Claim: some coastal dwellers of US at high health risk from climate change

From the THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and the “we need a task force and more money” department comes this ridiculous pandering claim. Gotta love the caveat “Although future trends are difficult to project, climate change may also…“. Yep all this from a small change in temperature less than what one would experience by the annual snowbirds migration.

Study shows how climate change threatens health – Gulf Coast, Northeast and West Coast of US at high risk

Researchers at Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) and the University of Washington have published a new study focused on the public health implications of climate change. The article explores climate change impacts on human health in the U.S. Gulf Coast and has implications for this and other coastal regions that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. The study appears in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (August 11, 2015). The Open Access article is available here: http://bit.ly/1gAVqVe

This new review of available data comes on the heels of President Obama’s announcement of the requirement for reduced carbon emissions by the power industry as part of the Clean Power Plan. The Obama administration has fully acknowledged the human health impacts of the country’s fossil fuel energy production and the immediate need to mitigate and adapt the nation’s energy policies.

Climate variability and change present substantial threats to physical and mental health, and may also create social instability, potentially leading to increased conflict, violence, and widespread migration away from areas that can no longer provide sufficient food, water, and shelter for the current populations. Coastal areas, where a large proportion of U.S. residents live, are particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate change due to hazards such as changing water use patterns, shoreline erosion, sea level rise and storm surge.

According to Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, “The science of climate change and the threat to human and population health is irrefutable – and the threat is evolving quickly.” Dr. Redlener, also a professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, added, “Unfortunately, we are now at a point where simply slowing climate change, while critical, is not enough. We need to simultaneously develop and deploy ways of mitigating the impact and adapting to the consequences of this environmental disaster.”

Public health impacts in the U.S. Gulf Coast may be severe as the region is expected to experience increases in extreme temperatures, sea level rise, and possibly fewer but more intense hurricanes. Through myriad pathways, climate change is likely to make the Gulf Coast less hospitable and more dangerous for its residents, and may prompt substantial migration from and into the region. Public health impacts may be further exacerbated by the concentration of vulnerable people and infrastructure, as well as the region’s coastal geography.

The new paper provides an overview of potential public health impacts of climate variability and change on the Gulf Coast, with a focus on the region’s unique vulnerabilities, and outlines recommendations for improving the region’s ability to minimize the impacts of climate-sensitive hazards.

“Climate change may amplify existing public health impacts, such as heat-related morbidity and mortality, malnutrition resulting from droughts, and injury and deaths following exposure to floods,” said Dr. Elisa Petkova of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness. “Although future trends are difficult to project, climate change may also facilitate the re-introduction of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever to the Gulf Coast and other vulnerable coastal regions.”

Based on this research NCDP’s key recommendations include:

  • The Federal government should establish a multi-agency permanent task force on the human and population impacts of climate change, charged with identifying innovative adaptation strategies. This task force should include relevant government agencies, as well as relevant private sector stakeholders.
  • Funds should be made available for the simultaneous implementation of adaptation strategies to improve individual, public health system, and infrastructure resilience.
  • Adaptation efforts should follow a course set by the Federal taskforce and should attempt to integrate hazard-specific adaptation measures into city, state and regional level emergency management plans, particularly in high-risk regions.
  • Further explore the linkage between weather events and infectious disease with an aim to enhance surveillance and intervention efforts.

###

About NCDP The National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) at the Earth Institute works to understand and improve the nation’s capacity to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. NCDP focuses on the readiness of governmental and non-governmental systems; the complexities of population recovery; the power of community engagement; and the risks of human vulnerability, with a particular focus on children.

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “Claim: some coastal dwellers of US at high health risk from climate change

  1. “nnovative adaptation strategies”….innovative fluffball scare stories is more like it.

    • Translation of ‘innovative adaption strategies’
      “we need a winter home in Florida to avoid New York winters”

      • Basically the sharks are getting hungry because of fish’s distaste for hot water so they are taking to eating people which is bad for coastal dwellers, which is where the sharks are.
        g

      • Yes george, and don’t forget the sharks are now tripping on the acid that CO2 makes in the oceans.

  2. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where simply slowing climate change, while critical, is not enough

    This is what really, really ticks me off! There is never – NEVER – anything said in any of these fatuous, bird-brained, imbecilic, lame-brained studies that covers ‘critical success factors’, ie: WTF would be the climate that would satisfy these people? What level of ‘climate change’ do they believe is the prescription for the world? Who the freakin’ hell made them G*d (whoever he/she may be)?
    Willis has a phrase for this: and my blood is most angrified when I read crop like this!!

      • so even though there’s been no change in temperature for the past ~20 years…you say it’s going to jump up 2 degrees in the next 30 – 50 years
        …the odds are against you

      • So let your blood boil or start reading something other than the comic strips.
        What is this supposed to mean? It doesn’t make any sense.

      • You say I’m ignorant, Bob…Do tell me, where did this “rise of no more than 2 degrees centigrade” come from? was it from a scientist? Based on a peer-reviewed paper? Pure BS…..but do continue to amuse…

      • OK Bob….I’ve already replied to you, but, sheesh, I need to know, can you respond to my comment rationally? Inasmuch that you can answer the point: What are the CSFs for people like you? How will you know when you have been successful in getting the climate back to what you think is a correct level of change? You answer that question and a Nobel awaits – and not one shared with thousands of other nonentities.

      • There is a reasonable consensus that the Earth has warmed by about 0.8 deg C since 1880-ish. This is 40% of the towards the notional 2 deg C limit.
        If this Armageddon scenario was really going to happen, don’t you think we’d be seeing some evidence of it now.
        But coastal populations have soared over the past 100 years and property prices are very high.
        It doesn’t seem link the general populace believes these fantasy scare stories.

      • Speaking of ignorant and unread, NOBODY is predicting 2 degrees in that short period of time, or even three times that period of time. You can stomp your feet all you want, but the past 20 years of zero increase makes your prediction totally impossible.I’m sorry if you don’t realize that.

      • bobthebear
        August 17, 2015 at 11:22 am
        ‘You show how ignorant and unread you are.’
        Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! May I suggest you read up on how exactly they came up with that 2 degree catastrophe threshold.
        Hint: They pulled it out of thin air.

      • I seem to remember the IPPC saying that due to the amount of CO2 already in the system and which can’t be stopped, 2C temp. rise was unavoidable. So the fight was to prevent more of a rise than that.
        But yes, of course it’s arbitrary.

      • Even the so called scientists admit that the 2C number was entirely made up.
        As to warming up to that level in the next 30 to 50 years, it had better hurry up, considering there has been no warming for almost 20 years.

      • >At present rates that temp will be reached in the next 30 to 50 years
        I am willing to bet you cash money that we will not reach 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures in the next 30 years. Seriously, real, actual money.
        Now, I’m not willing to do this based on altered temps from GISS, where we know that the amount of adjustments just about equals the supposed rise in temperature they are saying we’ve achieved over the last 35 years. We are at 0.8º over pre-industrial temperatures, according to the common understanding, at least as of a couple of months ago. That leaves 1.2º C worth of warming to go before we hit 2ºC over. If we accept the alterations now present, and don’t accept any further “adjustments” that cool the past or raise the present any further, there’s no damn way we’ll be experiencing 0.4ºC per decade over the next 3 decades. It’s just not going to happen. Hell, we’re not going to see 2ºC by 2065, either (50 years from now), but I won’t be alive then.
        To make this less crazy, are you claiming that we’re going to see 0.6ºC of warming between now and 2030? that’s 15 years from now. Remember that the average that we’ve seen temperatures rise about 0.6ºC between 1975 and 2005 (30 years), so a rise of the same amount between now and 2030 would be twice the rate we’ve ever seen, beginning right now. Want to bet?

      • blqysmsg,
        I was discussing the 2º prediction on Bart Verheggen’s blog a week or so ago. I offered to wager him ten thousand dollars (via http://longbets.org) that global temperatures will not rise more than 2ºC from this point over the next 25 years. I asked if he was willing to bet.
        Answer: *crickets*
        The discussion still continues. But neither Verheggen nor any of his alarmist pals has even mentioned my offer. If they believed their own hype, you would think they would be willing to put their money where their mouths are, no?

  3. “….and the threat is evolving quickly.” It is! Almost 20 years of no discernible temperature change, 3 mm/yr of sea level increase, the longest period in recorded history of no landfalling high intensity hurricanes, etc. OMG! What a threat! The real threat is empty pockets at the NCDP.

    • The “threat” isn’t of CAGW but rather to CAGW and those that feed off of it.
      Nature just hasn’t cooperated despite what Man “has done to it”.

      • Gunga Din good soul – a better man than I: –
        The “threat” isn’t of CAGW but rather to CAGW and those that feed off of it.
        Nature just hasn’t cooperated despite what Man “has done to it”.
        Or
        The “threat” isn’t of CAGW but rather to CAGW and those that feed off of it.
        Nature just hasn’t cooperated despite what Mann “has done to it”.
        One letter fixes it!
        Or even
        The “threat” isn’t of CAGW but rather to CAGW and those that feed off of it.
        Nature just hasn’t cooperated because of what Mann “has claimed to have done to it”.
        Auto.

  4. The “steady-state environment delusion” at work. It’s by now far too ingrained to ever be rooted out, especially from what’s laughingly called academia nowadays.
    Pointman

  5. open mouth, insert foot –
    “The science of climate change and the threat to human and population health is irrefutable …”

    • I’ve railed before about FSU arctic studies, now I call BS on Columbia University gulf coast studies. So I’d like to say “thank you for your concern but we’re all – all right down here”. Disappearing Island, Ponce Inlet (or New Smyrna) has been completing it’s twice a day trick as long as remembered. Bird Island on the intercostal has had other issues but sea level was never one of them.

  6. How can something so chaotic and for which we know so little about (climate AND weather) be so completely settled as to be irrefutable? If it is irrefutable, I say we stop sending our tax money to all these universities working on climate change. No more research is needed as the science is settled. Case closed.

    • + shed-loads
      In fact, as most readers/commenters/contributors [a hat tip to you, especially] here all know, we have a good [say order of magnitude] idea of some of the things affecting climate.
      We almost certainly do NOT know of everything that affects climate.
      We certainly do NOT know of the interactions of everything that affects climate.
      I would vote for continuing research – my big fear is a Little Ice Age (LIA) in my kids’ lifetimes [I may be too old to see anything other that the outriders . . . .].
      A LIA will be nasty – what if our ability to grow food drops by 10% – when population continues to rise, slowly. Food wars, water wars, and mass migration – makes the Libyan Exodus look like a Friday night queue at the chip shop.
      That is my huge concern.
      But money only for open and honest institutes and researchers.
      And that will send an icy shiver up the spines of some of the mountebanks, fraudsters and watermelons – were I e v e r to seize supreme power . . . .
      Auto

  7. Matt Ridley recently described the Green NGO’s as being in the business of coming up with ever new and horrific potential disasters and as he said, it’s a very competitive business.
    The ‘NCPD’ is obviously trying to muscle in on this business, and judging by the recent actions and statements of the U.S. Administration they are pushing on an open door to $millions of tax payers money that might as well be burnt.
    It is grotesque, and I am not even a U.S. Taxpayer!

  8. I’m currently buying a house on the Oregon coast. I would like to thank all the climate researchers for driving down the prices.

  9. As said before, when the rpices of coastal property starts to plumment, then & only then will I believe any of this guff!

    • Yes… well my family and I just came back from the Gulf Coast, where we saw hundreds of new homes being constructed RIGHT ON THE BEACH.
      I guess those people are just so stupid – they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on projects that will be at such terrible risk. How in the world are they able to get insurance on such risky ventures?
      Reality continues to conflict – but the true believers continue to multiply.
      When (and how) will it all end?

      • jvcstone
        As for flood insurance it’s a bit more convoluted than you might expect. Homeowners insurance (without flood rider) will not cover flood damage. Well, so you say, what’s the issue with that. Under normal circumstances you would not expect to need flood insurance on a 5th story condo but you’d be wrong. If the water comes through a broken window or the roof then home owners. If rain blows under the door, which is quite common in high winds, uh oh, that’s flood damage. True story. Though I don’t remember what the ruling is when flood damage from the 5th story drops through the ceiling to the 4th story. I think that was ruled home owner claim???

  10. I’d suggest they start working on the displacement of the good food-producing citizens of Wisconsin and Minnesota, who’ll be impacted first when that nasty glacier starts working it’s way down from Canadia. 😉

  11. Can you imagine the utter crap that is being taught to unwitting young students in colleges these days by the professors that are coming out with studies like this one? I think these warmists in academia, with the foreboding predictions, are trying to make themselves seem much more important than they really are so the young good-looking coeds will admire them… “You want to come to my office and see my temperature graphs?”
    Let’s face it… until recently, meteorology and “climate science” were never glamor jobs in academia. 🙂

    • Dave: The utter crap taught to students? They are not taught what constitutes success – how to determine that their theories are correct – in their field of research – only what satisfies their paymasters. “Support the message and all will be fine”. [rage!]

    • Yep.. That series has gained too great a fan base. I suspect all of them being green lunatics, as nobody else would watch that rubbish in order to damage their mental health.

  12. Hysteria about CO2 notwithstanding, I actually think this is the right approach. There’s ample evidence of significant changes in climate in the past, and no reason to think similar changes won’t happen in the future. It’s about time they acknowledge that changes in human activity will not have any substantial impact on climate change, and instead focus efforts on adaptation to whatever climate change eventually happens. Of course, the pace of change is so slow (like, sea level rise of a millimeter a year or temperature change of 1/100th of a degree per year) that adaptation is far from an emergency. But it IS a proper role of government to look reasonably far ahead at land use patterns and infrastructure needs such as water supply and stormwater management, and to have contingency plans for when climate change — be it higher OR lower average temperatures, higher OR lower rainfall or snowpack — actually becomes impactful. Personally, if we’re going to keep bureaucrats busy, I’d much rather have a task force on adaptation than a task force on how to drive up the cost of carbon-based fuels.

    • I agree somewhat.
      Why was Sandy so bad? Because the people in New York continued to elect politicians that did nothing for 190 years after the hurricane of 1821 to prepare for the next storm. Nor did they learn anything from the Long island Express storm of 1938.
      So the damage from Sandy was man made. In so far as in not developing building codes and land use regulations to limit the effects of naturally occurring weather events.

      • Sandy was so bad because it made landfall in NJ on the top of a lingering multi day NE storm.
        Absent the already flooding conditions from the lingering NE storm the damage would have been minimal.
        Also the lingering NE storm caused sandy to stall and send more water toward the coast.

      • Hmm, let’s see. Sea-level island crippled by huge storm, because infrastructure was built topside. Therefore, let’s transfer a huge chunk of that below the City (i.e., let’s put as much city-life-critical stuff below ground as possible, and therefore, below sea level). Next, let’s make sure we never put barriers around the sea-level openings into this new realm, and wait for a perfect storm. I wonder where the water will go, and whether it might do a little harm? Oh, well, no plan is perfect….

      • rivstan,
        Thanks, I failed to mention that fact.
        Also Sandy was not a Hurricane when it made Landfall in NJ.
        Don’t get me wrong though, I support smart building along the coast and many homes on the barrier Islands that were built up fared quite well since the winds were not Hurricane force.
        My lagoon front home along the back bay also fared well even though it is not on piling which would be required today, although only about 1 foot higher. The FEMA letter tells me that my home never had a claim although it is circa 30 years old. I did have some shingles blow loose.
        Lots of older small homes initially built a summer “shacks” did not rare so well as they were located on lower land.

    • Agree to some degree. I work on all hazards planning and preparedness around the nation…from pandemics to hurricanes to stupid human tricks. I agree that preparedness and mitigation spending is always more bang for the buck than a bad response and recovery. From my perspective, the approach is to leverage all spending, mitigation and preparedness across all hazards…not just one. We already look at water, waste water, infrastructure and population location.
      I disagree with the fluff piece. It is nothing more than propaganda to take invaluable resources and funds away from disaster preparedness for REAL and CURRENT issues so that coloring books for 2nd graders can be produced in one school district in California.
      They are incapable of measuring any outcome of their efforts….which is the perfect perpetual lie. Instead of saying how many homes were recovered, how many lives saved…they will claim they held two meetings.
      I can state categorically what would happen to, say, $800,000 to hold planning meetings in the Big Easy or Detroit. Will they be able to differentiate between a flood versus a climate change flood? Nope.

      • Does it matter whether or not they can differentiate between types of floods? You have to be prepared for the probability of floods, the worst kind of floods, the once in a century floods. Hasn’t that been the problem? Nobody is prepared for the 10 year drought, or the 500 year earthquake, etc.

  13. “……and may prompt substantial migration from and into the region.” What am I missing? “from and into”?
    As mentioned though, the approach to adapt to the threat of local weather phenomena is sound, as long as it is based on observed data, not blind faith in invalid models. If the Tidewater area is indeed sinking, ya’ better have a plan! If NYC built massive infrastructure below sea level, ya’ might want to think about correcting that!

  14. Ah yes, the ole “let’s save the children” imperative is invoked. Meanwhile let’s keep spending money we don’t have on Climate Change fossil fuel elimination and destroy US economic competitiveness to affect global temps by 0.02 C, while handing those children a $20 Trillion debt to payoff.
    Those Columbia U socialistic climate change fanatical zealots generate a high level of disgust with me if anyone didn’t notice.

    • joelo
      Hmmm – yes, I did notice.
      Well – it rather biffed me in the midriff, goodness sake!
      I don’t think highly of them either.
      Auto

    • “Although future trends are difficult to project, climate change may also….”
      Ummm, so why bother with the rest of the claptrap? Surely even academics have more important things to do….or was this a “mail it in” move to get published?

  15. hazards such as changing water use patterns, shoreline erosion, sea level rise and storm surge
    These are nothing compared to the impact of increasing the cost of electricity. Many people won’t be able to afford air conditioning, now that will really affect their health risk.

  16. If the oceans keep rising at their current rate, anyone who stands on a beach for 1000 years, stands a serious risk of drowning.

  17. “According to Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, “The science of climate change and the threat to human and population health is irrefutable”
    This fool must believe the manipulations on the ARGO buoy temperature data by NOAA et al., hiding the pause in temperature rise.
    Possibly he should look at the data that shows fewer Hurricanes, Droughts not increased, etc.
    The only disaster preparedness he needs is to keep the flow of taxpayer $$$ when the hoax is exposed.

  18. “a permanent inter-agency task force….” I posted a comment a couple of weeks ago the the smell was in the air to create the equivalent of Homeland Security for the regulatory and health systems rather than just having FEMA interface with them.

  19. ” The article explores climate change impacts on human health”
    First they issue press releases designed to scare people to death. Then they use the fact that people are scared to further justify their actions.

  20. 1. Sea level rise may slow down the Earth’s rate of rotation, by moving large mass from the polar regions ice melting (due to CO2 caused global warming towards equator). Slowdown in rotation would mean reduction of Coriolis force induced circulation in outer liquid core and consequently reduction in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic dipole.
    2. Isostatic postglacial uplift affecting large region from N. Canada to Scandinavia, with land sinking further south could produce similar effect by moving mass of water from the Arctic area towards equator.
    Dr. Ramhstorf supplied date for the rate of the sea level rise, which where plotted by Mr. Steve McIntire, I used available global Crutem4, CO2 concentration data and the NOAA’s data to calculate the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dipole.
    Results and comparisons of these four variables:
    CO2 concentration, global temperature, sae level rise rate and the strength of dipole are graphically presented as:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.gif
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SLR-MD.gif

    • (by now you may have realised that since the magnetic dipole is in sync with sea level rise, but CO2 and Crutem4 are following dipole by 9 years delay, it is obvious that case as outlined in no.2 is more likely to represent physical reality rather than one outlined in no. 1)

      • Dr. Svalgaard your argument is even less than trivial, it is banal.
        You are quoting an example of correlation with 11 data points on two linear events of some dubious public statistic (?! ?! ?!) and comparing to the four natural occurring nonlinear events with data sets for each with more than 130 samples.
        I would have been somewhat embarrassed to employ such argument.
        Dr. Svalgaard your argument is devoid of any scientific reasoning, not even worth of a reasonable consideration.

      • Wrong!
        Even most casual reader would see that in my correlation shown above, there is only one viable variable that could be driving global temperature and sea level rise, you are free to chose
        1. CO2
        or
        2. postglacial uplift
        It is you who suggested 6 (six) parameters
        You are trying you old trick again, deliberately misinterpreting comment, and running away from science.

      • Your samples are not independent.
        And, regardless, there is nothing wrong with the correlation as such. Your problem is the bogus claim that it represents a physical, and causal connection. There is no basis for any such claim.

      • Dr.Svalgard
        If you read what I wrote than you must be deliberately leading astray any casual reader by not addressing anything written in there.
        Correlation between four naturally occurring events shown in the graphs totally and completely destroy bogus claim that (your) Stanford university peddles to thousands of the most brilliant young American minds by teaching that the CO2 as ‘the cause’ of the rise in global so called ‘anthropogenic warming’
        Do you associate or disassociate yourself with bogus claims of your University related to the anthropogenic warming?
        Stand up and be counted, you can’t sit on the fence forever.

      • My views on this are well known and need not be repeated here, but for your education I shall mention that the climate is the combined effect of A% Solar, B% Greenhouse Gases, C% Ocean circulation, D% Internal random fluctuations, E% Orbital Changes, F% Cosmic disasters, and perhaps G% still unknown factors. The values of A, B, C, D, E, and F are not well known, although some general estimates can be given for some of them: A is small and E is large and there is so far no evidence for G. All values are the focus of ongoing research, based on physics, and not correlations.
        As for the ‘brilliant minds’: if they are so brilliant they will figure it out on their own.

      • A, B, C, D, E, and F
        That makes it 5.
        Your elephant with his nimble trunk could outplay Djokovic any time
        ( Von N: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”)

      • “if they are so brilliant they will figure it out on their own”
        but they failed and bought in the Stanford’s bogus claim
        You are suggesting that Stanford students are stupid dim-witted morons.
        Oh, no….. Stanford students can not be totally brainless
        by Jove, it is correct the anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the most if not all of global temperature rise!
        I am converted believer to the new global religion.

      • Vuk: A, B, C, D, E, and F… that makes it 5.
        Your elephant with his nimble trunk could outplay Djokovic any time

        And that is precisely why your bogus correlations won’t ever work. There are, indeed, many variables in play.

      • as posted in wrong place:
        Wrong!
        Even most casual reader would see that in my correlation shown above, there is only one viable variable that could be driving global temperature and sea level rise, you are free to chose
        1. CO2
        or
        2. postglacial uplift
        It is you who suggested 6 (six) parameters
        You are trying you old trick again, deliberately misinterpreting comment, and running away from science.

    • Just how much of an effect do you believe slowing down the earth’s rotation by a few nano-seconds per day is going to have on the Coriolis affect?

  21. Nah. I’ve had enough of this rubbish: “for our grandchildren”? Heck, since this whole ‘industrial-world-has-screwed-our-kids’ future’ we’ve had Napoleonic wars; Boer wars; Two World wars; the Korean war; a Vietnam war; and the Iraq war (x two) – and two atomic bombs!. Did any of the polis who were gung-ho for these global-changing events think of the ‘kids’? ‘Course not. It’s the money, not the ‘kids’.

  22. Dr. Irwin Redlener is a pediatrician and public health activist who specializes in health care for underserved children, health care reform, and disaster planning, response, and recovery. Sep 26, 2005 – Dr. Irwin Redlener warns that the U.S. is severely unprepared for the avian flu. Americans at Risk: Why We Are Not Prepared for Megadisasters and What We Can Do by Irwin Redlener (Aug 22, 2006).
    We should be prepared for every disaster, and live in a constant state of the fear of the unknown .. pardon, the incotrovertible and irrefutable.What a way to make a living!

    • As you say, George (curious name, no?): keep people in a constant state of fear – and I know it’s been said many times before, but Mencken said it first (afaik):

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

      Never a truer word spoken – especially to those who have not heard it – and whom polis wish would never hear it.
      BTW: I guess those who attend Paris COP21 will be in Paris [for the] international temperature enhancing seminars – AKA Parisites (sp? – I know! Groan). It works for me.

      • keep people in a constant state of fear
        It’s really “fear theater” with everyone running around pretending to be frightened and pretending that others are frightened in the hope that people do in fact become frightened.

      • Harry
        Mencken may have paraphrased Bierce’s ‘The Devil’s Dictionary’.
        I haven’t checked tonight – but the quote
        “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
        looks familiar, and certainly seems similar to Bierce’s style.
        AFAIK
        Auto

  23. My gast has never been so flabbered, with apologies to the late Frankie Howerd (sadly only Brit readers will understand).
    Any panic piece will do in order to justify an all expenses paid trip to Paris later this year, where the max temp will be 10ºC (50ºF) and min will be 5ºC (41ºF). When the Atlantic storms are delivering utterly miserable weather maybe some gravy-train passengers will wish that the global warming/climate change hoax was actually true.

  24. May I have the envelope, please?
    …and this year’s award for creative fiction goes to (drumroll) Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) and the University of Washington.

  25. “and may prompt substantial migration from and into the region…”
    Should cancel each other out then….
    …must be the flat earth christian conservatives taking advantage of lower beach prices /snark

    • bobthebear

      Health, good health, is a real indictor of success. Burning fossil fuel besides contributing to climate change also is unhealthy and contributes to the cost of medical care.

      Burning fossil fuels is the ONLY thing that stands between the starvation and slow death by cold, heat, stress, disease, bad water, no farming and no transportation no food storage and bad food preparation and sanitation of six billions of people worldwide.
      The only people “denying” climate change are the government-paid self-called “scientists” propagandizing their global Warming climate scam to justify their 92 billions in climate change money, power, and adulation by their uneducated masses. And by the world politicians and bankers seeking their share of 1.3 trillion in new taxes, and 31.1 trillion in new carbon trading schemes.
      Other than that, the rest of your screed is a lie.

  26. “Climate variability and change present substantial threats to physical and mental health, and may also create social instability, potentially leading to increased conflict, violence, and widespread migration away from areas that can no longer provide sufficient food, water, and shelter for the current populations.”
    Substitute “Socialism” for “Climate variability and change”, and then it’s accurate. Unlike climate dogma, this truth can actually be verified by historical data.

  27. Climate variability and change present substantial threats to physical and mental health, and may also create social instability, potentially leading to increased conflict, violence, and widespread migration away from areas that can no longer provide sufficient food, water, and shelter for the current populations.
    WTF? There’s some “mental health”-related issues here, but not what the author is alleging. How much more of this bullshit are we going to have to put up with?

  28. “Adaptation efforts should follow a course set by the Federal task force”
    Let’s ask the Navajo how that’s working for them.

  29. Would this be the appropriate thread to point out that, in its mid winter , the Antarctic appears to have lost ca. 20M sqkm of sea ice compared to the same date last year. Why is no-one mentioning this ? Because it is not a serious issue ?Or because there is no obvious explanation?

    • Sorry, 2 sqkm not 20 , but if the typo made people look,in horror, at the ref page the mistake may be a useful one.

  30. Even if the Earth returned to the +4c temperatures of the Cretaceous, America still wouldn’t be as warm as where I currently live.
    Does this mean I’m dying from climate? 🙂

  31. Very interesting study. I see it’s based on the bogus RCP8.5 results. It also lacks a sophisticated system analysis model. If this were a master’s thesis I would give it a pass out of courtesy to the faculty advisor, but I wouldn’t recommend the author for a job.

  32. I live in Guam. The difference between day-time high temperatures and night-time low temperatures ranges from 5 degrees C to 6 degrees C. People here adapted long go.
    SO, why is a degree C difference considered alarming by the UN, IPCC, and clmate policy makers? DOn;t know. But the answer is: No reason for ala

    • As of 0500UTC today the range of recorded temperature on earth is from +50.2C in Kuwait to -77.4C in Antarctica. People are living quite happily and successfully in Kuwait, not so much in Antarctica. So, as you say, why is a degree or two different on the so-called average temperature alarming?

  33. CORRECTION:
    “DOn;t know. But the answer is: No reason for ala” TO : Don’t know. But the answer is” no reason for alarm”

  34. A few years ago, I bought a house on a coastal dune lake that opens to the ocean on the Gulf Coast between Panama City and Destin, Fl. I thought I was buying a retirement home, but it appears I may now be the proud owner of future ocean front property bordering America’s newest port. I have actually researched raw historical temperatures and sea levels in my area of the Gulf Coast. Zero change in a century. A few years ago with my son, a high school junior at the time, I visited Columbia. Neither of us could get past the obvious liberalism. I have spent most of my life in the stock market and am a free market capitalist but I now see we need new laws to protect our citizens from unscrupulous university professors and politicians. Is there a movement yet?

  35. “Climate change may amplify existing public health impacts, such as …. malnutrition resulting from droughts, and injury and deaths following exposure to floods,”
    Wow, MAYBE more floods, or MAYBE more droughts. That is so specific and well-researched that it just oozes urgency, especially given ZERO major hurricanes in the Gulf region of the US for a decade (its not likely that one will pop up within the next week) and virtually no temperature change for almost two decades. Where can I give money so that a vacuous New-York egg-head can sit in a cube and continue this most impressive and important work?

  36. Look at all the weasel words in this so-called research paper: may, expected to, possibly,potential.
    “Public health impacts in the U.S. Gulf Coast may be severe”.
    “The region is expected to experience increases in extreme temperatures, sea level rise, and possibly fewer but more intense hurricanes”.
    “Through myriad pathways, climate change is likely to make the Gulf Coast less hospitable and more dangerous for its residents, and may prompt substantial migration from and into the region”.
    “potential public health impacts”
    “may amplify existing public health impacts”
    “may also facilitate the re-introduction of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever”
    But note the change in tone when it comes to recommendations:
    “The Federal government should establish a multi-agency permanent task force”
    “Funds should be made available”
    “Adaptation efforts should follow a course set by the Federal taskforce”
    “Further explore the linkage between weather events and infectious disease”
    In other words, a lot of things may happen, but regardless of the probabilities, we need more government money, and we need it now.

  37. Coastal dwellers on the left coast are under severe threat of a Fukushima-class tsunami when the sea floor decides to flip. Thousands of people will lose their lives because they are better prepared for climate warming that hasn’t happened in 20 years than they are for a recurring seafloor rebound that is decades behind schedule, and which history of previous events is well known. That is sloppy disaster management and a careless disregard for the reason useless bureaucrats are in the positions they hold.

  38. So Columbia U has started preparations to move their NYC campus inland? Oh, and the UN building too?

  39. Can anyone tell me what the global temperature SHOULD be? Give reasons for your answer. 🙂
    We know that its been a degree or more higher than now for most of the current interglacial.
    The only time it was colder was during the Little Ice Age, which we have very thankfully climbed out of, .. just.

Comments are closed.