Eyeroller: American Thoracic Society Survey Says – Climate change affects your health!

surveysaysFrom the exaggeration department …because that extra 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is somehow far more powerful than the range of climate and weather extremes that human experience and live in daily. And, since when is an opinion poll equal to science? Next they’ll be telling us that 97% of Thoracic physicians…

Climate change affects human health, ATS membership survey shows

The American Thoracic Society has published the results of a survey of the ATS membership on climate change which found that the majority of ATS members believe that climate change is real and that it is having a negative impact on the health of the patients that they care for.

“Our physician members are seeing the effects that climate change is having on the well-being of their patients,” said John R. Balmes, MD, Chair of the ATS Environmental Health Policy Committee, who was one of the survey’s authors. “These results talk to the importance of groups involved in healthcare taking a stand on this issue, and educating their members and the patients that they serve that climate change is a healthcare issue.”

Key results of the survey include:

  • 89% of respondents believe climate change is happening
  • 68% believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity
  • 65% believe climate change is relevant to direct patient care (either a great deal or a moderate amount)
  • Free text responses indicate physician believe they are seeing climate change health effects in patients today

The survey, which was conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, polled 5,500 US ATS members and asked a series of questions about climate change and its impact on patients. The survey had a response rate of 17% and received responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Reported adverse health effects attributed to climate change included worsening of asthma due to exposure to ozone or other pollutants, longer and more severe allergy seasons, and an increased number of cases of acute and chronic lung conditions.

In addition to Dr. Balmes, other ATS authors of the survey included Gary Ewart, Senior Director of ATS Government Relations and George D. Thurston, DSc, and Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, who are Vice Chair and member, respectively, of the ATS Environmental Health Policy Committee.

The survey results are published in the February issue of the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 4, 2015 6:56 am

“Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University” — Aren’t these the crooks who have a huge grant to cook up new ways to scare people (communicate) about climate change.

JJM Gommers
March 4, 2015 7:06 am

It’s true, Pachauri got overheated!!

March 4, 2015 7:09 am

It’s true. My blood pressure is badly affected when I read bollocks like this.

March 4, 2015 7:12 am

How many actually responded to the survey?
More importantly, this is evidence that professinoal organizations are being corrupted into being political puppets.

Lance Wallace
Reply to  hunter
March 4, 2015 8:33 am

The response rate was 17%. That is, 83% of those contacted did not believe climate change questions were worth answering.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 4, 2015 8:48 am

Which proves that 17% should not answer surveys when drunk.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 4, 2015 8:57 am

It’s all about what they believe! Well do you ‘believe’ that milder winters will reduce deaths from respiratory illnesses and heart attacks? The IPCC agrees with this last ‘belief’. [PS I read above pollution. Are they trying to muddy the waters?]

Abstract – 2007
Exposure to cold and respiratory tract infections.
There is a constant increase in hospitalizations and mortality during winter months; cardiovascular diseases as well as respiratory infections are responsible for a large proportion of this added morbidity and mortality. Exposure to cold has often been associated with increased incidence and severity of respiratory tract infections. The data available suggest that exposure to cold, either through exposure to low environmental temperatures or during induced hypothermia, increases the risk of developing upper and lower respiratory tract infections and dying from them; in addition, the longer the duration of exposure the higher the risk of infection. Although not all studies agree, most of the available evidence from laboratory and clinical studies suggests that inhaled cold air, cooling of the body surface and cold stress induced by lowering the core body temperature cause pathophysiological responses such as vasoconstriction in the respiratory tract mucosa and suppression of immune responses, which are responsible for increased susceptibility to infections. The general public and public health authorities should therefore keep this in mind and take appropriate measures to prevent increases in morbidity and mortality during winter due to respiratory infections.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007 Sep;11(9):938-43.

I am glad that science is now all about ‘belief, such as ‘religion’ and ‘dharma’. (Pachari resignation letter)

Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 4, 2015 10:33 am

17 % response is much higher than the percentage of climate articles utilized (as a percentage of those reviewed) in concocting the 97 % AGW “consensus.” Either way, both surveys are garbage.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 5, 2015 10:12 am

Does anybody have a copy of the survey? That would probably explain why 83% chucked it.

Reply to  hunter
March 4, 2015 8:42 am

Below is a survey reported 2 days ago on NTZ. It also involves the lungs…………..of BATS. Bats are being killed in their droves by wind turbines spinning at up to 300km p/h causing Barotrauma. [“Barotrauma involves tissue damage to air-containing structures caused by rapid or excessive pressure change; pulmonary barotrauma is lung damage due to expansion of air in the lungs that is not accommodated by exhalation]

2 March 2015
Growing “Swept Area” Of Annihilation…Study Points To Wind Turbines’ Barotraumatic Mayhem Of Bats

Next up……….climate change will caused extinction of some bat species in Europe. It sure will, just not in the way they imagined.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Jimbo
March 4, 2015 11:46 am

Not exactly sure what “…wind turbines spinning at up to 300km p/h…” means, but I’m interpreting it as wind turbines causing wind to accelerate to 300km/hr (200MPH).
This website (http://www.naco.org/programs/csd/Green%20Government%20Database/Atlantic%20County%20NJ%20Wind%20Farm%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) of unknown credibility states 120 ft long wind turbine blade-tip speeds reach 120-180 mph (the blade tip, not the air). How blade-tip speed translates into even higher wind speed is a mystery.
Wind turbines extract energy from moving air (i.e. slow it down) to convert it to electrical power. They sure don’t accelerate air to 300km/hr.

Reply to  Jimbo
March 4, 2015 12:16 pm

Chip, if the wing tip is moving at 180mph, then the air next to the wing tip is also moving at 180mph.
The problem is caused by the shock wave created by the blade as it moves through the air.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Jimbo
March 4, 2015 12:38 pm

For MarkW –
The speed of sound is well, well over 180 mph, so there is no possibility of shock waves. (Many, many years experience in the aerospace industry, with 15 years working on helicopter rotors, whose tip speeds are normally around 0.9M at most.) Also, with the blade tip moving at 180 mph, the air next to the tip is moving at whatever the ambient wind condition is, plus any airspeed induced by the passage of the turbine blade. However, again, the blade cannot possibly accelerate the air to the same speed as the blade tip. For helicopter rotors, traveling at about 0.9M, the induced airflow is between 30 and 100 fps, depending upon the rotor flight condition and tip speed – maybe, just maybe about 15% of the tipspeed.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Jimbo
March 4, 2015 1:38 pm

retired engineer
Thanks for the explanation (I’m a finance guy, not an aeronautical engineer).
I read a little of the NTZ survey referenced by Jimbo (above), which appears to blame bat killing wind speeds of 300km/hr on turbine blade-tip speeds (i.e. air speed experienced by bats flying near the blade-tip) that approximately equal the blade-tip speed thru the air. Your helicopter blade analogy seemed to rule this out.
Do you have any further insight or is the NZT report pure bovine excrement?

Reply to  Jimbo
March 4, 2015 3:09 pm

Not so sure Barotrauma so much as a 300kn/hr WHACK! to flitting bats trying to catch those moths that are attracted to those lights on the tower

Reply to  Jimbo
March 5, 2015 10:14 am

Bo, your link is done broke.

March 4, 2015 7:15 am

So anyone that moves more than 100 miles south from where they now live will have “adverse health effects” from the climate change. LOL

Reply to  DAS
March 4, 2015 8:59 am

And by going north your health will heal. Magically.
Of course, Greenland is no longer what it used to be.

Reply to  Hugh
March 4, 2015 1:04 pm

We English will all move to the Highlands of Scotland, and, obviously, live for ever.
/Sarc. I suppose it’s needed.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Hugh
March 4, 2015 4:56 pm

@ auto
careful laddie- the boys up there’ll likely be swingin’ claymores

March 4, 2015 7:16 am

So I suppose that thoracic health is far worse in Florida than Maine due to the much higher temperatures there?

Reply to  DHR
March 4, 2015 1:57 pm

So I suppose that thoracic health is far worse in Florida than Maine due to the much higher temperatures there?

Sure, DHR. I mean… look at how many 80 to 90-year-old people die in Florida every day from thoracic health problems; huge numbers compared to the rest of the U.S. except maybe Arizona ;o)
(another unnecessary /sarc, but who knows what unimaginative, humorless CAGW alarmist might be reading this?)

March 4, 2015 7:17 am

So, only around 11, 5 % of ATS members reported that they believe climate change is mostly by human activity.

Reply to  HB
March 4, 2015 9:08 am

This is a bit like how they arrived at the 97% nonsense.

the majority of ATS members believe that climate change is real and that it is having a negative impact on the health of the patients that they care for………..The survey had a response rate of 17% and received responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Now onto the religious aspect. Here is how many times I see the word belief and variations thereof as per the above post.

“found that the majority of ATS members believe…..
• 89% of respondents believe climate change is happening
• 68% believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity
• 65% believe climate change is relevant to direct patient care”

Never has so much rubbish been written by so few and read by many. Into the dustbin pleeeeease.

DD More
Reply to  HB
March 4, 2015 11:01 am

And looking at all the implications of • 89% of respondents believe climate change is happening
Means that 11% of these med doctors do not believe that AMO, PDO and ocean currents and temperatures have an effective change on weather over +/- 30 year time frames, the very definition of ‘Climate’.
Anyway, these are ‘Specialist Doctors’ and your insurance probably will not allow you to get a recommendation with out a referral.

Alberta Slim
March 4, 2015 7:19 am

All these papers and statements are designed to evade the critical unproven claim that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. The Warmists know that there is no proof so keep harping about wanting to do something, to avoid the facts.

March 4, 2015 7:19 am

“68% believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity”
Not 97 percent? Doctors are 29% smarter than climatologists.

Reply to  rh
March 4, 2015 7:59 am

I think your sums is well dodgy.
3% of climatologists don’t agree, compared to 32% of doctors, making them almost 11 times (1060%) smarter, not 29%.

Reply to  steveta_uk
March 4, 2015 12:43 pm

I stand corrected.

March 4, 2015 7:26 am

The survey, which was conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, polled 5,500 US ATS members and asked a series of questions …
Whenever I see a reference to ‘ATS members’ my first though is the people who inhabit the UFO/conspiracy theory website:
Above Top Secret

March 4, 2015 7:27 am

The paper is paywalled but the abstract is available free and says “A majority of respondents indicated they were already observing health impacts among their patients, most commonly as increases in chronic disease severity from air pollution (77%), allergic symptoms from exposure to plants or mold (58%) and severe weather injuries (57%).”
Well, okay, let’s see the data that shows U.S. air quality has worsened. And the data that shows allergy-affected people are more frequently being exposed to plants or mold (WTF?) And the data that shows more people are being injured in weather-related incidents. If the latter is true, it almost certainly involves increased numbers of frostbite cases, Sun so hot I froze to death…

March 4, 2015 7:28 am

But seriously, they only had a 17% response rate. Who would be more likely to respond to a survey about climate change, and who would view it as a cynical political survey and ignore it? It could easily be that a majority of thoracic physicians thinks climate change does not affect their patients.

Reply to  rh
March 4, 2015 8:23 am

Yes, such a low response rate is indicative of the interest level among those individuals contacted, and corresponds well with results of recent public surveys ranking climate change. Most people who don’t participate in alarmism will not respond because they distance themselves from politically polarizing issues. I noticed the response rate was mentioned only after all the statistics had been presented to make their case.

March 4, 2015 7:28 am

Those survey results are troubling not because it tells anything about climate but because doctors are supposed to be educated. In other news these same doctors are reporting the benefits of leeches, divining rods and crystal pendulums.

March 4, 2015 7:32 am

… the majority of ATS members believe that climate change is real and that it is having a negative impact on the health of the patients that they care for…
Reported adverse health effects attributed to climate change included worsening of asthma due to exposure to ozone or other pollutants, longer and more severe allergy seasons, and an increased number of cases of acute and chronic lung conditions.

Could you imagine the number, complexity, and cost of studies that would be required to make the above claims (on top of proving cAGW)?
But why bother when you can quiz three guys around the water cooler?

March 4, 2015 7:32 am

“Reported adverse health effects attributed to climate change included worsening of asthma due to exposure to ozone or other pollutants, …”
So the surveyors have conflated “climate change” due to CO2 with “climate change” due to “ozone or other pollutants.”

Reply to  rogerknights
March 4, 2015 7:35 am

That’s routine now. I saw a commercial about some green product, and at the end it showed a mother and her children (from a low angle looking up at them and the sky) “breathing more easily,” as if now the air was free of respiratory pollutants.

Reply to  Max Photon
March 4, 2015 8:26 am

Don’t you just love Karma-free products?

Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 7:38 am
Bubba Cow
Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 7:48 am

read the comments at the end – couldn’t copy and paste – some of these folks were seriously distressed with the “climate change” bias and politicization of their organization

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 8:10 am

The distribution of the respondents by state explains a lot, too.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 9:01 am

Here is the conclusion at the end of the article:
“This survey does not prove that the specific health impacts reported by the survey respondents are climate related (e.g., by direct health measurements) but does demonstrate that it is the judgment of these physicians and other clinical professionals that the health of their patients has been affected by climate change and will be more affected in the future. Further research is needed to better understand and quantify climate change’s impact on respiratory disease, both in the United States and globally.”
Indeed they should be very concerned about climate change. Exposure to cold air is a common asthma trigger. Imagine shoveling snow in the cold as the climate change. However no mention of this trigger in their article.
The same issue is also concerned with marijuana (JA Kemper page 135). No mention that this is full of pollutants, including 33 carcinogens! Could this have an effect on their patients?
Here is part of the conclusions:
“Our findings regarding the respiratory symptoms of habitual marijuana smokers corroborate the existing evidence. Many studies have demonstrated that habitual marijuana smoke increases symptoms of bronchitis, and our data similarly show an increase in recent self-reported respiratory illness, with trends toward increases in self-reported respiratory infections and symptoms of wheezing”
No mention that the State of California has declared marijuana smoke to be carcinogenic under Proposition 65!
Never mind!

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 9:27 am

Just above the comments in that PDF I see madness being caused by global warming a broken air conditioner. They should now be re-named the AMERICAN MENTAL SOCIETY. No treatment available for this lot.

Mental Health
Not only physical illness but even mental stress is being added. For eg I was seeing an infant in my clinic and air conditioner was down, on a hot day. The parent of the infant was very angry and upset with the hot temperature and the entire history taking and physical examination had to be done in sort of a rush because he was hostile and did not want to talk much. Therefore it was stressful experience for all of us.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 10:14 am

Even better. Read the questionnaire!
All the questions are related to increase in temperature! Too many of them but here is one Question and 6 choices to answer.
No mention that cold air is a common asthma trigger included in any choice. The authors of this questionnaire believe that climate change is an increase in temperature.
In which of the following ways, if any, do you think your patients are currently being affected by climate change, or might
be affected in the next 10-20 years? Select: Yes/Don’t Know/No/TOTAL
Heat-related effects (e.g., heatstroke, heat
exhaustion, cardio-respiratory illness)
48% 22% 30% 749
Vectorborne infection (e.g. Lyme, West Nile,
Dengue Fever, Malaria)
40% 28% 32% 744
Diarrhea from food/waterborne illnesses ( e.g.
Salmonella, Giardia, Cryptosporidia) following
downpours or floods
26% 31% 43% 742
Injuries due to severe storms, floods, droughts, fires 57% 17% 26% 749
Air pollution related increases in severity of illness
(e.g., asthma, COPD, pneumonia, cardiovascular
77% 12% 12% 752
Increased care for allergic sensitization and
symptoms of exposure to plants or mold (visits to
office/ER for asthma/allergic symptoms)
58% 25% 17% 749

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 7:59 am

example comment:

This is an offensive politicization of the ATS. There is no evidence that climate change is causing health effects and in fact if the ATS was serious that it might be presumably it would demand that we push the one form of clean energy which can plausibly replace fossil fuels which would be nuclear power. The ATS will not do this, because the political left is opposed to nuclear power. The ATS being dominated by academics and thus political liberals will not do this.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 4, 2015 9:32 am

Here is another example comment in their survey.

Have a serious concern regarding this survey. The line of questioning after the initial questions assumes that climate change is present without evidence presented or data referenced. Quality of survey becomes a subjective, biased, and completely distorted opinion / political poll and NOT of any value scientifically. Profoundly disappointed that this was sponsored by ATS.

Like I said earlier, it is a survey about ‘belief’.
I’m off to other stuff now before I become very angry.

Walt D.
March 4, 2015 7:38 am

Living in Barbados is bad for your health? Retiring to Florida is bad for your health? Living in London as opposed to Scotland is bad for your health? Going to Spain on holiday is bad for your health? Changes in temperature of 0.02C over 10 years is bad for your health? Whether smoking pot is bad for your health may be an open question. However, it does not appear to be good for research.

Reply to  Walt D.
March 4, 2015 9:21 am

See just above. Appears that smoking pot is not so good for your health either!

March 4, 2015 7:39 am

Another rigged survey by an org that hopes to cash in on the funding being thrown around in support of CAGW.
Educated persons do not believe in the CAGW,as shown by independent surveys conducted by those who are NOT seeking a slice of the CAGW funding pie.

March 4, 2015 7:42 am

And why should we care any more about their opinions on this matter than, say, a group of dentists or auto mechanics?
I tried to have a conversation with my GP (who was head of interns at the local hospital) about a science/health matter that I thought might interest him.
He looked me straight in the eyes and said, “I’m not a scientist, you know.”
He didn’t think of himself as a scientist, why should anyone else? Why would a thoracic specialist be any different? These people, for the most part, are highly trained technicians, not scientists. There may be the odd few out of thousands with true science training but not many, I’d wager. That fact does not belittle their value to society.
Pointless opinion poll #__.
Susan Crockford

Greg Woods
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 4, 2015 9:16 am

I like the idea of doing a survey of auto mechanics.

Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 4, 2015 12:33 pm

“These people, for the most part, are highly trained technicians”

Absolutely correct Susan. Highly trained pattern-recognition body mechanics.
If doctors really want to know the science of something they are peddling they speak to the real scientists in the relevant laboratory and ask for it to be explained and sometimes in the simplest terms that can be understood!
Trust me…..

March 4, 2015 7:47 am

Confusion again between sooty pollution and benign and beneficial CO2 that promotes plant growth.

Alan the Brit
March 4, 2015 7:51 am

Yeah, yeah, whatevva!

March 4, 2015 7:51 am

Few people understand that most North American coal generators use scrubbers to remove particulates and sulphur and other pollutants. (Except co2) Just talked to a friend who thought coal electrical production was polluting.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Alf
March 4, 2015 8:09 am

To be fair coal electricty production IS polluting. Those scrubbers are not 100% effective and many older plants have systems that are minimally effective. Of course burning those fuels in domestic stoves is MUCH worse as they are less efficient and more polluting.
The current assault by regulators on coal fired plants in Europe and North America means that businesses have zero incentive to improve. If you are threatened with closure because you produce CO2 why bother spending money on SO2 or particulate scrubbers ?
Just when you think that was bad you find the law of unintended consequences going in to overdrive with the adoption of biofuels. Pollution control standards have been REDUCED for Drax and Eggborough power stations to alow them to burn wood pellets. Apparently SO2 and particulates are bad if burning coal but good if from burning wood. The result is that in europe coal fired power plants will have to upgrade their scrubbers by 2016 OR switch to burning wood which has no effective controls !

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
March 4, 2015 9:25 am

I read about this wood pellets stupidity and apparently the wood will be imported from the USA.
Is this correct?

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
March 4, 2015 11:01 am

I found the answer to wood pellets:
From this site: “Wood is a renewable fuel: Where one tree goes down, another can grow”
Just waiting now for a pipeline to transport pellets from USA to Europe to accommodate the boom.
According to EPA this is a great idea. Recoup the CO2 by burning the tree instead of waiting for the dead tree to rot. The British, after a comprehensive study as noted at the above site also think it is a great idea. It is not like burning coal. Burning wood is just part of the carbon cycle.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
March 4, 2015 11:48 am

yup, we’ll deforest the US to pelletize UK through Drax with low carbon-density wood, instead of that formerly great coal, but rd50 –

Burning wood is just part of the carbon cycle.

Coal is not? Has my non-approved by EPA woodstove made it into the annals as an officially accepted carbon capture machine? Well, I know I shoot it into the atmosphere and not the ground, which will be good plant food come Spring (if that ever comes).

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
March 4, 2015 2:27 pm

To Bubba Cow.
NO, coal is NOT part of the carbon cycle.
The rule is, according to EPA, when you burn coal, you cannot create coal again from the released CO2.
See, but when you burn wood, the CO2 released is taken up by a tree and you can burn the new tree. See? Wood is renewable fuel, not fossil fuel. The carbon cycle is …
Never mind!

March 4, 2015 8:14 am

The real headline should be: “83% of doctors laugh at survey questioning effects of climate change on their patients health, file survey in the nearest waste basket.”

March 4, 2015 8:18 am

No doubt the number of people smoking is increasing with the intense CAGW scares. That must be it.

Reply to  ThinAir
March 4, 2015 9:16 am

I wonder if the 17% response rate is similar to the subscriber rate to the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 4, 2015 9:18 am

Sorry, misplaced post.

March 4, 2015 8:27 am

Can we get a list of names on the survey please? I’d like to know who I wouldn’t trust working on my thoracic cavity. I’d trust a witchdoctor before trusting someone that claims they’ve seen effects of climate change on their patient’s health.

Ralph Kramden
March 4, 2015 8:28 am

Now we have science by survey, forget data. Why don’t we have a show of hands to solve the mystery of dark energy. Or while we’re at it lets have a survey and cure cancer.

Sturgis Hooper
March 4, 2015 8:30 am

Man-made climate change causes war, terror, torture and atrocities!

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
March 4, 2015 8:44 am

Makes me wonder what caused the previous 5000 years of recorded conflict in the Middle East, before humans took control of global climate change.

Bruce Cobb
March 4, 2015 8:32 am

They seem confused between real air pollutants, which can affect some people during temperature inversions wherein the pollutants don’t have a chance to disperse, and the fake pollutant, CO2. I’m sure that years of the MSM showing billowing, dark clouds of water vapor emissions spewing from cooling towers had nothing to do with it.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 4, 2015 8:42 am

It amazes me how many educated people have been brainwashed into regarding CO2 as a pollutant. They imagine that the EPA is protecting the environment by regulating it.

Dodgy Geezer
March 4, 2015 8:38 am

I’m going to go out and rob a bank, and when they come to arrest me I’ll claim that Climate Change made me do it….

March 4, 2015 8:42 am

The survey was extremely effective. The American Thoracic Society is struggling for relevance, and now, thanks to the survey report, we have now heard of the American Thoracic Society. Who knew they existed?
“Except an obituary notice, any publicity is good publicity.” – Brendan Behan (paraphrased)

March 4, 2015 8:51 am

“Hi, I’m from the Center for Climate Change Communication, and I’m conducting a survey on the effects of climate change. I’d like to ask you some questions about the effects of climate change on your patients.”
With that introduction, how could you say anything BUT it affects your patients. Or you hang up/throw the letter in the trash.
Then, since you are the Center for Climate Change Communication, you publish what the 17% respondents said. So who is more corrupt, ATS or CfCCC? Looks like a tie to me.

March 4, 2015 8:51 am

And a new study from Columbia University suggests that Global Warming / Climate Change was a cause of the Syrian Civil War:
However, he forgot to mention that:
a. There had been no Global Warming for 15 years prior to this conflict.
b. Most of Syria’s water shortages are due to Turkey’s new Attaturk Dam, which is stealing much of the waters of the Euphrates.
c. This conflict is not new – far from it. The modern conflict against the Alawites actually started in 1981-82 – against Hafez Assad, the father of Bashar Assad. His father did the same as Bashar in the current conflict, and killed up to 40,000 people in Hamma. Sorry, but was there any Global Warming in 1982?
And if you go back further in time you will find that the Alawites of Syria have been a grievously persecuted minority, and lived in the gutters of Syrian society, for more than 1,200 years. The Alawites only gained control of the Syrian army in the 1920s because the French wanted an ally in the region. They took control of the government in 1970, and having been persecuted for 1,200 years, they have wisely never relinquished that control. So why the persecution of the Alawites? Because the Alawites are really Nazarene Christio-Muslims, who have hidden behind a cloak of Islam and refuse to go to mosque.
This is why the Armenian and Syriac Christians in Syria have backed Assad and the Alawites all this time. Why? Because they know they are in the same boat as the Alawites. If Assad is defeated, they will be murdered and exiled too. This is why Hussain Obama’s military support for the Syrian terrorists is so pernicious, because what he is actually funding is the potential murder and exile of 4 million Christians and 4 million Christio-Alawites. So why would Hussain Obama want to fund the extermination of Christians? I’ll give you one guess.
And what does all of this have to do with Global Warming? Diddly Squat, as you all know. Dr Richard Seager of the Columbia University is merely another scientific prostitute, who has added ‘climate change’ to a report to get more funding. I wonder if he has a red light outside his office, and poses provocatively in the window?
Dr Richard Seager in his offices at Columbia University.

Tim Wohlford
Reply to  ralfellis
March 4, 2015 10:35 am

Damn, can I lift that (with an attribution of “not mine but a great post”)??? I needed that one yesterday…

Reply to  Tim Wohlford
March 4, 2015 3:07 pm

Tim Wohlford
Sure, no problem. Lots more where that came from.
Indeed, I like to credit myself with stopping the war against Assad in Syria.** After organising a long email campaign involving many complainants writing to MPs, the UK parliamentarians had a vote on whether to go to war. Many of the MPs who said ‘thanks’ to our emails failed to turn up for the vote, so the government lost the motion. And without the support of the UK, Hussain Obama also had to back down and not assist the Syrian terrorists. Probably not entirely due to our email campaign, but it was certainly a deciding factor.
Like media reporters, many MPs are empty vessels, and you have to fill them with relevant and valid data. Which is why letters to editors and MPs are never a waste of time. And since the Biased Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will not do this for us, we have to do it ourselves. The BBC, who genuflect to anything Islamic, were still calling ISIS ‘freedom fighters’ – until the heads of several media reporters started rolling around on the ground.
The result of this vote in the UK parliament was that ISIS was not able to get its hands on Assad’s 2,000 tonnes of Sarin gas (which was still up for grabs at the time). The prospect of the Syrian terrorists (who are indistinguishable from ISIS) getting 2,000 tonnes of poison gas was a real concern to us, as we said to all the MPs in our emails. The gas could have been used locally against Syrian Christians and Christio-Alawites, or exported to the London tube or the New York metro. It does not bear thinking about. But Hussain Obama and our pea-brained foreign minister, William Hague, did not even consider the possible outcome of their stupidity. (Well, stupidity by Hague but probably purposeful design by Hussain Obama.)
** As ever in eastern politics, this is not the ‘right’ option but merely the lesser of two evils. Same with Gadaffi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia and even Hussain of Iraq. Eastern lands are always better off with despotic secular leaders, than tyrannical theocracies.

Chip Javert
Reply to  ralfellis
March 4, 2015 11:58 am

Hard to find good Alawite stories these days…

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 4, 2015 3:09 pm

Yes, I too thought Richard Seager has a couple of good points…. 😉

Reply to  ralfellis
March 4, 2015 3:38 pm

Damn why are you confusing perfectly good opportunities for AGW propaganda with real history and pictures of pretty, er, women. Oh I yearn for the good old days when Armenians were the big terror threat and all you really had to worry about was the errant Turk or two

Reply to  ralfellis
March 4, 2015 8:42 pm

Caption – Climate scientist at work.

Reply to  Streetcred
March 5, 2015 12:18 am

>>Caption –- “Climate scientist at work.”
Now that would make a great Heartland billboard. Try pasting that one in downtown Washington, and see what they say….

Mumbles McGuirck
March 4, 2015 8:52 am

As a meteorologist, I wonder when the AMS is going to poll me about my thoughts on the efficacy of thoracic surgery. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

March 4, 2015 8:57 am

From here it’s only a short stretch to climate change as a race card item and gender item. Remember the children too.

Tim Wohlford
March 4, 2015 9:12 am

Question for the ATS — last I checked, around $357 billion was being spent annually on “global warming.” What would happen, globally, if that actually went for treatments?

March 4, 2015 9:26 am

As one of those odd folks who actually walks around the Doctor’s office reading posted diplomas and awards; I can just visualize a new posting announcing that the Doctor is one of the proud 17% percent respondents believing in CAGW impacts to human health.
Definitely means a decision to find a different Doctor. It does not require evidence that climatic change actually harms people’s health, only faith is necessary. Good Lord, the damage that such a surgeon could do when they never stop to actually think.

March 4, 2015 10:06 am

How timely! In today’s paper… More global warming doom and gloom.
Trevor Hancock: Climate change poses severe health risks
Dr. Trevor Hancock is a professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s school of public health and social policy.

Mr Bliss
March 4, 2015 10:41 am

I don’t understand why this is being ridiculed.
Thoracic surgeons looked at their data for the last 30 years and analysed the number of cases, assigning a level of severity to each case. Then they broke this down by year and showed a clear correlation between global warming and both the number and severity of thoracic cases across the USA.
Oh…. hang on – I think I understand. That’s what they DIDN’T do.
They decided not to look at the data and instead asked thoracic surgeons what they BELIEVED was happening. The only redeeming aspect of this story is that 83% of thoracic surgeons realised the stupidity of relying on belief to present a scientific argument.
And if you live in the USA and are scheduled for thoracic surgery, the most worrying aspect is that you may have selected a surgeon who replied to this survey.

Gary H
March 4, 2015 10:43 am

Here’s the finding that is the biggest shocker (from the abstract):
A majority of respondents indicated they were already observing health impacts of climate change among their patients, most commonly as increases in chronic disease severity from air pollution (77%)
Q’s — Do they not know the difference between climate change (ACC), and air pollution?
Do they not know that air pollution continues to decrease (somethings we do support)?
Are they nuts?

Gary H
Reply to  Gary H
March 4, 2015 4:28 pm

This just popped up. So, if studies are showing that the improving air quality is resulting in stronger healthier lungs, what in the world are these Doctors talking about?
“Cleaner air has for the first time been linked to bigger and stronger lungs among school-age children, according to findings released Wednesday from a two-decade study in Southern California..
The research by USC scientists, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found the region’s steep decline in air pollution since the mid-1990s is strongly associated with “statistically and clinically significant improvements” in children’s lung function and growth.”

Reply to  JP
March 4, 2015 11:22 am

Yes, despite the efforts of government agencies to pretend they aren’t:comment image

Chip Javert
March 4, 2015 11:18 am

Good to know that a bunch of life science guys are able to lift their heads from proctoscopes long enough to opine on global warming. Next thing you know, we’ll have particle physicists wanting to perform heart bypass operations.
This reminds me of the double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling’s theory: once you’ve taken enough vitamin C to kill you, you don’t need to worry about catching a cold. The corollary: just because you’re very good in one discipline (e.g.: most MD’s) doesn’t necessarily mean you’re any good in any unrelated discipline.

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 5, 2015 5:52 pm

It is highly unlikely that “most MD’s” are “very good” considering that the medical business is a leading cause of death and is highly corrupted read: “Death by Medicine” by Carolyn Dean, Ghislaine Lanctôt’s “The Medical Mafia,” Marcia Angell’s “The Truth about the Drug Companies” or Peter Gøtzsche’s “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime”).
Of course, living in a huge propaganda culture like the US you’re like the majority of the public who believe glorified disinformation such as that “most MD’s” are “very good.”
Peter Gøtzsche, MD, had explained the argument that people of one discipline cannot know what they’re talking about when dispensing information in a unrelated discipline has been used by stupid people forever.
The Pauling bashing has also gone on for decades. The primary “stupid people” propagandizing this notion are medical doctors and other ignoramuses or pawns of the medical business who blindly repeat their nonsense. (Bumper stickers with hype slogans on it, coincidentally, are frequently used by stupid or ignorant people.)
Here is a good example of a hack MD who has been discrediting Pauling and supplements with disinformation and lies: http://www.supplements-and-health.com/vitamin-benefits.html
If you look closely, you’ll find that politics by the allopathy is almost always behind the truly unscientific dumb attacks against Pauling. It’s indicative of how little real science is behind the various claims of traditional medicine.

michael hart
March 4, 2015 11:22 am

But can they tell their thorax from their cloaca?

March 4, 2015 11:38 am

Just to correct a few misconceptions from up above. This isn’t a Society of thoracic surgeons, it’s the largest Society in the US for all respiratory disease, which includes asthma, COPD, lung cancers, etc. (collectively, a huge segment of human disease in the US and worldwide). I was a member for 10 years and went to around 10 of their annual conferences, which are so huge that they can only be held in the largest of conference centers. In my view, the most important function of the conference is to disseminate new results on clinical trial data for important new therapeutics, diagnostics and other treatment modalities. As such, some of the science reported is absolutely first class with the highest level of data analysis and statistical treatment being on display. If climatologists exhibited such rigor, I suspect I wouldn’t be typing this. …. and then the poster sessions have a lot of Mr. Potato Head science, but who doesn’t want a boondoggle in San Francisco or San Diego ??
The number (68% of 17% = ~12%) of respondents who believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity is probably an accurate reflection of the guilt-ridden, holier and more politically correct than though brigade in the society (it’s actually lower than I would have guessed).

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 4, 2015 11:40 am

more politically than thou !! I guess spellcheckers don’t do olde English

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 4, 2015 11:41 am

more politically correct than thou …. yikes

Steve Thayer
March 4, 2015 11:50 am

Ask people in any group if their group has benefited from something, and they will tend to say no, because that implies they should be giving something back. Ask them if their group has suffered from something, and they will tend to say yes, because that implies they should be compensated. And how you ask them is also key. “With billions of dollars being spent each year to study global warming and to compensate innocent victims of this man made phenomenon, has your group’s lives been made more difficult from global warming such that you should be compensated monetarily for your extra efforts?” YES! Gimme Gimme Gimme!

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 4, 2015 11:51 am

Older peoble move to Florida where it is warm, and they eventually die, so it is clear that warm weather kills more peoble.

March 4, 2015 11:53 am

What with all these studies about global warming causing health issues, all at the same time?
Here’s another…
New Models Yield Clearer Picture of Emissions’ True Costs
When its environmental and human health toll is factored in, a gallon of gasoline costs us about $3.80 more than the pump price, a new Duke University study finds.
The social cost of a gallon of diesel is about $4.80 more than the pump price; the price of natural gas more than doubles; and coal-fired electricity more than quadruples. Solar and wind power, on the other hand, become cheaper than they initially seem.

Reply to  Cam_S
March 4, 2015 3:21 pm

You can download the pdf file for free here:
Typical modelling, full of “assume”
Funny that the press release did not include his results for nuclear generation, quite good, same as solar or wind power.

March 4, 2015 12:07 pm

If 1.4F was enough to cause a detectable increase in health problems, everyone who lives much south of Canada should be dead by now.

March 4, 2015 12:15 pm

97% of the patients of the “65% believe climate change is relevant to direct patient care (either a great deal or a moderate amount)” may believe that their doctors need psychiatric evaluation to avoid malpractice suits.

Joe Civis
March 4, 2015 12:17 pm

with “science” like this, all the people who have died in their sleep are proof that sleep should be avoided at all costs, because it kills people! Wake up people! Sleep kills! Ban sleep now for the sake of the children…. not sure if this is really needs a sarc tag or not… seems things keep getting more curious every day.

Tom J
March 4, 2015 12:19 pm

‘The survey, …was conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication … polled 5,500 US ATS members …The survey had a response rate of 17% …’
Yawn. So they’ve extrapolated this from about 935 Thoracic Surgeons. I happen to have known a Thoracic Surgeon on a professional basis, and there’s not too many of his type either. Very few, in fact. His specialty is lung transplantation. And he made no bones about the abject seriousness of such a procedure. In my first appt. with him in Jan. ’05 he said to me, “This is a last ditch operation.” And, “We don’t perform LTs till the risk of dying from the procedure is exceeded by the risk of dying from the disease.” And, finally, “You want to put this off, ’cause we get better at it.” After a series of bi-yearly appts. he said to me in 2008, “You want to stay away from me.” Finally, in my final appt. with him in early 2011 I said, “I don’t think I have the courage to undergo the procedure.” He responded thoughtfully: “You don’t have to. There’s plenty of good reasons not to undergo the operation.” And added, with great sobriety, “I could shorten your life.”
Now, I couldn’t tell you what this renowned surgeon’s viewpoint towards climate change is. What I can tell you is that he took the promise to ‘above all, do no harm’ very seriously. With each operation he performed he weighed costs and benefits very seriously. He presented no illusions to his patients nor offered them false promises. He fully understood the unknowns and the odds.
Let us have the Center for Climate Change Communication; quick to perform deceitful, simplistic questionnaires; actually have a thoughtful conversation with a true medical professional: one who deals in life in death. Let them give some, at least some, any, consideration to what the monumental costs of an economic transplantation assuredly are compared to what the benefits may be, if (and it’s a big ‘if’) they actually accrue. Nobody, but nobody can argue the “wrenching”
transformations that will be imposed on society by imposing a carbon free future. The hell with these questionnaires.

March 4, 2015 12:28 pm

So 11% of these people (all by definition qualified in science) don’t believe in CC at all, and 1/3 don’t believe in AGW.
Meanwhile some of the small majority think CC is about ozone.
But go on warmies, tell us how skeptics are ignorant and untrained in science. Seems like specialist surgeons are more skeptical than the population.

March 4, 2015 1:15 pm

This. On account of we are all poikilotherms. /sarc
Are we getting this stupid or what ?

March 4, 2015 1:34 pm

Could it be that CC worship is believed good for ones wealth?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
March 4, 2015 1:43 pm

Being an atheist, I’m not a expert in the impact of organized beliefs, faith, dharma etc on human physiology or well-being.
But after a second thought, the claim perhaps isn’t too far off. In my case AGW has frequently activated the medulla of the adrenal glands and the ends of sympathetic nerve fibers. Regrettably that’s beneficial only short-term.
More sustainable, positive health impact, notably by central nervous system and pituitary gland stimulation, can be attributed to tragicomic denial of persistent model failure and an outstanding Bart Simson parody by a certain redundant railway engineer:

March 4, 2015 1:56 pm

climate change kills!
3 March: CBC: Nova Scotia aquaculture fish killed by superchilled water
Cooke Aquaculture sites in Annapolis Basin, Shelburne Harbour, Jordan Bay reporting mortalities
Fish at three aquaculture sites in Nova Scotia have died and a so-called superchill is suspected, the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture said Tuesday…
The department said a preliminary investigation has found a superchill happened, meaning sustained cold temperatures dropped the temperature of the water to the level that fish blood freezes — around –0.7 C.
Tides in late February and early March also tend to be high, the department said, contributing to to lowering temperatures in sea cages by flooding more shallow areas than usual. Low air temperatures cool the water and receding tides flush the cages with superchilled water.
The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture said superchills happen every five to seven years and the deaths ***do not pose a risk to the environment…
***except for the fish.

Ralph Kramden
March 4, 2015 3:03 pm

I’ve been trying to understand this one and think I’ve got it figured out. Remember the movie “Revenge of the Nerds 2”? Ogre says, “what if C A T really spelled dog”. Along the same lines what if global warming is really global cooling? In that case I think it could cause health problems.

Bohdan Burban
March 4, 2015 4:02 pm

During the latter part of the 1990’s I was shuttling monthly between mineral exploration projects in the outback of Far North Queensland, Australia – summer maximum temperatures around 40degC (~105degF), and the Yukon Territory, Canada – winter minimum temperatures around minus 30degC (~minus 20F). That’s a temperature difference of 70degC (~125degF). This exposure was accommodated by wearing short in the Antipodes and really rugging up in the sub-Arctic – it’s a concept that appears to have escaped the AGW crowd entirely.

Rick Bradford
March 4, 2015 4:13 pm

You could easily play the Six Degrees of Separation game with global warming. ie How many causal links do you need to blame Bad Thing X on ‘global warming’? Usually, 2 or 3 bogus links is enough.

March 4, 2015 6:00 pm

So does this mean George Clooney can now seek answers on climate change from medical doctors as well climate scientists? After all there is a consensus opinion amongst those polled, and everybody knows that is all that really counts in science.

RobertBobbert GDQ
March 5, 2015 3:15 am

A question from this survey
What is, or if retired was, your primary work setting?
Response Options Percent Response Response Number
Outpatient (clinical) 15% 125
Hospital (clinical) 27% 219
Non-clinical Administrative 2% 15
Other non-clinical 3% 23
Other clinical 1% 7
Academic 53% 431
TOTAL 100% 820
Is anyone anywhere in the world surprised by this 53% academic response? Then add the Non Clinical Admin and non clinical whatevers and others and why not add the clerical staff, kiosk people and the local paper boy, somebody’s neighbour (for those who have not read the survey someones neighbour is actually referenced in the comments section. I am being serious.Truly Ruly. Cross my Heart and I have not got my fingers crossed behind my back.) and we have got a great survey guaranteed to provide a great big juicy long term grant from the next budget.
Is there a secret society of body snatchers infiltrating universities and institutions and kidnapping real academics and doctors and replacing them with clones with their brains removed?
This survey goes directly into The 50 Shades of Climate Change Stoopidity Hall of Fame.

March 5, 2015 4:00 am

Since the American Thoracic Society is coming up with wild speculative guesses they are calling conclusions, I’ll make my own.
Since only 17% responded, then 83% of their membership does not care about climate change or does not know or think the questions are incredibly stupid. Given that I conclude 83% of ATS members are enjoying fine health and some actually wonderful health under climate change. I additionally conclude 17% that responded have poor health and are looking for something to blame and saw an opportunity to do so with the climate change questionnaire.
Meanwhile someone should probably check if the people at ATS who came up with this ludicrous questionnaire did not falsify degrees, certificates, or past work history before getting a job at the ATS.

Vince Causey
March 5, 2015 5:33 am

Maybe Hollywood should make a movie about this. They could call it, hmm, let me see – Thoracic Park!

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Vince Causey
March 6, 2015 2:36 am

Starring Gregory Neck and Sharon Gall-Stone?
How about some Co-stars or Cameo performers ?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights