A growing movement in higher education responds to a shortage of health professionals and researchers trained in climate change and health
Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health
The Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education (GCCHE) today announced that, since its launch earlier this year, 125 health professions schools and programs around the world have joined and committed to ensure future health professionals are educated on the health impacts of climate change. These impacts include more deadly heat waves, flooding, and wildfires; greater spread of disease vectors like ticks and mosquitos; and growing food and drinking water insecurity.
The Consortium so far includes member schools and programs representing an estimated 90,000 students from 15 countries on 6 continents (all health professions schools around the world are invited to join). Columbia University Medical Center, including its schools of medicine, nursing, dental, and public health, is the first complete academic medical center to join the GCCHE.
Faculty members in the Climate and Health Program at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, the first academic program in climate and health in the U.S., lead the Consortium, with input from an international, multi-sectoral Advisory Council and Coordinating Committee.
“The science is unequivocal: Not only are global temperatures rising, but human health around the world is threatened by the changes to the climate system,” says Jeffrey Shaman, director of the GCCHE and the Climate and Health Program at the Mailman School. “Yet today there are far too few health professionals with the necessary training to address this growing crisis. The GCCHE exists to build this expertise.”
To enable training of health professionals on the health impacts of climate change, the GCCHE is creating a living knowledge bank of curricular content for use by health professions schools worldwide. This content is made up of a growing body of knowledge and best practices, for example, the latest techniques in drought forecasting or early warning systems for heatwaves, as well as other ways of building community resiliency and response, including medical interventions to climate-related health crises. The GCCHE also supports learning about planetary health, a new field dedicated to studying the interdependencies of human and natural systems.
“There is plenty of evidence that many climate change mitigation policies can greatly improve public health, such as by reducing air pollution or traffic injuries, or increasing physical activity,” says Carlos Dora, coordinator, Public Health and the Environment, World Health Organization and a member of the GCCHE Advisory Council. “What is missing is training for health workers to integrate this knowledge into daily practice, to enhance individuals’ and communities’ action to protect their own health while helping save the planet.”
“While climate change is a huge threat, it also presents an opportunity,” says Kim Knowlton, a Mailman School faculty member who helps lead the GCCHE. “Our goal is to foster educational programs that can accelerate the development of ways to protect health, build climate resiliency, and treat those in need of healthcare, all with special attention to the most vulnerable populations, including the elderly and people in low-income communities.”
“We see every day how violent storms, air pollution, and other environmental factors harm our health,” says Michael Myers, managing director, Rockefeller Foundation and a member of the GCCHE Advisory Council. “The rapid growth and robust action of this consortium of leading institutions shows that help is on the way.”
About the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education
Launched in February 2017 with start-up support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education (GCCHE) is an international forum for health professions schools committed to developing and instituting climate change and health curricula, in order to ensure a future cadre of highly trained health professionals who will be able to prepare and protect society from the harmful effects of climate disruption. The GCCHE serves as a living knowledge bank for its members to share training materials, news and opportunities on climate and health events, partnerships, and opportunities. Representatives of health professions schools are invited to join the GCCHE online by completing this form.
###
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Life expectancy up – infant mortality down. Like the rest of the AGW narrative, this ones full of s***.
“
Exactly. More of any pre-existing problem is just, well, more, and not something new that needs teaching. What kind of medical professionals or students would fall for this political rubbish masquerading as science or medicine?
Are there any doctors out there who aren’t being taught how to handle heat stroke?
Michael Hart:
“What kind of medical professionals or students would fall for this political rubbish masquerading as science or medicine?”
No one expects them to fall for it. They expect students to be afraid to say anything against it. Grades and even graduation may depend on acquiescence.
Guy, you’ve nicely summed up why this is total nonsense. As a physician and medical educator I am embarrassed by this drivel. Climate change is perpetual and the effects of weather events on health have been known and managed as long as there has been organized medicine. To suggest there is a lack of properly trained providers is as insightful as suggesting we lack sufficient astrologers.
It would seem the true motivation of the GCCHE is less to train providers than to forward a familiar narrative. Note the last sentence of the GCCHE mission statement:
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/global-consortium-climate-and-health-education/mission
Now that the GCCHE is part of Columbia, the money-making may begin.
@sy computing
Gee, I thought that the mission of medical professionals was to help protect their patients’ health. The planet seems to do just fine on its own.
It’s also just another way to get more funding from the government. Except, how could they forget that a new administration has taken over and the funding for global warming research just might be drying up a bit. Oh, I forgot, they’ve tied this new program to global warming adaptation, not research.
As they say: “Leave it to us at Columbia. We’re always ahead of the game. We know we’re too smart to follow the other lemmings over the cliff. Oops… was that the cliff back there? Well, here we go again…”
Don’t you just love the progressive mind set?
Mark W,
We teach Boy Scouts how to treat heat stroke…
Let’s hope by the time a doctor has finished medical school, they have mastered a few more of the basics.
If the Rockefeller’s have had anything to do wit this, you can be sure there is an initiative of their own involved.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/08/15/the-rockefellers-who-they-fund-from-their-web-site/
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Perhaps the first thing taught should be that the world’s plant life has an absolute necessity for atmospheric CO2, and that the current level is anomalously and dangerously low, as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. The slight rise in the last century has been absolutely beneficial.
Secondly, humans breathe out 40,000 ppm, and absolutely require CO2 in their system to survive. Life on Earth developed when CO2 levels were many times higher.
Thirdly, they could try to prove empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.
All it takes is a little bit of basic education instead of mindless anti-science propaganda and the AGW farce dies a natural death . !!!
A physics research article released in Environment Pollution and Climate Change earlier this year proved that the level of atmospheric CO2 doesn’t affect surface temperature. This research entitled “New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model” by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller of Wellington, Colorado, US examines; Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan and Triton, the six rocky bodies with atmospheres in our solar system. It found that their surface temperatures appear only dependent on their “top of atmosphere” solar irradiance and the mass of their atmospheres.
This research article also showed that Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 deg. C. or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed by climate scientists. However it found that the composition of gases in the atmospheres of all of these rocky bodies had no effect on the greenhouse effect of their atmospheres and that natural feedback effects kept their temperatures within a small constant range.
As Lord Rutherford once said “science is about physics or tiddlewinks”. I think the climate scientist running the line about CO2 warming are actually playing tiddlewinks.
“It found that their surface temperatures appear only dependent on their “top of atmosphere” solar irradiance and the mass of their atmospheres.”
Its called the gravity-thermal effect. Not sure we are allowed to discuss it here though.
thanks for that link Brent, obvious to us skeptics for years it’s nice to see it in print !
That sounds about correct.
Convection removes a lot of heat from the surface of the planet. Convection doesn’t happen unless the air at the surface is warm (ie. light) enough to rise through the atmosphere. link The effect provides a first order approximation of the surface temperature. It explains why Venus, with its very dense atmosphere, has a much higher surface temperature than the Earth, which in turn has a higher surface temperature than Mars with its very thin atmosphere. link It’s all about lapse rates.
We are not, which is well within the rights of this site.. I consider that to be a great shame since even if that paper is wrong, it may still have some useful insights into the workings of atmospheres, and a wide discussion about the issues raised in that paper can only add to our limited understanding of climate science. It will not detract from our understanding.
Should that paper prove to be correct, then it will be a great shame that this site which has probably done more than any other site to examine the merits of the science behind climate science, and to assess matters in an objective light, will have been behind the curve.
I see no harm in this site allowing this paper (and similar – there are other similar papers) to be discussed but making it clear that this site does not agree with the paper, and outlining the scientific issues as to why the paper is said to be wrong.
But of course it is not for me to dictate how things should be dealt with.
You can see a discussion about the Nikolov/Zeller paper here- http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/10/new-engineering-textbook-asserts-the-impact-of-co2-emissions-on-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1226134
Nikolov said he would respond to the criticisms in the closed comments this weekend here- http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/#sthash.ttvlOiAU.Vn5Uj7im.dpbs The heat transfer specialist doesn’t understand that they aren’t saying atmospheric pressure alone creates temperature. It is solar radiation combined with pressure. The heat comes from the sun not pressure.
Because they deny the greenhouse effect I don’t think Anthony wants to be associated because that would give ammo to the denier blog label.
They actually aren’t denying the radiative properties of GHG’s. Their position is that solar radiation combined with atmospheric pressure creates the temperature profile not GHG’s. GHG’s respond to the gravity induced temperature and convection increases to balance thermodynamic-ally. Even if they are wrong I think their take on convection is an advancement. Climate models don’t accurately capture convection because of grid cell limitations.
“We are not, which is well within the rights of this site.. I consider that to be a great shame since even if that paper is wrong, it may still have some useful insights into the workings of atmospheres”
I couldn’t agree more.
Good points Andy.
This is the key message from these loons, and it is false:
“The science is unequivocal: Not only are global temperatures rising, but human health around the world is threatened by the changes to the climate system,” says Jeffrey Shaman, director of the GCCHE and the Climate and Health Program at the Mailman School. “Yet today there are far too few health professionals with the necessary training to address this growing crisis. The GCCHE exists to build this expertise.”
Global temperatures rise and fall, due primarily to natural (not manmade) causes. Winter weather kills ~~20 times more people than summer weather, even in warm climates. Adaptation to winter and low energy costs are significant drivers of lower Winter Mortality rates.
Best, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/23/the-evils-of-climate-enthusiasm/#comment-2618246
[excerpt]
“It is the obligation of responsible, competent professionals to blow-the-whistle on this (global warming) sc@m, and to encourage the availability of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems for humanity. This is especially true for the elderly and the poor worldwide, and for the struggling peoples of the developing world.”
The elderly and the poor in the United Kingdom, Germany and other countries are suffering increased winter deaths due to high energy costs. In the UK, this human disaster is called “Heat or Eat”.
The Excess Winter Mortality Rate in Britain is much higher than that in Canada. Canada has a population of about 35 million and the UK about 65 million, but Excess Winter Mortality in Canada is about 5000 to 10,000 per year, and in the UK it is 25,000 to 50,000 per year.
Canada and the UK have genetically similar populations and similar health care systems. Canada tends to be colder but mostly drier than the UK. However, Canada generally has much lower energy costs and better-insulated housing and probably better central heating systems, on average. This suggests that adaptation to winter and low energy costs are significant drivers of lower Winter Mortality rates.
Imagine IF the UK had competent politicians in the past several decades instead of warmist imbeciles. Instead of spending billions on green energy debacles, they could have spent the funds on improving home insulation and central heating, and encouraged fracking of shales to reduce natural gas prices., and a whole lot of grannies and grandpa’s would still be alive for their grandchildren.
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.
Regards, Allan
References:
“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, 4 September 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
“Life expectancy rises ‘grinding to halt’ in England”
BBC, 18 July 2017
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40608256
Rising rates of life expectancy are grinding to a halt in England after more than 100 years of continuous progress, says a leading health expert.
great just what we need, another crop of ‘climate experts’ with no frigging clue about physics, chemistry, biology or science.
100%
Rockefeller Foundation money, again.
The Rockefeller Foundation actually has made major contributions to controlling malaria and yellow fever — see for example this paper by Stapleton.
“There is plenty of evidence that many climate change mitigation policies can greatly improve public health, such as by reducing air pollution or traffic injuries, or increasing physical activity,” says Carlos Dora, coordinator, Public Health and the Environment, World Health Organization and a member of the GCCHE Advisory Council. “What is missing is training for health workers to integrate this knowledge into daily practice, to enhance individuals’ and communities’ action to protect their own health while helping save the planet.”
What have any of these to do with “CAGW, Climate Change” ? Reducing air pollution ? Sure, put scrubbers etc onto coal fired plants, make more efficient engines, as if they aren’t already, tell drivers to stop texting and being distracted while driving, and stop couch lizards. What have these go to do with dreaded and cataclysmic “Climate Change” ?
Just my thought. Instead, they should be talking about their own mental health.
About “increasing physical activity“, the pharmaceutical industry don’t like that part, as it is bad business …
Thank you. I have been saved the time of writing the same thing.
This is humorous.
You can look at the epidemiology of the risk to longevity associated with elevated body mass/BMI.
In the “developed,” “Western” world, there is a fairly strong linear dependency. This is because we are living in wealthy circumstances, where even the very poor have easy access to inexpensive junk food and alcohol.
In the “developing” world – Asia, Africa – there is not a strong association between BMI and longevity, until you get up near BMI of 40. This is because the poor in the subcontinent, etc., are very physically active in their daily life. They exert a lot of activity to grow or otherwise access their calories, and they exert activity to prepare their daily bread.
The regular physical activity keeps them relatively healthy, even at “elevated” BMI.
The Communists want to shift us to a lifestyle as is common in these “developing” corners of the world.
They want us to walk everywhere, to grow our own food, grind our own grain, and boil our own rainwater for drinking water. They want us to grow or buy locally.
All as avenues for us reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.
Yes, if we move to a hunter-gatherer or third-world lifestyle, we will all be much more physically active, and will live longer.
Except for the bad sanitation, burning dung to cook with, lack of medical care for things like cancer, increase in nasty diseases, etc. Looking at one factor is not science.
Yet another propaganda piece trying to scare us all. Interesting that the proponent’s name is “Shaman”, surely the clue is in the name??? (Google the term)
It’s not about training health professionals, it’s about sending brain-washed agents into the community to spread the lies.
It is thinking that is symmetrical in three dimensions: narrow, shallow and short term. Works every time, regardless of what your desires may be.
Repetitive and redundant vapid fluff for simpering sycophants.
It’s about hyping up their programs — all the schools care about is bums in seats. Ask me how I know.
Whenever you think it can’t get any worse …
Even if you are a hardcore true believer in CAGW – all possible effects basically boil down to what you can expect if you move to a slightly warmer climate zone. Like moving from e.g. Vancouver to Portland.
No words
Shamesless money grabbing by scare-profiteers
Vancouver, BC not Vancouver, WA
But I doubt there would be any detectable differences concerning health effects.
“all possible effects basically boil down to what you can expect if you move to a slightly warmer climate zone”
That is absolutely not the case…
An increase in severe weather… a change in rainfall patterns… more heatwaves… change in nutritional basis of staple crops… sea level rise – all these are possible, indeed probable.
You can’t move your built environment and your agriculture and local ecosystems are not set up for change which is rapid, in geological terms.
More rubbish spouted by Griff and refuted by real world observations AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPERT OPINION.
I’m not talking of moving entire “built environment and your agriculture and local ecosystems” closer to the poles to compansate for global warming – It’s about “health risks of climate change”!
Offering courses in medical schools to deal with global warming is logically identical to offering special courses to deal with the health effects of moving from North Dakota to South Dakota e.g.
Last time I looked, the streets in Califonia or Florida are not totally littered with stiff climate victims! The same is true for the rest of the world whereever people are save, sound and happy due to warm temperatures.
To date severe weather has decreased, not increased.
As we proved yesterday, the claims about more heat waves are just nonsense.
The claims about changes to food crops have also been disproven.
If the world can’t adapt to a 1C increase in a century, then civilization just isn’t what it’s been cracked up to be.
Totally agree with you Griff, that when we ultimately return to full on ice age conditions, which are the norm rather than our nice little break we are enjoying, humanity is completely unprepared. Most of Canada and much of the UK is under ice for instance.
Oh, you mean you were talking about his slight warming that’s been happening at a similar rate for a couple of hundred years? Humanity has been adjusting to that just fine.
I am worried about the completely wrong concerns everyone is having since there are no plans of what to do with the United State’s couple of hundred miles of new shoreline once the continental shelves will be available to build cities on.
Perhaps the UK and Canada can be accommodated there.
Goebbels the Grifter – repetition messaging.
Seems to me the greater threat to the health of Humanity is abrupt cooling, which unlike runaway warming, actually has historical precedents.
More lies, Skanky?
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.
More junk anti-science courses in unis. More jobs for unemployables.
dai
“Not only are global temperatures rising, but human health around the world is threatened by the changes to the climate system,” Higher educator teaching First Aid how to use chain saws. Just what we need.
“there are far too few health professionals with the necessary training to address this growing crisis”
You mean doctors and nurses don’t know how to address drowning? Malaria? Hunger and thirst?
Hahahahahaha! Utterly ridiculous!
Give it time with these loons in charge of medical training. You wonder what the docs will be charging in future for a serious chat about the weather?
Maybe it should read – there are far too few health professionals with the necessary indoctrination to imagine this growing crisis.
Odd that we have an in your face health care crisis, of biblical proportions, that is caused by the super over consumption of sugar which a is solvable problem – stop drinking the sugar drinks and sugary food.
The idiots are going to ‘teach’ our children concerning the health ‘risks’ of global warming/climate change.
In 1893, there were fewer than 3 diabetics per 100,000 people in US. Today, there are 8,000 diabetics per 100,000 people in US (roughly 1 in 10).
Back of the envelope estimates show, that if no action is taken to address this problem, the entire current US budget will be required to ‘treat’ the complications of fatty liver ‘disease’.
Due to increased consumption of sugar particularly among young minority adults the incidence of diabetes is expected to increase from its current 1 in 10 in the US to 1 in 3.
Type 2 diabetes was once a disease of middle age; now 30% of all new cases of type 2 diabetes in the US are adolescences, due to the extraordinary consumption of sugary drinks.
A doctor discussing the trend note that the US is set for a future epidemic of liver failure, blindness, limb amputation and so onto due to the extraordinary early onset of the type 2 diabetes.
http://www.patient.co.uk/health/non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22129639
http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/candy.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/shakes.htm
Damage to the body due to excess sugar consumption accumulates with time and is dependent on dosage per day. The damage to the body caused by excess sugar consumption is similar to the damage to the body caused by excess alcohol consumption.
There is a direct correlation of the instance of diabetes in populations and sugar consumption which makes sense for biological reasons. Sugar is addictive. Research supports the assertion that excess sugar and alcohol consumption damages the brain and is a major fact to explain the rise in dementia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25639270
Refined Sugar Consumption Trends in Past 300 Years:
• In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 2009, more than 50 percent of Americans consume 1/2 pound of sugar per day, which is 180 pounds of sugar per year (ten times more than the amount of sugar consumed in 1800).
In 1890, the obesity rate in the US for white males, age group 50′s only, was 3.4%. In 1975, the obesity rate in the US of all population was 15%.
In 2009, 32% of Americans were obese.
http://www.connectwell.biz/pdf/comment_truth_about_sugar.pdf
The toxic truth about sugar, Nature February, 2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22129639
William;
A half pound of sugar per day? That doesn’t pass the ROM review. A half pound per day is about 252 grams. 4 grams of sugar (~1 teaspoon) has 16 calories. That’s then about 1,000 calories a day from sugar alone, not to mention carbohydrates (complex and un-), fat, and protein. As a member of the triple extra-chubby club, I don’t see that as plausible. If someone along the line is converting carbohydrates consumed into sugar-equivalent, I could buy that.
My husband and I were discussing this a day or two ago. Neither of us could figure out how people consume half a pound of sugar a day. The only possible way we could come up with was to eat only processed foods with lots of sugar, drink soda or juice all day long and snack on candy all day long. Large breakfast muffins and a highly caloric coffee beverage might help. I’m not even sure that would do it.
Astley has good points, but that Nature article about sugar takes some logic and stretches it a bit.
You have to go way far back in history to have a time when our only access to “sugar” was merely the local season when one local fruit bloomed.
Civilization may have begun with the cultivation of grains – for the purposes of making beer.
Easy “A”
Just exactly how would the “health risks of climate change” be any different from the health risks of “climate”, period? Such utter rubbish.
If you are an expert in “health risks of climate change” you can charge higer fees.- big difference!
ROFL!
The whole discussion here is absurd : “health professionals and researchers trained in climate change and health” !!!! It is all complete nonsense and rubbish. Who will the “trainers” be?? Who will train the expert trainers?? What does their curriculum look like?? It is all based on vague stupidity (but immensely laughable, I think).
I agree -100%. It’s sheer foolishness to think that the climate is going to turn into anything different than what we have on the planet somewhere already. The “health risks of climate change” are no different than what the health risks of climate that exist on the planet now. Just one of those questions to pose to alarmists that think it’s going to present something new – when it’s not 😉
What about the health risks of reading this rubbish ? This gives me both head and stomach pains !
I think I am getting the runs.
The hell with disease resistant bacteria. Amputations for diabetes is up 30% in California. Okay, now fret over the climate. The bugs you cannot stop with antibiotics any more is not important. After all, you can just amputate anything infected.
Amputations caused by diabetes is due to reduced circulation in the effected area and subsequent necrosis of the tissue. Of course the necrotic tissue may become infected with bacteria further expanding into systemic sepsis, so that is why the damaged tissue is excised. Even after amputation the viable tissue needs to be protected with antibiotics.
Simply lopping off infected limbs will not eliminate the need to address MRSA and other super bugs.
“Manmade global warming”… only not the way that the climate consensus means.
This is a very serious matter and if allowed to happen it constitutes one of the most serious abuses of authority and scientific integrity imaginable. Laughing at this latest stupidity is not an adequate response.
Even from a cursory glance of what they are proposing to link to climate change it is perfectly clear that the aim is entirely propagandist in nature. We know from WUWT and other sources that, for example, the linking of Malaria and other mosquito transmitted disease to warm is dishonest.
In the U.K we need to make sure there is the same insistence of at least a balancing view presented to students so that they hear something to counteract this nonsense – as with the absurd AL Gore film.
I have no idea what the situation is in terms of obtaining scientific balance in school or college teaching is like in the USA and I can only wish American readers luck with that.
The correct analogy of allowing such an appalling intrusion into the education system is with, by comparison, allowing ISIS or the Neo-Nazis in to present unopposed their ignorant propagandist views. And probably with much the same purpose of social control in mind.
This must constitute one of the chilling developments imaginable in which calculated misleading of young minds is seriously being undertaken by people with no moral scruple or sense of responsibility for educating the young. God help us all if this is what things have come to.
Indeed, a colder world would be an unhealthier place to live in. That’s why most people want to live in a warm place near the sea. Humans originated from tropical Africa and would not survive without shelter and fire outside that zone.
Doctor prescribing sick-days due to average global outside air temperature and movement is about equally probable as humanity changing the average global outside air temperature and movement. I’d estimate about 0.0002% chance for it to happen once in 500,000 years.
Health professional don’t know about the science of climate change and health- let’s keep it that way with the GCCHE. Instead follow the propaganda and people ignorant of the actual biological systems who follow projection as you are meant to.
One day (with luck) I’ll be too old to cut my own toenails. It’s nice to know the are training up lots of “health professionals” whose only skills will fit in neatly with my requirements.
Rule #5 for computers: Never read blogs while ingesting hot, flavored water.
Nasal passages need to be flushed out from time to time anyway.
@MarkW
Second irrigation completed. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
You have been visited by ‘Reflexive Nasal Lavage’ !
In an ideal world, students exposed to this would have data with them to show climate projections that might not agree with the words being taught to them
For example, with heat waves, we in Australia have an official line that heat waves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent. When I tested these assertions in 5 of the Australian capital cities where most Australians live, I found that the official temperature data did not support the overall assertion. There was an occasion combination supported, but overwhelmingly, no such heat wave problem. Readers here should do similar analyses for their own places of residence and spread them around. Data talks. Geoff.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/are_heatwaves_hotter.pdf http://www.geoffstuff.com/graphs_sydmelb_heatwaves.pdf
http://www.geoffstuff.com/highest_sydmelb.jpg
http://www.geoffstuff.com/century_days_sydmelb.jpg
Bingo!
Here in the United States summer maximums in the eastern half of the country have shown a cooling trend, in most cases all the way back to the 19th century.
http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg
Even with NOAA’s tendency to “adjust” data, a decline in maximum temperatures suggests that the increase in average temperatures is driven by rising nighttime temperatures. This is the classic Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, reflecting increased development in the U.S. The first obligation of NOAA is to demonstrate that their adjustments to raw data fully reflect the UHI effect.
Steve, I posted this earlier on another thread….being fresh in my memory hole….I hadn’t noticed the similarity between your map and this one before…
But it flies in the face of what it should be….adding this much asphalt since 1900 should have made temps warmer…
This is all the black asphalt that’s been added to this country since 1900..and where there’s the most…temps have been declining
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4823464/Artist-creates-stunning-map-road-North-America.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/25/16/438CF4F000000578-4823464-image-a-28_1503675897650.jpg
Once again, it suggests that the temperatures today are no warmer than they were around the late 1930s/early 1940s, and just like the contiguous US, the number of hot days (daytime highs) has if anything reduced.
I’m suer someone here can do the math, but it looks like there is a cycle of around 10 years in the data.
What’s the health affect of lowering people’s income through higher utility bills, higher fuel cost, long commutes on public transportation?
Donald Kasper has an inkling of the consequences of poverty, 30% increase in diabetic amputations. It also turns out that amputation rates are 8x higher in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
Shaman is such an appropriate name for someone advancing a religious movement.
What we need is a cracking good cold spell. Break out the woolies!
Health planning should be on the basis of observed demand. There is no reason to act on speculation about possible distant futures. Trying to predict the most effective cocktail of flu vaccines for the coming season is legitimate. Planning for an ageing population is prudent. Planning to divert scarce resources away from known needs to hypothetical needs reveals the fallacy at the heart of the so-called “precautionary principle”. There is no such principle. It is the very opposite of precaution; it is imprudent. It consumes resources before you know they’re not needed for something else.
It does us all well to remember that like climate change you should always put your trust in university trained and qualified health professionals and their peer review process-
https://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/uae-psychologist-will-help-women-accept-being-second-wives-1027352
although there does appear to be a wee contradiction allowing Saudi women to drive CO2 belching monsters at the same time California gals are being lectured not to, but the Green men know best.
Jeffrey Shaman’s hockey stick is unequivocally straight grained. It’s first class climate history miseducation.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/24/climate-change-human-civilization/
Id like the list pf what cretins have signed their schools onto this rank stupidity
i kept hassling our council re the CIGIAR memberships and why the hell we paid their fees and who signed us up? why werent the ratepayers asked about joining at all?
they evaded replies for 2 or 3 yrs
however i now see our council is OFF the list of Aussie council areas as members;-)
“…….Columbia University Medical Center, including its schools of medicine, nursing, dental, and public health, is the first complete academic medical center to join the GCCHE…..”.
Dental schools? I didn’t know my teeth were affected by climate change. The alarmists come up with something new everyday. And who needs evidence?
This is simply Columbia virtue-signaling its commitment to Climate Change alarmism by institutionalizing its resistance to the Trump administration and it policies. Creating formal structures of this type makes them harder to remove when rational thought prevails.
“Creating formal structures of this type makes them harder to remove when rational thought prevails.”
OTOH, maybe then they’ll be twisting in the wind in embarrassment.
The Program promises research money from the millions and millions willing to spend public funds …. if one is a mosquito researcher, one can get all the money one needs for research by simply mentioning Climate Change in any grant request.
The Gangs of New York never really went away. They just got accreditation.
These are all weather events, not climate change… a drought is a weather event, a storm is a weather event… bah!
Making whole careers out of imaginary or duplicative “benefits” seems a bit top heavy, society-wise. But I can see the moral self congratulation from my front porch.
People occasionally will claim that the climate fear movement is being laid to rest. But developments like this are pictures of the snowball picking up mass along with momentum as it rolls down the hill of mankind’s historic fear of weather and those who exploit / live off of it.
Nah. Death throes. CAGW is a dead ideology walking.
Oh great, now they are going to take time away from learning something learning in order to be indoctrinated on climate change.
Future patients to suffer the consequences.
learning something useful in order to be indocrinated
A time-honored but forgotten way to cope with any health risk: leeches.
Columbia University? Harvard is #1 in climate change. Is Professor Oreskes asleep?
There may be something to this, as I was recently looking at a paper on simulated shrimp. Tastes horrible, don’t know about their parasites. Seriously, how many biology departments have classical parasitologists? Old school epidemiology still works, even better with some new technology. Check out what biodiversity has really produced.
Simulated shrimp has parasites? Are they simulated as well?
At least they could improve the simulated taste.
I would hope that doctors would be able to treat and understand the human body regardless of what’s happening outside. Would an ER doc throw up his hands if he had a gunshot victim but had no specific training with GSR wounds? Is that going to be another tick box on the intake form “was your condition a result of climate change?”. When will this lunacy end?
“While climate change is a huge threat, it also presents an opportunity,” says Kim Knowlton, a Mailman School faculty member who helps lead the GCCHE.
Yes, indeed. A great opportunity to foist their drivel upon impressionable minds and breed more activists for their agenda, whilst making a nifty sum from government grants.
Never let a crisis (real or not) go to waste!
I began to pay much closer attention to the whole CAGW game when I kept hearing about the spread of arthropod vectors and the diseases they carry. When we pointed out the history of yellow fever and how two epidemics took place in Philadelphia and Boston during the Little Ice Age, most of the CAGW crowd were very briefly kept quiet. Yet then we had the Zika scare, carried by the same vectors that carry yellow fever, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, the news media almost immediately became beating the AGW drum again. West Nile did come to the USA because of global warming, but most probably in a refrigerated vile of mosquitoes from the Middle East. Zika had been present in Africa for decades until the Soccer World Cup in Brazil. Yellow fever, dengue and malaria were all but eliminated in the USA by good and professional mosquito control. Yet such mosquito vectored diseases are only an airplane flight or illegal border crossing away. As for tick vectored diseases, well Lyme disease started in the “cold” NE and has spread south and has far more to do with every expanding white tail deer and mouse populations than global warming.
Just look how global temperatures affected malaria!
I need a doctor to treat my psychological disorder related to the massive increase in climate alarmism based on false narratives. Oh, and while you’re at it, I need a lawyer who is willing to sue climate alarmists for fraud.
Oh, and another lawyer to sue all educators for being complicit in the fraud by teaching our youth the wrong facts, thereby rendering them brain dead to the truth — which is child abuse on a mass scale.
This is one big lie. History shows that during periods of cold climate, crop failure and low crop yields caused millions to die of starvation, and suffer from malnutrition. During the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were similar to today, humans thrived. It was a time of plenty when starvation and malnutrition went away due to longer growing seasons and high yields. This period was arguably the greatest in history, spawning the Renaissance. When obtaining food was no longer all consuming, people had time to create, were healthier and stronger, and disease reduced.
This seems to be an educratic justification for tying weather disasters, and the emotional baggage of the deaths caused by them, to alarmist climate dogma. If we just reverse this argument, we see how silly such scientific malpractice is.
Would any school seriously teach that IF we stop driving SUVs, humans can stop all deaths from hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires? No. But that, in essence, is the argument being made. Our educational systems are slowly going insane in their efforts to pump out good, obedient Progressives.
I always find it a bit bizarre that the CAGW alarmists are acting as if we are suddenly going to have an increase in the Earth’s average temperatures in the 100 degrees F (37 C). I know it is a propaganda sales tactic, but still. Even more bizarre at this point is that there is anyone that still believes any of the tripe.
What product the Global Consortium (GCCHE) will market seems a bit murky. Its executive director has academic training in international relations and history and business skills in strategic planning for Pfizer low-tier markets and a shoe company. Experience in climate science appears nowhere in Sebastian Fries’ vita. The stated purpose of the GCCHE is to enable the teaching of health risks due to climate warming.
My takeaway from this statement is the GCCHE plans to sell teaching materials that describe so-called climate change related health risks and how to respond to them. The study of climate science appears not to be included in the curriculum. I have two huge problems with this message. GCCHE assumes (1) out-of-control global warming is a given, and (2) a host of health issues and weather-related events are due to global warming. Neither assumption would stand up to objective scientific scrutiny.
I call this the “What If?” syndrome that afflicts too many present-day undertakings. Research studies and businesses are started that in the real world would only be warranted if a hypothesis had been tested and found to be true. In the fake world of out-of-control global warming, the bar has been lowered. All that a start-up requires is a proposed hypothesis that an event that might occur. The justification to undertake the project becomes: If such and such might happen, then so and so should be done now. Undertakings like these can only exist with taxpayer-funded subsidies. Think boondoggles.
The GCCHE’s intention is not to develop education centers to train healthcare professionals how to respond to climate problems. Plainly stated, their intention is to setup a worldwide network of indoctrination centers to promote the message of CAGW alarmists. The possible consequences of the GCCHE plans are scary. Call it a stretch, but I can visualize indoctrination centers not unlike those of the Nazis in the 1930s and the present-day indoctrination programs of North Korea. I can not visualize a beneficial relationship developing between the education of healthcare professionals and GCCHE teaching materials.
Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health –
“A currier of public alarm in snow, rain, heat, and gloom of night”