a guess: zero.
Meanwhile, it appears that future yearly deaths from antibiotic-resistant infection will start at the 23,000 figure cited by the CDC and grow from there.
The radical environmentalists, who are aligned with most Democrats and the mainstream media, have no sense of proportion. Climate change is an idea hatched and sustained by fevered minds. It has killed no one, but somehow it is still the top public health issue, says McCarthy, and requires "global action."
While fixated on a fraud, the alarmists haven't been able to see the real public health threats around them, from the post-antibiotic era to terrorism to the re-emergence of diseases — measles, mumps, tuberculosis — we had almost eradicated to the possible widespread and uncontainable outbreaks of bird flu, SARS and the West Nile virus.
Neither have they observed changes in the natural world that they claim to care so much about.
Consider the raw Arctic cold that's hit America's western half. Temperatures, reports the Associated Press, are "20 to 40 degrees below normal levels."
That's not global warming, the phrase used before it was converted to climate change so that the alarmists could blame all weather changes on human greenhouse gas emissions while also ignoring the fact that the predicted warming was not happening. But it does bring the entire global warming idea into question.
Also consider, because McCarthy and the global warming propagandists won't, that Arctic ice, which was supposed to be gone by now during the summers, covered 29% more water in August 2013 than it did in August 2012.
And then there's that troublesome fact that global temperatures have been flat for at least 16 years.
The global warming alarmists should be on the run, embarrassed by their exaggerations, ashamed that they believed so much in something so unbelievable, humiliated that the world hasn't ended as they said it would. Yet they're still shamelessly in the public eye, making crackpot pronouncements that are patently false.
Even worse, they're making and implementing public policy. That's the real threat to all of us.
Carbon dioxide didn't recently stop being a greenhouse gas.... More of it causes more of a planetary imbalance, which will cause more warming.ReplyDelete
There is a lot of uncertainty how that imbalance will play out in space and time, but there's no reason at all to doubt that our CO2 emissions are enhancing the greenhouse effect.
"There is a lot of uncertainty how that imbalance will play out in space and time, but there's no reason at all to doubt that our CO2 emissions are enhancing the greenhouse effect."Delete
The $1 billion per day wasted on fighting the non-problem of a trivial added 'greenhouse' effect from doubled CO2 levels is an absurd waste of resources that could have instead been spent on reducing poverty, clean water, access to medical care, true public health needs, adaptation, etc. etc.
$1 billion per day? Says who?Delete
Creating 1/3rd to 1/2 of an inverse ice age, in just a century or two, is hardly a "non-problem."
Is there some reason we can't address climate change while ALSO reducing poverty, ensuring clean water, access to medical care, true public health needs, adaptation, etc. etc.?
Why do I think we wouldn't
"The world invested almost a billion dollars a day in limiting global warming last year, but the total figure – $359 billion – was slightly down on last year, and barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change.
These are the findings spelled out in the latest Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) report."
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is highly likely to be < 1.2C and likely to be <.7
= non-problem and beneficial CO2 fertilization effects
"Why do I think we wouldn't"
Money doesn't grow on trees. The $1 billion spent per day on the CO2 non-problem should instead be spent on things that will make a noticeable difference.
Do you have a source other than GWPF? They simply aren't credible.Delete
And climate sensitivity is only less than 1.2 C in the make-believe people like you have constructed. No serious scientist thinks that. It's not even true if you do a blunt analysis of the 20th Century.
The $1 billion spent per day on the CO2 non-problem should instead be spent on things that will make a noticeable difference.Delete
A portion of this money (if you can believe GWPF -- doubtful) goes to energy efficiency -- useful in anyone's opinion. Only 38% came from the public sector. The private sector has a right to spend its money the way it sees fit, unless you think you have the right to them what they can or can't do.
1. If you bothered to read the link you would find the figure comes from The Climate Policy Initiative, not GWPF.Delete
So, only $380,000,000 per day is wasted on the CO2 non-problem by the public sector.
"The private sector has a right to spend its money the way it sees fit, unless you think you have the right to them what they can or can't do. "
Of course I don't tell the private sector what to do, but I am opposed to wasting public funds for private sector subsidies of 'green' energy, which is a large portion of the remaining $1 billion wasted per day.
"And climate sensitivity is only less than 1.2 C in the make-believe people like you have constructed. No serious scientist thinks that. It's not even true if you do a blunt analysis of the 20th Century."Delete
Appell, you are the one in the computer game fantasy world, believing the output of climate models falsified at confidence levels of 90-98+% over the past 15-35 years.
According to the arrogant journalist Appell:
Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, Christy, Braswell, Curry, Happer, Bjornbom, Lewis, Stokes, etc etc are not serious scientists. Nor over 12,000 PhD scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition.
Here's a simple blunt analysis of the 20th century:
Lacis, Hansen, Schmidt, Colose et al claim CO2 contributes 20% (alone) to the greenhouse effect. That means CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels [assuming a total 'greenhouse effect' of 33°C].
paper finds climate sensitivity 1.16CReplyDelete