UPDATE: Holy moly. Dr. Richard North over at the EU Referendum points to this, (screencap below) which makes Ric’s article (further below) look tame. Add this to what’s going on in the AMA, and it looks like a effort to co-opt the medical profession in the role of “trusted advocate”. They couldn’t get the TV weathercasters to go along, so they moved up the food chain. Expect climate change lectures with speeding tickets next. “Sir do you realize you were going 65 in a 60 zone? That hurts the planet with excessive emissions”. – Anthony
We are back to “foxtrot oscar” time. The medical profession is having a hard enough time convincing me that they can deal with the issues for which they are paid. The very last thing I am interesting in hearing from them is their ill-informed views on climate change. To use their positions to push them would be an abuse of trust. And it is quite disturbing that these people can’t even see that.
Guest Post By Ric Werme
I give up. I almost was able to shake my head and move on, but no, this latest bit of congressional spin combined with general disdain for rational discourse and a vapid comment in Lancet got under my skin. All I can do is to try to pass it on. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll turn the page, metaphorically speaking, of course.
Has the world gone mad with stupid science, stupid testimony, and stupid editorials? I guess so. Consider this from The Hill:
Capps pointed to a 2009 article in The Lancet, a medical journal, that said climate change could be the “biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”
“That makes climate change a bigger public health problem than AIDS, than malaria, than pandemic flu,” Capps said. “That’s why we need to take steps to address this cause behind this growing public health problem.”
I’m going to skip the rest of the article, read it if you wish, it will sound all too familiar. I merely want to call attention to this “spin device”.
Note that the reference to The Lancet included the word “could.” Right off the bat we’re into a lot of uncertainty. I assume they didn’t offer other possibilities. Personally, I think Alzheimers deserves consideration, but who knows, hangnails could be the biggest threat. Time will tell.
Capps took that reference, discarded the “could” and added a few possible candidates – OMG! I just Googled for |aids malaria pandemic flu| and Capps’ comment is referenced by seven other web pages already! I was looking for what might have been her source or if she thought of that list on her own. Try Epic Disasters, it’s pretty close.
Where was I? Oh – she changed the indefinite statement into something that is completely certain and included things that The Lancet may not have considered. Perhaps The Lancet left those off just to make its comment about climate change look more dire.
Why do people continue to use this sort of spin? It’s almost as though Capps has no better argument and resorts to something she hopes people won’t see through. Judging from the comments at The Hill, it didn’t work.
Oh well, if climate change is the worst thing to happen to us this century, we’ll do quite well.