This is almost too stupid to comment on, but I’ll do my best. First the headline and story excerpt:
GLOBAL WARMING Warming of the Earth’s climate system and related increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses are causing some eye disorders, writes Maria Anguita.
Two years ago, retired teacher Vera started experiencing eye discomfort, irritation and crusting of the eyelids. She was prescribed a short course of antibiotics for what her doctor suspected was a simple eye infection, but several months later she was still having problems.
“My eyes felt constantly gritty and dry, and my lids were red and flaky. I was treated for a range of eye conditions, but nothing seemed to make a difference,” says Vera.
Many trips to eye specialists later, she was diagnosed with chronic blepharitis, an inflammation of the eyelid, of unknown cause. And, after trial and error with different treatments, she now has a routine that keeps her discomfort and pain in check. However, some days her eyes flare up for no apparent reason: “I just wish I knew why I keep getting this,” she says.
It may be difficult to pin Vera’s symptoms to global warming, but scientists all over the world agree that increased levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the Earth, resulting from ozone depletion at high altitude, and a toxic mix of air pollutants are responsible for serious eye disorders.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), of the 18 million people worldwide who have cataract-related diseases, 5% are directly attributable to UV radiation. UVA light, a component of UV radiation, stimulates the over-production of damaging oxygen-free radicals responsible for the clouding of the lens, typical of cataracts.
Last year researchers at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, started gathering data for what is to date the largest study into the link between global warming and eye health.
Full story here
============================================================
Yegads. The stupid here, it burns like magnesium.
It’s funny really, the claim on the face is that 0.7C of warming over a century is causing a deterioration of eye health. We have humans in every climate zone of the planet, living with temperatures ranging from sub-zero in Antarctica to 120F+ in the deserts of Iraq.
Hell, the temperature changes 0.7C just walking from room to room in my house!
They are trying to blame the warming as a trigger for a whole host of secondary pollution issues, and those make itchy watery eyes. Never mind the big advances in air pollution control in the last 30 years…unless you live in China.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmmmm. Maybe all the aches and pains I have developed after turning 70 are the result of AGW.
I remember some years ago that a scientist on television was talking about research funding grants and how to make any grant application have the best chance of success. He claimed that a simple and mundane application would have far more impact if the words “with relation to global warming” were added at the end.
I almost applied for a grant to study “the effects of alcohol intoxication and the quantity of female clothes on nightclubbing women… in relation to global warming”, but I felt it would be too over the top.
I feel like I should have applied for the damned grant now!
This is still my favourite:
“Colorectal cancer screening: Will global warming affect the accuracy of FIT testing?”
http://gut.bmj.com/content/59/11/1451.extract
I guess both ends are affected now.
Did someone measure the number of hours she spent in front of a computer monitor? Also, if it is Vitamin D deficiency, she needs to get more sun.
This is bullsh*t.
I had blepharitis for several years about 20 or 25 years ago – no known cause, but it could be treated and the discomfort lessened. Then, after between 5 and 10 years (don’t remember at this point), it went away on its own – again, no known cause. (Though I can’t help but wonder if it had something to do with my starting to eat as much fresh food as possible, rather than the pre-packaged stuff. That sure helped with my allergies, at least.)
They’re really getting desperate.
Nerd, just read your comment about Vitamin D. Maybe that was it – I started taking Vitamin D supplements a number of years ago, and that could have coincided with the blepharitis going away. It’s just too far back to remember.
I still take the supplements, just on general principles.
I am sorry Anthony but you are wrong.
Global Warming does cause eye problems.
I suffered severe eye problems all last summer and had to have four out of my seventeen equines treated too.
Here is the sequence of events.
1. Global Warming causes public hysteria.
2. The public hysteria is used as a reason to protect anything green.
3. Clearing/ burning of underbrush is banned or heavily regulated in many locations such as Australia and California. Fire roads are also closed.
4. Wild fires start and spread, well like wild fire. The lack of fire roads as well as the buildup of brush makes killing/containing the wildfires much more difficult.
The wild fires in my location spread to a local wood processing/plywood factory that continued to smolder for the entire summer. This cause my neighbor to have major breathing problems and for me to have inflamed, gritty eyes.
So see my eye problems last summer can be blamed on “Global warming” and I didn’t even have to go to Six degrees of separation like most conspiracy theories. Snicker
Lest there be any doubt that AGW causes just about everything, http://anandisharan.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/from-economics-to-ecology-the-case-for-banning-the-activities-of-mangalore-refinery-and-petrochemicals-limited-that-cause-the-emission-of-greenhouse-gases/
The Local Left is embarking on a campaign to shut down the refinery to prevent both eye sores and sore eyes and save us all from the capitalism ‘that propelled us into the Anthropocene’. We won’t need to burn oil, we can tank up on ‘Stupid’ and burn that.
“They are trying to blame the warming as a trigger for a whole host of secondary pollution issues, and those make itchy watery eyes.”
This is yet one more progressive approach to justifying the argument or “need” for increased government regulation over the perceived source(s) of CAGW. The more risks that can be attributed (proven or not) to CAGW (again, proven or not), the more need for increased government regulation. And it’s a clearly-biased, subjective, and emotion-filled conclusion that with the so many risks attributed to CAGW (eye irritation being just another log on the now-raging fire – pun intended), the world MUST act NOW to avert the impending disaster.
According to the climate science referenced by Vice President Gore, the world only has about 3.5 years left before it becomes (quite literally) a frying pan – http://tinyurl.com/9h5gc . Gore reiterated climate science’s support of the notion of a global countdown clock when he testified before Congress in July 2008, “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” – http://tinyurl.com/7z9lggb .
A fair number of prominent people’s careers, reputations, and livelihoods are based upon the promulgation of the ills attributed to CAGW. For a host of reasons, they will not (and more realistically cannot – mentally and emotionally) turn away from this position. They can (and do) extend the deadline (ostensibly because some of their warnings were headed) but they cannot abandon it altogether.
After all, Gore did also state in July 2008, “The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.” Enjoy that ongoing and near-20 year average sea ice extent in the Arctic this winter because come next year – Gore knows it’s essentially gone.
The need for action is now but not because the world is doomed. Rather, action is required because the proponents of CAGW (scientific and political) are fully aware that the global, public opinion regarding the foretold doom is shifting away from their “side.” As a result, expect ever-increasing silliness to be added to the ills of CAGW. Just know (and accept as a matter of faith if you’re pro-CAGW) that Earth is doomed.
Sorry, I’m calling this one BS.
A fraction of a rise in global warming can cause this??? Pity people who go to the tropics on holiday or take a Swedish Sauna. Man just can’t cope living in the Arctic and on the equator.
Just in case anyone is wondering about the stratospheric ozone situation, check out page 40 of this 2010 .pdf report from the UN:
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/SAP-2010-FAQs-update.pdf
The graph shows that total stratospheric ozone fell about 5.5% from 1980 to 1993. Since then it has recovered about 3% of that loss. This would not be possible if CFC’s were the reason for the loss in the first place. Due to the stability of the CFC’s, and the fact that it is still produced in some countries and leaking into the atmosphere in most countries, the amount of CFC’s in the air today should be greater than it was in 1990. If CFC’s are to blame, the ozone layer should still be depleting.
Additionally, the graph shows that most of the depletion is in the high latitudes. In the tropics, stratospheric levels of ozone are the same as the pre-CFC era. In the mid latitudes, where most people live, the upper-level ozone levels are down only a percent or two from pre-1980 levels, and improving.
The Montreal Protocol, which banned the manufacture of CFC’s in signature countries, is often sited as an example of the effectiveness of the modern environmental movement and countries working together to achieve environmental goals. It now appears that the Protocol was largely unnecessary, and, ironically, resulted in less efficient air conditioning requiring more fossil fuels to achieve the same level of cooling. Yes, the Montreal Protocol is responsible for countless tons of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today.
If they were halfway rational, environmentalists would call for the appeal of the Montreal Protocol to help stop global warming! Unfortunately, rationality does not seem to be a strong suit for the modern environmentalist.
@Ken Hall says:
I almost applied for a grant to study “the effects of alcohol intoxication and the quantity of female clothes on nightclubbing women… in relation to global warming”, but I felt it would be too over the top.
+++++++
What were you putting over ‘the top’? Your motives are barely concealed!
In the early ’90s, there were stories in the news about herds of blind sheep in southern Chile, victims of excessive UV making it through the ozone hole over Antarctica. Then the story changed to the sheep suffering from UV-induced debilitating, but temporary, cataracts…
…*temporary* cataracts that miraculously disappeared at market time….
Alvin says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:15 am
Did someone measure the number of hours she spent in front of a computer monitor? Also, if it is Vitamin D deficiency, she needs to get more sun.
=====
“She needs to get more sun.” – Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Dirty air pollution in large cities can block UVB needed to produce vitamin D in the skin. UVA is much more powerful and will get through with no problem and actually decrease vitamin D level. Beside, it’s not really a vitamin but a prehormone that get converted into powerful hormone that acts as genetic repair and maintenance hormone. It just simply makes sure your body function properly. A person with fair skin can get 10,000-20,000 IU from the sun after 15-30 minutes at midday (early morning and late afternoon do not give you much UVB) but everybody works inside. Compare that to only 600 IU recommended by gov’t. Leave it to gov’t to screw up everything for us as usual… They pretty much ignore vitamin D experts’ calling for higher minimum amount of 2,000 IU with 10,000 IU as maximum despite tons of research in it.
If Vera’s symptoms can’t be explained by medical doctors, it must be global warming. What else can it be?
/sarc
This is so typical of the reasoning used by alarmists.
Sorry…my last comment should read: “…environmentalists would call for the REPEAL of the Montreal Protocol…” not ‘appeal’. There is nothing appealing about it.
Barbara Skolaut,
Glad to hear that it went away. I started taking 5,000 IU a day a few years ago when I found out that it would prevent cold, etc. It did the trick. I thought maybe it was a fad or something but of all of things I’ve tried to prevent allergy attack, sinus infection, etc that I seem to get every single winter, Vitamin D worked very well to stop all of that. I was desperate to try anything because it took forever to recover from sinus infection brought on by allergy attack or cold and I hated that. I wish I knew about it a long time ago. That would have saved me a lot of money and suffering… 🙂
My problem with things like this (and other hysterical AGW claims) is that I require my students to get a science article every week, read it, summarize it, etc. Too often they come with garbage like this and since it’s “science” and it’s on the internet, they think it’s true. Then I have to go over it and say why it’s probably not true, but who are they going to believe? Their science teacher or some expert in the internet?
Sorta OT: another quick disproof of another bit of standard idiocy. I love these NCDC graphs, but I have to wonder how long they’ll stay online, when they provide so many instant disproofs of their own religion!
http://www.polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2012/05/another-one-minute-disproof.html
I think they have things backward again.
Did high UV cause warming or warming cause high UV?
When the rest of the medical profession learn joined up writing she will be treated for colitis. Her eye irritation is a common side effect.
More dinosaur farts.
A bizarre article indeed. Although you found it in the Huff Post (UK) they picked it up from Murdock’s The Times. Huff Post should really be more careful in adopting stories from conservative sources.
I believe that the CRU teach a well attended course, ‘How to fund your professional activities through global warming grants’
Here is the world famous Dandruff caused Global Warming study: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/ns/us_news-environment/t/do-dandruff-climate-change-go-together/
Argh, my back went out again. Danged GLOBAL WARMING (shaking fist into the air).
Every scientist using the global warming BS to attach to his study to get funding should be tried, pay back the money, and dismissed. Science is currently becoming the most corrupt occupation FAST.