Wild Claim: 'climate change…could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years'

From UMEA UNIVERSITY

Climate change could risk progress in health — or be a global health opportunity

The threat climate change poses to human health is possibly so great that it could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years. But getting to grips with climate change could also present major opportunities for global health. Details can be found in a major international research report published in the journal The Lancet.

‘Impact of climate change on global health could be enormous, not only through the direct health effects, but also because of reduced social stability if people are forced to move or flee,’ said Peter Byass, professor of global health at Umeå University in Sweden, who has been a senior adviser to the work of the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change.

‘Meanwhile, we know that mitigation and adaptation around climate change can have positive health effects, for example both by reducing emissions and improving dietary habits. Effective climate action may actually prove to be one of the greatest opportunities to also improve global health that we have ever had,’ says Byass.

The work behind the report, published this week by the journal The Lancet, involved a number of European and Chinese climate scientists, environmental scientists, natural scientists, social scientists, medical and health scholars, engineers, energy policy experts, and others.

The report shows that the direct health effects of climate change are linked to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms. Indirect impacts come from changes in infection patterns, effects of emissions, uncertainty regarding the availability of food, and hence malnutrition. Health effects can also be linked to people involuntarily forced to leave the affected areas or movements of people planned because of impending changes in living conditions. Increased incidence of conflict is also a factor that the report highlights as a threat to global health.

But global efforts to reduce emissions can achieve positive co-benefits for health. The report highlights a number of such points. These include reduced consumption of fossil fuels leading to lower incidence of respiratory diseases, as well as people walking and cycling more, which both reduce emissions and lower the incidence of obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke. Even the consumption of red meat, the production of which is not very climate-friendly, is expected to decline and also bring health benefits as a result.

The report proposes a new independent global action plan ‘Countdown to 2030: Climate Change and Health Action,’ with the formation of an organisation to monitor and report every two years to the UN on how links between health status and climate change are affected. The organisation would also report on progress towards reduced emissions, measures to promote health and to reduce the vulnerability of populations, and to create sustainable health systems with low carbon emissions.

‘Overall, a strong international consensus is needed to create a global economy in which we minimise carbon dioxide emissions. This in turn presents an opportunity to improve human health. Measures recommended in this report are particularly important for populations in the world’s poorest and most vulnerable areas, which are also currently most affected by climate change,’ says Maria Nilsson, researcher at the Division of Epidemiology and Global Health at Umeå University, who is one of the report’s main editors.

‘The health community has responded to a wide range of serious health threats over time; examples would be efforts to reduce smoking and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Now more efforts are essential in response to another major threat to human health and the environment: climate change. Shifting to a sustainable society is economically possible and would also provide health benefits,’ says Maria Nilsson.

The Lancet Commission report will be an important resource for talks on climate change on global health during meetings connected with the UN Climate Change Conference, COP21, held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December, 2015.

###

Read the report in The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/climate-change

Additional press material from the journal: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f8sa29hs65cwdjq/AACQCq161bLaHjc4hvI_8uB-a?dl=0

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “Wild Claim: 'climate change…could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years'

  1. “Meanwhile, we know that mitigation and adaptation around climate change can have positive health effects, for example both by reducing emissions and improving dietary habits.”
    I saw what you did there.

    • Picked out the dumbest quote? I’m sure that who ever wrote the press release is actually responsible.

    • The report should have taken into account the economic effects of AGW “mitigation” and the economic effect on people and families forced into poverty etc. and incorporated that into their report.
      In my city for instance there are severe restrictions on burning wood etc. The choice is either electricity (unreliable when you need it most) and approved wood and wood products to be burnt in an approved appliance. Coal is banned outright.
      This has adversely affected a section of the population who traditionally foraged for pine cones and debris from forestry waste. These people include individuals on pensions and other fixed incomes.
      This is just a start
      I think most people would go with the climate change if the economic results of mitigation were made clear to them.
      Cheers
      Roger
      http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com.

      • “I think most people would go with the climate change if the economic results of mitigation were made clear to them.”
        Are you saying that most people accept or reject the Science based on what they perceive to be the economic impact of the solutions, rather than on the Science itself?

      • He’s saying that once you look closely at the purported benefits of reducing CO2 versus the concrete economic hardships, most people would rather stay warm this winter and figure out what to do about the increase in mosquitoes that may or may not happen in 40 years at that time.

      • @D.J.HAWKINS
        So your answer is ‘yes, they do not base their opinion about whether or not Mans activities are Warming the planet on science, but rather on their perception of economic effect of the solutions’
        Is that how you think about the question?

      • warren puond
        please try harder to present your version of the science
        your trolling is rather tedious

    • C’mon Harold –
      you know that there is a consensus among “climate scientists” that our dietary habits are causing catastrophic climate change.

    • There has yet to be ONE shred of evidence that any of the listed diseases are impacted in any meaningful way by “walking or cycling,” let alone eating less red meat. And not for lack of trying. This PC yuppie garbage, endlessly repeated, is just as big a myth as AGW. Try cutting down on the world consumption of flour and SUGAR, then you might see some results.

      • Here’s one shred, annecdotal though it is, I’m quite sure it would be echoed by older folks. For many of us growing up in the 50s, shank’s ponies were the primary way of getting around. Almost everyone walked home from school in good weather, many of us rode bikes, and there was very little public school busing because most kids lived within walking distance of school. There was no obesity. None.

      • Steve the problem with that is the recent lawsuit against the parents of the Maryland ‘Free Range Children’ who were found innocent here. I remember walking all my school years.

  2. I suppose that everyone needs to make a living even if it’s of the backs of us poor sap tax payers. I normally don’t like to be strident but these people are just leaches off the system and add nothing of value to our society. Poor asses would be on the streets if it wasn’t for the global warming mass psychosis.
    They’ve joined the ranks of lawyers as pariahs. I’ve known a lot of lawyers and like them, but they will make work, like these people, if they need to.

    • Quite so, borrowing a quote from Bleak House (apologies to Charles Dickens):
      ‘The one great principle of Climate Change™ Science is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble’.

  3. I guess they would allow this paper on facebook, since it’s obviously not “false, misleading, fraudulent or deceptive”, no siree.

  4. Ah the Lancet, as I recall they were the same guys who claimed that the Coalition bombing campaign in Iraq killed more people than the combined bomber offensive against occupied Europe in WW2. So they certainly have the runs on the board when it comes to credibility.

  5. I was just about to sign off for the night and go to bed, when this item popped up the BBC radio news. And now I am furious.
    So far the biggest impact of the global climate change and renewables swindle has been the elevation of the prices of basic foodstuffs due to competition with the needlessly promoted bio-fuels sector.
    This advancing the problems of poverty, food shortages and consequently revolution, civil strife and mass displacement.
    The second biggest impact has been the explosive rise in the quantity of bullshit piped through the BBC at every hour of the day.
    Can somebody please let me know when it will be safe for me to switch the radio on again.
    I cannot take any more of this crap.
    They keep saying “increasing extreme weather”. So, where are the bloody graphs?
    I can provide a great number of graphs that show no trend and often have.
    Why can the believers so far produce nothing whatsoever to counter these?
    (Except that moronic nonsense showing how insurance costs are rising as more people insure more stuff at prices that are inflating. Well whoop-dee-doo. What a surprise!!!)
    Is there nothing that anyone can do to stop all this.
    It’s getting extremely silly and annoying.

    • Like you, sick of the BBC (Bolshevik Brainwashing Corporation) I stopped watching and stopped paying the annual licence fee. I cut the antenna wire to my TV and sent ’em a photo of it being severed by my tinsnips. This in order to prove that I don’t watch it and avoid being charged and fined for surreptitious watching of lefty propaganda.

    • In the US, there has been no health progress in the last 50 years, advances perhaps in understanding specific diseases, but statistically, deaths due to poorer health care – e.g. mothers dying in child birth, child mortality, etc. – have been increasing, and the US rank in health has been declining to the point where we are now the ’20s, where we were once one of the top ranked nations. That trend has had nothing to do with climate and everything to do with policy shifts.

      • And I expect the trend to ramp up in the not-too-distant future. (Finally, we’ll have Cuban-style health care!)

    • yes, medicine, but first. In Britain, we have levies placed on energy production which, for a right of centre government, shows socialist leanings, in that a capitalist market should not be moderated by the state unless there is illegality. The reason why Britain has expensive energy is directly linked to the state’s view of market economics. The strictures that are all too common from central state cause enterprise to slacken and for entrepreneurs to be hamstrung by scepticism. In that the British Government places a tithe on energy production therefore fails in two ways: one that it shows state interference in private dealings and two, that further impoverishes those that are at the cusp.
      For a country that is redefining child poverty (which of course ignores an unsustainable influx of migrants) it is contradictory that the state should be mining fuel bills to satisfy some esoteric lifestyle conception. That the BBC can only sustain its argument by curtailing contrariness is a slanderous state of affairs and brings into doubt all else it may avow. If that corporation can do such a thing with climate (and quite openly) what can it attempt surreptitiously in other matters? Judging by the Conservative response to much of what the BBC portrays in ‘other matters’ one can hardly believe that the BBC has censored climate talk as a matter of complicity. It just seems as though we have a legacy policy which has ‘other’ politics written all over it.
      I digress massively, sorry. On the subject of medicine, we have recently been treated to the prepared position of health authorities, that antibiotics are quickly losing their efficacious properties through over prescription. In Britain we are well used to the state painting lurid pictures as a propagandist exercise, seemingly as a budgetary exercise. The NHS (National Health Service) is a marvellous institution as long as money is not mentioned, then it becomes dark, starts to infiltrate into every home spreading stories of guilt (about one’s lifestyle) and pointing the finger at health monsters, fat people, the old, smokers and drinkers, who, through their turgid lifestyles and selfishness take away the life chances of others.
      This is the sort of nonsense of a contrived health industry that is deeply inflicted and struggling to function in the patient’s interest rather than sustaining the bizarre compliances of an ideological conception. Reading the latest news items emitting from Glaxo alone, what is described is a pharmaceutical industry well prepared to take on the fears of the drugs failure that is principal machination of the latest state comprehension.
      So, if poor people are being reduced by the cost of essential fuel in a cold climate and child poverty is on the rise, then this equates to a major health problem that is probably just as fundamental as the sparsity of decent food or the loss of function in some antibiotics, a plague of cold. Essentially although the argument is concerned with planet warming we are seeing here the possibility of deaths from cold, fuel poverty, trumping all else. Similarly, because of the NHS, medical diagnosis is being censured by fiat with the main aim of coercing a budget that ensures the survival of staffing and buildings but only does so by scurrilous policies and innuendo regarding treatment and lifestyle; the insidious concentration on propaganda methods to continually contrive a situation which detracts from the plausibility of a health system that is free (so what do you expect) but which can interfere in your freedoms to keep it so. In all of this climate takes a back seat. It’s a storm in an autoclave.

  6. I do not believe much about the good intentions of Swedish institutions. They kept up with the Eugenics programs well into the 1970s.

    • Umeå University is very leftish and PC. Even back in the seventies when I was studying (at another university) it was well-known that “non-Marxists need not apply” in Umeå.

      • ok, so when they say ‘climate change’, they mean ‘refugees’ from middle east. True. When they come they wipe 50 years of development regarding vaccination.

  7. The progressive’s who lusted for the 20 million or more illegals from South America who were not and still most are not vaccinated against these highly communicable diseases are just putting this out for an excuse for the crime later down the tax and spend road.

    • fobdangerclose – um, are you talking about the U.S.?
      Might you be referring to Central American, not South America?
      Since the South Americans cannot quite walk here, we don’t have vast hordes of them crossing the border illegall,y with no chance to check immunization status. However, with our proximity to Central America, they walk on over all the time.

  8. “Overall, a strong international consensus is needed to create a global economy ”
    The call to world wide socialism with people like the author at the top. I knew it was in there somewhere.

  9. I’ve managed to calm myself slightly by reading what Lomborg says on this issue.
    A cooling salve, after the hot-fury induced by my encounter with this demented schlock:
    “The best way to see this is to look at the world’s deaths from natural disasters over time. In the Oxford University database for death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms, the average in the first part of last century was more than 13 dead every year per 100,000 people. Since then the death rates have dropped 97% to a new low in the 2010s of 0.38 per 100,000 people…
    In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

  10. *sigh* and another one bites the dust. Lancet was once a high quality journal.
    “Science” is becoming less reliable than religion. Dream up anything you want and because it occurred to you, with a mechanism, this is proof that you are right.
    Carbon dioxide is GOOD for the human body because it makes you breathe better.

  11. Let’s just say: “climate change legislation could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years”

  12. It’s interesting that the Lancet have taken so willingly to this swindle.
    It’s actually an extension of the longest running swindle in the history of the human race.
    First you must convince a healthy person that they have a serious disorder.
    Then you propose to them that only you can aid them in their recovery from this imaginary ailment.
    Then in the course of treating them you will be given the opportunity to create some real problematic illness.
    Now the person really is feeling quite unwell for good reason and will be likely to become even more dependent on your suggested “treatments”.
    Meanwhile, you can empty their bank account whilst making them progressively more and more ill.
    Finally, when they run out of money you can declare that their condition is sadly untreatable.
    By that point it probably will be.
    Climate alarmism is a vast version of this same scam.
    In the case of climate alarmism, the victim of the fraud is the entire population of planet earth.

  13. Ahh, the Lancet. Wasn’t that the journal that published a study in 1998 that claimed the mercury-based preservative in the MMR vaccine caused autism? I believe it was. And wasn’t this groundbreaking and scary study based on a comprehensive and representitive sample of 12 children? Why I believe it was again. And 10 of the original 13 authors retracted the paper in 2004, but not before various fringe activist groups used the study to whip up anti vaccine fever in parents, resulting in who knows how much damage. And finally the Lancet itself issued a retraction in 2010 — 12 years after the original flawed study was published and 6 years after all but three of the original authors admitted there was no evidence for the link in the first place.
    The study was worse than flawed: it contained material misrepresentations of the way the study children were screened and recruited. But it passed whatever form of peer review was in place at the time, and Lancet made no serious investigation until over a decade later, despite extensive criticism of the study by other researchers.
    You can read about the long road to retraction here.

    • Also, when the hoi polloi wake up and realize that fanatical warmists are overstating the catastrophe of climate change, they will loose even further faith in science, using this as an excuse to avoid vaccinating their children.
      So yes, climate change rhetoric will affect the health of people, but not in the way the warmists claim.

      • A considerable puzzle to me is why so many people have lost the ability to appreciate the difference between the words lose and loose. The error is now so commonplace in correspondence that it cannot be attributed to a mere typographic error. My guess is that the cause lies in the educational profession’s disdain for the teaching of spelling.

      • Much of the gains in health and longevity are from vaccinations and antibiotics. What the extreme greens want is a killer virus. They hate people, especially poor people. It’s a moral imperative that we oppose their misanthropic pseudo scientific assertions.

    • Sorry, but that comment should have been snipped. Some pretty bad ad hominem that doesn’t add to the discussion and makes WUWT look bad.

    • This is one of the worst uneducated comments I have seen on WUWT. I have up to now never recommended a ban on any one individual. I do so on this one. What an asshat.

      • I suspect it could be used as an example of what we followers at WUWT, will not tolerate & accept, but I for one was rather surprised to say the least that this was not edited, or fully snipped! Apart from that the only “uneducated” comments I have ever read here were from warmists! AtB.

      • I concur, and it has been snipped. This one was skillfully crafted, using dashes and partial spellings to get around word filters, it didn’t get flagged and was allowed by the system without it being brought to the attention of a moderator first.

    • Take your meds and write, write, write. Read Franz Kafka for insight into where your gift may lead you if you develop it.
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • What the hell are you talking about Mr. Massolint? There are some people in this world who still have a little decorum, and sanity. You are clearly not one of them.

    • My guess is you are an “investigative” journalist trying to demonstrate that the readers of this blog are bigoted idiots.
      If I am right then I hope you will publish your scoop that you were wrong.
      On the other hand, you might just be a surly teenager.
      In which case, don’t worry about it. We all did stupid things when young.

  14. I’m sort of curious. How would one pronounce Peter Byass, or more specifically, the last name? Is it pronounced; by – ass? Or is it pronounced; bias?
    Now, I know the foregoing is a silly comment on my part. But, my understanding is that life expectancy was around 45 years in 1900. What is it today? About 70-80 years? Why is that? The Industrial Revolution, maybe? So, I know, let’s get rid of the Industrial Revolution and return to a pre-Industrial Revolution era when life expectancies were shorter, and that way we’ll somehow increase … life … expec … tancies. And we’ll all be happy. And we’ll all be merry. And loving. And content. And satisfied. And secure. And neighborly. And peaceful. And, oh so healthy. And these people at the UN know just how to do that. They do. They really do. They super, really, really do.
    How do you pronounce Byass again?

  15. Remember when doctors used to think that humans should eat well and keep warm?
    Well, apparently they still do.
    Personally, I quite like being warm.
    It is currently 9 degrees C in the UK in mid June.
    Can somebody please turn up the thermostat.
    Glastonbury festival is in a week and we need some heat.
    Can’t somebody build some extra coal burning power stations or something – and fast.
    Otherwise the paramedics are going to be stretchering away the hypothermia victims – which does often happen. And nobody wants to be medicalised for the combined effects of hypothermia and psychotropic drugs. Ain’t nobody got time for that!!!
    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/winterhealth/Pages/KeepWarmKeepWell.aspx

  16. “Drivel”, “Demented schlock”, all absolutely appropriate. Here we are, reacting to what is so obviously nonsense. Lancet, shame, shame, shame! Like the American car industry, once you lose your credibility, you will never get it back. My son has a saying for it: If you put on the clown face, it’s really hard to get it off. Personally, I have had enough of the clown act.

  17. What idiotic nonsense. Everyone today lead much longer and prosperous lives than people did a century ago. Even the poorest live better lives with higher calorie intake.
    And Goklany, Lomborg and Oxford Union studies show that death rates from extreme events have fallen by 97% over the last 100 years. ALL because of the increased use of fossil fuels.

  18. The absurdity is obvious, but I wonder about the general population and how they respond to the continuing nonsense. I do know that liberal, educated, registered Democrats will believe every word, and yet know very little on the subject. So, dust them off; I think the rest of the population is getting turned off by the incessant hysterical negative exclamations by the doomsday cult..

  19. So when do we see the life expectancy age come down? That would make the Greens and all the other “overpopulation” alarmists very happy I’m sure!!!

  20. These nutters are on the wrong side of the bell curve. I’ve been living in Hong Kong these past 4 and a half years and seasonal temperatures have ranged from about 8C to 34/35C. In the heat of the day I regularly wander around the hills of Hong Kong. The vegetation is in great shape, there are more than 450 bird species and staggeringly beautiful butterflies and reptiles. I have never been healthier and I’m in no hurry to return to a temperate climate.

  21. Has any researcher ever investigated some potential issue with “Climate Change”™ and found there was no problem?

    • /sarc
      But on a note of reality, yes we all must die… someday. Even delta smelt and lesser prairie chickens.

  22. As we have learned over the last 6 months or so, fat, that is lots of fat in our diets is good. Carbohydrates, particularly those in our crunchy granola diets, are bad. What a reversal in science. For four decades we and our food industry, our Michele Obama supported school lunch programs, have been wrong.
    We also are now confronted by the specter of Plague, Small Pox, Measles, Diphtheria, Whooping Cough, Polio and other early immunization preventable illnesses as a rising tide, ascribed by our no-nothing sources, from our frivolous use of fossil fuels. How can this be? Primary, many people are listening to Hollywood personalities about the dangers of vaccinations. Loss of herd immunity, and yes, there will be future epidemics of preventable disease. One of the outcomes of a child dying of a preventable illness, the dizzy-headedness seems to dissipate, and mothers get their children vaccinated no matter what they have heard on Oprah or the local tribal/shaman/religious leader.
    As for foreign countries? the impact of vaccination programs will exert an influence that trumps, at least for mothers, any ideological battle within their community. A dead child leaves a scar that will never be erased. Climate warmers would do well to advocate children’s vaccination, abundant and cheap energy, birth control as these are the women’s issues for the 21st Century. Ignore them at one’s political peril.

  23. This article infuriates me. Lack of nutrition, contaminated drinking water and poor sanitation remain the biggest health threats to global populations outside the top richest few percent of lucky people. Hard to see how any plausible warming can make them worse, they are already terrible. At least cheap energy could bring to them what advanced economies have enjoyed for the past 75 years or so. And *if* the price we in advanced economies pay is a few extra deaths from heatwaves, it will be nothing to the alleviated suffering. Have any of these quacks been to a third world slum? Even if they haven’t, surely they can envisage the problems based on common sense?

  24. Climate change will lead to more numerous and bigger, scary spiders. Another theory leads to instances of camouflage mice and cockroaches moving in phalanx formation. So far, there is mixed evidence supporting these assertions, but why take a chance with such dangers, when modeled studies prepared for peer review can prove their merit. Proper levels of grant financing is needed, of course. These studies will undoubtedly lead to even more scary stories.

  25. A completely steaming pile of…. rubbish…
    The increase in CO2 levels from 280 ppm in the 1900’s to the current 400 ppm has already increased crop yields and forest growth by 25% and will increase them by 50% when CO2 levels reach 560 ppm.
    Their claims that crop yields will fall at higher CO2 concentrations is not supported by the empirical evidence. They’re also wrong in assuming higher CO2 levels will increase severe weather frequency and intensity, as all empirical evidence show no increasing trends in severe weather over the past 50~100 years. If anything, warmer global temps will DECREASE severe weather incidence because of a decrease in latitudinal temperature variance.
    This is just more scare mongering by CAGW zealots that realize their hypothesis is on the cusp of disconfirmation given 19 years of no global warming trends, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over the last 19 years.

  26. Health progress is mainly due to two things: Antibiotics and sanitary sewers. Human life expectancy didn’t change much throughout history until the invention of the sanitary sewer, then it began to take off. Add water treatment, refrigeration, antiseptics (Listerine was developed to kill listeria) and finally antibiotics and that accounts for the vast majority of our health progress over the past 200 years or so. Calvin Coolidge’s son died from an infected blister on his heel from playing tennis at the white house. Climate change isn’t going to reverse any of that unless the idiots pushing that agenda make energy so expensive we can no longer run sanitary sewers, clean water supplies, and refrigerators.

  27. It’s worse than that according to
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/bye-bye-birdie-civilisation-will-collapse-in-2040-apparently/story-e6frflp0-1227410724306
    We only have until 2040 before all around us collapses in a heap. The first two pars are:
    “FLOODS, fire, famine. The collapse of industrial civilisation. The end of the world as we know it.
    Scientists predict a global catastrophe in the next 30 years if we don’t change our ways now — and Australia won’t be spared.”

  28. Clicked through the authors affiliations and it seems like about 1/3 of them are affiliated with Centre for Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Haidian, Beijing, China. The paper has like 40 authors, only a few of which are actually researchers in areas of health:
    http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60854-6.pdf
    So we’re being informed of heath risks by researchers who are mostly climate scientists or energy policy advocates. Small wonder the paper totally missed the catastrophe of bread not rising properly.

    • The higher number of authors the deeper the level of BS , is an old and often accurate saying.

  29. While there is little doubt that the warming of the last 150 years brings disease-carrying types of mosquitos into further high latitudes (like Aedes aegypti), there is certainly no reason to expect that health systems and pest control systems we cannot adapt to warmer temps and wetter climate… no matter the cause. I’m a believer in adaptation to CC. CC is most likely natural variation, with maybe a small part anthropogenic. But regardless of the underlying cause of global warming since 1850, I am not in the camp that advocates that we should run in terror and fear while we hand-over our cash to redistribution schemes for Progressives who seek more power. There is already lots of money going to poor countries via the Gates Foundation, the PEPFAR, and other malaria and parasite control NGO’s, very worthy causes, that do not need the burden of CC theatrics and the UN WMO’s pontifications. Indeed, it is wetter weather, more so than temperature that brings mosquitos, since it is always warm enough in the summer months for mosquitos to breed and spread disease. the controlling factor is rain and available stagnant water sources for breeding.
    Cases in point: Yellow fever was a persistent and widespread viral disease in the US in the late 19th Century. Until the Yellow Fever vaccine was widespread adopted after WWII, it was a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the US in the 18th and 19th century in urban outbreaks. 1793, Philadelphia had an outbreak where 5000 people died. In New Orleans, YF epidemics in 1833, 1853, and 1905 (the last in the US) killed many 10’s of thousands. The 1905 YF outbreak was controlled when a strong anti-mosquito control program was instituted, which brought the outbreak to an end. Today we see Ebola in West Africa becoming near endemic, but with a likely successful vaccine it too will be controlled. Dengue Fever too is close to a good vaccine for all 4 serotypes, not perfect but likely good enough.
    As for bacterial infections, all the nightmare scenarios surround antibiotic resistance evolution. It is on-going and happening now. Not some futuristic novel nightmare. Go to most hospitals today for inpatient surgery and you risk a life-threatening MRSA or enterobacter ab resistant infection. The dirty secret of today’s hospitals is you may get a bacteria infection that they have few weapons against. While we battle mythical climate change, ab-resistant bacteria are ripping our hospitals apart.
    That has zero to do with CC. It has everything to do with antibiotic overuse, over-prescription, limited diagnostics for resistance (and thus proper ab selection), and poor patient dose monitoring during infection-treatment. Newer antibiotics are too slow in coming. Currently there are still poor market incentives for pharmaceutical companies and high liability barriers (lawsuits). But this is race we will need to spend lots and lots more more money on, than the $40-$50billion we spend on CC based on probable-fraudulent AGW claims from NOAA and NASA para/pseudo-scientists.

    • Greenhouse gas warming is a huge, wasteful and dangerous distraction from climate change. It’s absurd that we fret about the subtle influence of a minor change in IR while much more important changes are happening. We’ve been lucky on disease, it will adapt regardless of warming. Resourses will become more difficult to find, particularly water, for which ghg warming is likely to benefit us.
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/worlds-fresh-water-supply-running/

      • The only people who talk about the world running out of fresh water are Californians. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world it is pouring with rain (on and off throughout the year and sometimes it comes down frozen).

  30. Although the chances of correctly predicting the climate in 50 years time are low there is a balancing factor.
    All the health advice will have changed by then too.
    So, while the effects may be predicted to be bad today, by the time we get there they may be fine.

  31. Umeå? Nobody listen to them in Sweden anyway. Why should the rest of the world? And, they are wrong: according to the latest IPCC report; no global trends in flooding, draughts, hurricanes, preciptation. etc Heatwaves? Well, there is a 20:1 ratio of excessive deaths due to cold compared to heat. Less cold and more heat should save lifes! Particularly in Umeå with the long dark winters (no sun). Anyone who can, leaves, i.e. climate refugees.

  32. Heard this on BBC Radio 4 this morning – quite dreadful. The interviewer did not challenge any of the ludicrous claims made. Was this through stupidity, lack of knowledge or, more probably, toeing the BBC line. Sooner they get rid of the BBC the better.

  33. Both Grimwig and Indefatigablefrog will have noticed that the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 creates “great radio” by always putting up two opposing forces against one another. On every single issue of the day they will interview someone with one view of it and then interview someone else who has an opposing view. Often, they have them on together and there is a lively discussion and occasionally heated words are exchanged. On every issue. Oh. Except one. Whenever the discussion is about global warming – please stop using the term “climate change” as the warmists are desperate for us to forget the phrase “global warming” (because…er…it isn’t) – they mysteriously fail to put up a respected sceptic to argue for the other side. So whatever happened to “great radio”? Listening to the unchallenged, breathtakingly arrogant and ignorant interview this morning about the need to reduce CO2 emissions to enable people to live healthier lives it was more “grate radio” than anything else.

    • Didn’t you get the memo? After the 28gate climate meeting the decision was made and science was settled. No more unbelievers to appear on the BBC and only lollipops to be bowled at the warmists when interviewed (h/t Geoffrey Boycott). Recall the astonishment of a greenie when Humphries was it (?) bowled a couple of bouncers and an inswinging Yorker. Does the attendance of the Head of Comedy at 28gate sum it up?

  34. “Peter Byass”
    Or to give it the English spelling.. Bias
    Climate change will cause doctors, nurses, surgeons etc to forget all they know….

  35. Climate change does indeed represent a serious and present threat to world health: The drive towards ‘renewable’ energy will leave nations bankrupt and bereft of the energy they need to support the technological lifestyle on which their populations and their healthcare depend…
    Greens are bad for our health…

  36. Gee this doom and gloom schtuff is coming thick and fast. Can you imagine what it will be like in the month before Apris??
    This latest tosh from the Lancet takes me back to their effort on the casualties in the Iraq when they published a piece of blatently partisan drivel. Put simply the raw data would have had some completely ridiculous number of civilian casualties as its result. It turns out that the Falluja data were about 5/7 of the total so obviously a complete outlier. They authors then presented the remaining data as robust and the Lancet published the paper. The real problem of course was it was a piss poorly designed method with a coarse sampling model completely unsuited to the similarly coarse incidence of such casualtyies. It was prone to massive errors of the sort encountered and of course wide open to manipualtion for the same reasons. he authors hired people on the ground to gather rthe data where there was legligible chance of quality oversight and ample scope and chance of extreme bias in the data collection.
    It was utter junk and obviously so. The authors admitted they were ‘after’ George W in the lead up to the US presidential election which confirmed their motivation for bias. The Lancet was just plain AWOL in predential oversight.
    The Lancet are just a joke IMO. About at the level of Skeptical Science and the like.

    • The month before Paris… that should be. Also … Iraq War, .. Fallujah, … casualties…, … manipulation…, The…, …the.. , …negligible…..prudential.
      “Schtuff” and “tosh” are technical terms meaning ‘drivel like’ or ‘pertaining to drivel’.
      Gee, reading about the sort of drivel such as in the Lancet is having health effects right now! Doc, Doc! I can’t spell!

  37. It’s just another extrapolation without any scientific basis. I must agree that the atmosphere of the many eastern cities is bad for pulmonary health due to particulate emissions from coal stations and also factories and households that use coal and wood. But with scrubbers and precipitators these emissions can be reduced significantly. But as to warming per se I have yet to be convinced living in a tropical climate where it doesn’t get beyond 34 degrees C and below 18.

  38. Like Grimwig, I heard this on the Today programme, and was appalled at the ignorance or laziness of the interviewer in not challenging (or even gently questioning) at least some of the unjustifiable claims being made. Is there any way to get a transcript of this exchange?
    Perhaps the BBC was trying to atone for allowing airtime for a contrary viewpoint in their recent interview with Bob Carter, which led to an entertainingly indignant uproar from the general direction of The Guardian and their impartial friends at the Grantham Institute.

  39. I wonder why we cannot just™ eat dirt ?
    why should we have to wait for a plant to do its thing ?

  40. Peter Byass and his cousin Jack Myass would be in a lot of trouble in Sweden if the weather got a bit warmer. They would be run out of town for trying to stop it warming.

  41. “climate change…could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years”
    And an alien invasion could wipe out all life on Earth. I guess the key word here is “could”.

  42. WHAT FANTASTIC COMMENTS!!!
    I work up to this tripe on the BBC and felt so incensed that I wrote my own article.
    But now I realise that more or less everyone feels the same way about these jerks.
    it is incredible that in a subject like medicine which is supposed to be sceptical and evidence based, that such utter evidence free drivel can get onto the public airwaves as if it is the view of all doctors.

  43. I read a few years ago that by now Southern Europe would be inundated with refugees trying to escape from the tropics because of drought, famine, disease and pestilence, The West needed to take action to prevent this happening by reducing “emissions” of CO2 into the atmosphere, which continues to this day. Meanwhile refugees flood Southern Europe to escape certain death, but it has nothing to do with climate, the cause is ISIL,Taliban, Al Quiade, Oko Bakama (the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse does spring to mind) and all the other abhorrent murderous thugs operating in the Middle East and North Africa.
    What are the governments doing about this in real terms? Sod all! We cannot even deport these bastards from UK because of the EU’s Human Rights Act. UK, USA, EU wake up, this is a real threat, climate change is not!

  44. This drivel is as far from science as you can get; it is in fact anti-science. It brings science into the realm of superstition, and attributing things to the work of either gods or witches. And yet it will be an “important resource” for the upcoming COP21 Chicken-Little Holy-Roller Hair-Pulling Clown-Fest in Paris. Of course. Why not. The level of stupid, upon which worldwide energy policy will be based appears to be reaching its zenith. We are succumbing to a new Dark Age; one based on anti-human myths and fantasies.

  45. You know, not screening “immigrants” for diseases which are being introduced into a non-immune population might be a larger issue. Go ask the Island Caribs, if you can find any today.

    • or parents skipping immunization for their children due to beliefs it causes autism.

  46. The doomsayers are coming out of the woodwork in order to try to save the failing climate change meme.

    • There’ll be more of this sort of guff right up to the Paris Christmas Shopping Trip.
      Still, only another 6 months to Peak Alarmism. 🙂

  47. ‘direct health effects of climate change are linked to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms.’
    Oddly CAGW which is what they really mean has not been linked , in a scientifically meaningful sense to an increase in anything and its far clear of of these things are increasing , while reporting of them has increased and the cost and the number of people involved, becasue their more people and stuff , this also has no link to CAGW.
    But the whole things seems to be full of such basic fails , but to be fair it is classic climate ‘science’: scary sounding speculations backed up with BS numbers and a ton of model based guess work. And I am sure the authors , having show their commitment to ‘the cause ‘ can look forward to many more grants funds heading their way , which when you consider how PP the work is, means a easy life for them.

  48. Climate Change hysteria appears to have wiped out 500 years of intellectual progress.

    • 500 years of intellectual progress has given us deceptive PR firms, FUD marketing and social engineering in the form of attempted group manipulation via mass media.

  49. So climate is bad for health, I presume the temperature data will be changed to prove ” warming ” was the cause of the black death.

  50. So climate is bad for health, I presume the temperature data will be changed to prove ” warming ” was the cause of the black death.
    I do hope that climate is part of the referendum on Europe, ir is this off the list.

    • I wrote a pseudo peer reviewed paper, “Global Warming will increase children’s death from hypothermia”, which shows climate change can lead to a huge number of deaths from here to the year 2300, when co2 atmospheric concentration hits 860 ppm.
      My next paper wifi discuss the changes in Inuit body shape induced by global warming.

  51. “The threat climate change poses to human health is possibly so great that it could wipe out health progress over the past 50 years. ”
    Hmm, like if we did nothing? Doing nothing would be an extraordinary change from what we’ve been doing since the end of the last ice age and out of character.

  52. I presume the next step from the ipcc is to re-calibrate the temperature data and confirm the black death took place in a warm period in time.
    I think its time I too turned up in Paris and let these idiots know that winter kills, not carbon.

  53. Right outcome, wrong cause. Yes we could undo all the improvements in health adn wellbeing – if we only listen to the fools and destroy moderin industrial society.

  54. I studied a half year at Umea University. I have never met such biased people when it comes to global warming(thats what they called it then) and are extremely leftist. Even in classes, which have nothing to do with climate or politics, like Finance they would somehow talk about their leftist utopia.
    Not the mention that the teachers are complete dumbwits.

  55. With the UK government constantly producing negative health reports you have to wonder what is most at risk the budget or the people. The NHS (National Health Service) are constantly producing reports proscribing most elements of human behaviour in a vein attempt to stretch financial resource and the state, compromised by the health unions, cannot innovate to ameliorate the situation. The only answer they have is intrusion into lifestyle issues. In a private scheme you may be advised to stop smoking or drinking but you will not be castigated or have the possibility or threat of having your treatment withdrawn as with the NHS.
    We may endow such journals as the Lancet with probity but is any publication beyond the reach of the state? Is there one that cannot be coerced? Recent major world catastrophes have been around not extreme weather but rather extreme earth movements.
    Someone remarked that the countryside in Britain seemed to be back on the clock after a couple of years of season drift. This year it was noted that the hedgerows had abundant spring flowers and the cold weather increased the flower’s longevity. We are no closer to planting more trees to use the carbon which the plants seem to be enjoying. It may be that the world’s forests and fallow land are actually the critical factor and the growth of man and his occupation of all lands the tipping point of natural gasses’ distribution.
    When things only lived in the sea man could not have survived on land as the air was toxic. Man came about through the balancing of the atmosphere in our favour when the plants interceded. I would love for more forests to be planted coupled with a concerted effort at world population control but, last thing I heard, Germany is actively seeking a larger population lest its commercial prospects be threatened.

  56. In fairness, the Lancet recently published a credible study on Excess Winter Mortality, WHICH IS A REAL AND SERIOUS ISSUE FOR SOCIETY unlike the false global warming scam)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/18/is-the-catholic-church-burned-by-the-sun-again/#comment-1967225
    Excess Winter Deaths are approximately 10,000 per year in Canada, up to 50,000 per year in the UK and about 100,000 per year in the USA. I have been writing about Excess Winter Mortality since at least 2009.
    On May 24, 2015 veteran meteorologist Joe d’Aleo and I published an article entitled “Winters not Summers Increase Mortality and Stress the Economy” at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
    [excerpts]
    Global warming alarmists continue to over-emphasize the danger of heat and ignore cold in their papers and in stories for the media. The danger associated with this misdirection is that cold weather kills many more people that hot weather.
    This conclusion is clearly supported by many studies of populations in a wide range of climates. Examples are provided below from a study of thirteen countries, as well as national studies from the United Kingdom, the USA, Canada and Australia.
    Furthermore, this conclusion is not new, but has been known for many decades.
    WORLD
    Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings were published in The Lancet.
    http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTextImages?pii=S0140-6736%2814%2962114-0
    UNITED KINGDOM
    A total of about 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred that winter [2012/13] in the UK.
    UNITED STATES
    Similarly, the USA death rate in January and February is more than 1000 deaths per day greater than in July and August.
    In 2008, there were 108,500 ‘excess’ deaths during the 122 days in the cold months (December to March).
    CANADA
    The Canadian death rate in January is more than 100 deaths/day greater than in August, for the years 2007 to 2011.
    AUSTRALIA
    … death rates in Australian cities were up to 30 per cent higher in winter than summer.
    [end of excerpts]
    ***************************************************************************
    Data from The Lancet study supports the hypo that adaptation is the key to survival in winter – and perhaps flu shots when they work. Adaptation includes better home insulation and heating systems, and cheap reliable energy,
    The highest death rates attributed to cold weather occur in China, Italy, Japan and the UK.
    The next highest group includes Australia, South Korea, Spain, and the USA.
    Next come Canada, Sweden and Taiwan.
    Brazil and Thailand have the lowest winter death rates.
    These death figures are HUGE and daunting – AND THEY HAPPEN EVERY YEAR…
    This bleak reality reflects, in my opinion, an egregious error in government climate and energy policy that is costing many lives.
    It is hard to believe that anyone could be so foolish as to drive up the cost of energy AND also reduce the reliability of the electrical grid, which is what politicians have done by subsidizing grid-connected wind and solar power.
    When uninformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.
    Could someone from the warmist camp please explain to me again why warm is bad and cold is good? This only seems true if you are trying to kill people.
    The environmental movement, which has promoted this global warming scam and the “green energy” debacle, should be held primarily responsible for this unfolding tragedy.
    Cheap. reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It IS that simple.
    Best wishes to all, Allan
    *******************
    Here is a credible paper from 2002-03
    Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors
    J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:784-789 doi:10.1136/jech.57.10.784
    http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/10/784.full
    Table 1 – Coefficient of seasonal variation in mortality (CSVM) in EU-14 (mean, 1988–97)
    CSVM 95% CI
    Austria 0.14 (0.12 to 0.16)
    Belgium 0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
    Denmark 0.12 (0.10 to 0.14)
    Finland 0.10 (0.07 to 0.13)
    France 0.13 (0.11 to 0.15)
    Germany 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
    Greece 0.18 (0.15 to 0.21)
    Ireland 0.21 (0.18 to 0.24)
    Italy 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)
    Luxembourg 0.12 (0.08 to 0.16)
    Netherlands 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
    Portugal 0.28 (0.25 to 0.31)
    Spain 0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)
    UK 0.18 (0.16 to 0.20)
    Mean 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)

  57. The unification of the ACA sect with the climate scare tribe is too irresistible to ignore.

  58. Noted in passing, there has been a large death count in Pakistan due to the heat today. These people died because the grid crashed due to insufficient availability of (coal fired) power plants. I guess the Pope and the Sierra Club will ignore these poor folks. They are only Muslims anyway.
    A reasonable grid powering a dorm size fridge and microwave oven would make an amazing difference in the quality of life for many people in the world. Sadly, when we misallocate resources there is not enough left over to give them these crumbs.

    • The death count in Pakistan was reportedly about 700. I believe these deaths occurred during the festival of Ramadan, which started on June 18..
      During Ramadan, Muslims are not to eat any food NOR DRINK ANYTHING AT ALL INCLUDING WATER FROM SUN-UP TO SUN-DOWN – THAT IS THE RULE!
      Is it any wonder that people died from heat, combined with extreme dehydration? No surprise there.
      Temperatures in Pakistan reportedly reached 45C, but I have experienced over 50C in Luxor Egypt and we were fine. We did drink a lot of fluids though – mostly a skunky Egyptian beer misnamed Stella.

      • According to the recent Lancet study, many more people die from cold weather than warm weather, even in hot climates like Brazil and Thailand (and by inference India and Pakistan).

  59. It made prime time news on the ABC (Australia)!! Must be a nonsense!! They even managed to interview some upcoming Doctor, with a silly accent and a silly voice (Must be the skinny soy), that was absolutely convinced that we must fight CCCP (Catastrophic Climate Change Poposition) to stop Viruses like Ebola from spreading. The Voice in the background was very good, in those few precious second he managed to put in the main news, increases in Temperatures, flood, cyclones and drought without even drawing a breath!!

  60. The report shows that the direct health effects of climate change are linked to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms. Indirect impacts come from changes in infection patterns, effects of emissions, uncertainty regarding the availability of food, and hence malnutrition.
    Droughts are not up. Cyclone energy is down sharply(hurricanes/typhoons). Strong/violent tornadoes down sharply.
    The vegetative health of the planet is obliterating positive records as the biosphere booms along with record crop yields/world food production.
    One of the biggest problems is for producers to have enough storage space for the massive crops they are harvesting, thanks in part to CO2 fertilization boosting all plant growth significantly.
    Why isn’t this mentioned?
    The Social Benefit of Carbon: $3.5 Trillion in Agricultural Productivity:
    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
    Maybe that will be the next study. “Increasing CO2 causing an oversupply of food which is leading to dangerous obesity”
    Sunshine +H2O +CO2 + Minerals = O2 +Sugars(food)

  61. Mmmm…The Lancet, wasn’t that the journal that published the triple antigen – autism research? Just thought I’d ask.

Comments are closed.