Claim: Climate Increases Diabetes Rates

Blood Glucose Test
Blood Glucose Test. By Biswarup Ganguly (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study claims a warmer climate is associated with higher rates of diabetes. But even if the authors are right, obesity, diet, age and heredity remain the dominant factors.

Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature

Lisanne L Blauw, N Ahmad Aziz, Martijn R Tannemaat, C Alexander Blauw, Anton J de Craen, Hanno Pij, Patrick C N Rensen


Objective Rising global temperatures might contribute to the current worldwide diabetes epidemic, as higher ambient temperature can negatively impact glucose metabolism via a reduction in brown adipose tissue activity. Therefore, we examined the association between outdoor temperature and diabetes incidence in the USA as well as the prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide.

Research design and methods Using meta-regression, we determined the association between mean annual temperature and diabetes incidence during 1996–2009 for each US state separately. Subsequently, results were pooled in a meta-analysis. On a global scale, we performed a meta-regression analysis to assess the association between mean annual temperature and the prevalence of glucose intolerance.

Results We demonstrated that, on average, per 1°C increase in temperature, age-adjusted diabetes incidence increased with 0.314 (95% CI 0.194 to 0.434) per 1000. Similarly, the worldwide prevalence of glucose intolerance increased by 0.170% (95% CI 0.107% to 0.234%) per 1°C rise in temperature. These associations persisted after adjustment for obesity.

Conclusions Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.

Read more:

The data seems quite noisy. For example, consider the following graph (Table 1 in the study) of diabetes incidence vs change in temperature.

Diabetes vs Temperature, Table 1, Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature
Diabetes vs Temperature, Table 1, Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature

The state of South Carolina (average annual temperature 63F) shows a strong correlation between diabetes and temperature, but the state of Louisiana (average annual temperature 69F) shows a strong negative correlation. Arizona (average annual temperature 75F) also shows a negative correlation.

In addition, the impact of the factors the study attempted to adjust for is likely significantly larger than the impact demonstrated by the study.

For example, the following, from a 2007 study of body mass index vs diabetes, shows a strong relationship between body mass and diabetes, ranging from below 5% for skinny people to around 25% for very fat people – a far more pronounced effect than the small difference claimed by the climate study above.

Body Mass vs Diabetes. Figure 2 from "The relationship of body mass index to diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: comparison of data from two national surveys"
Body Mass vs Diabetes. Figure 2 from “The relationship of body mass index to diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: comparison of data from two national surveys”

Note the substantial disagreement between the two studies in the graph above, of the impact of obesity on diabetes rate.

I’m not saying the authors are necessarily wrong, they appear to have made a credible attempt to tease out a small effect from a noisy data set. But even if they are right, factors other than temperature are far more significant predictors of whether someone is likely to suffer from diabetes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Clutz
March 21, 2017 4:21 am

Medicine is joining the fields of science corrupted by climatism funding. Even if weather affects human health, it is nonsensical to try to treat the weather rather than the disease. Now family doctors are being pushed to promote climatism as a health concern aided and abetted by IPCC.

tom s
Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 21, 2017 6:46 am

If I am ever lectured by my physician about ‘climatechangeglobalwarmingdenierism’ I’ll walk out and never visit him/her again.

Rhoda R
Reply to  tom s
March 21, 2017 10:39 am

My family doctor (I do love that man) is pretty much disgusted with the requirements the government is levying on his practice. I doubt that I won’t hear any of this from him any more than I heard about gun control or the voluntary euthanasia that the government was pushing a few years ago.

Bryan A
Reply to  tom s
March 21, 2017 12:14 pm

Interesting study. Data from 49 States and Puerto Rico

2 questions
Where is the 50th state data? (or did it skew the report?)
Where is the world data? (Worldwide diets vary and subsequent susceptibility to Diabetes varies)

Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 21, 2017 6:46 am

the study has made a classic statistical mistake. correlation is not causation,

people are also getting older as temperatures are increasing. does this mean that global warming causes aging as well as diabetes.

The Old Man
Reply to  ferdberple
March 21, 2017 7:45 am

I think this is another in the same series : If a dog has 4 broken legs, and you command him to jump, and he doesn’t, it confirms that if a dog has 4 broken limbs, he can’t hear.
Where did they find the extra grant money?

Reply to  ferdberple
March 21, 2017 2:05 pm

The Old Man
You are spot on.
It is –
“Look, we can link something or other, loosely, to Gore-bull warming. Send money. Much money.
We can save the world.”

Auto, hoping that Donald J. Trump really can drain the swamp . . . .

Stephen Greene
Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 21, 2017 8:58 am

I’m sorry but this is not a medical study, this is junk propaganda. More to come.

Reply to  Stephen Greene
March 21, 2017 1:48 pm

Probably Medical Malpractice.
Let’s sue them and get some of that Gov. (our) money back

Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 22, 2017 5:31 am

If there is anything to this, they should not be looking at diabetes incidence with a 1 deg C rise.. There should be a clear correlation between altitude and diabetes, with little at the poles and lots at the equator. If you look at the diets of these different regions, you find that carbohydrates and diabetes probably have the higher correlation. Puerto Rico probably has a lot of poor who cannot afford meats as much as they can starches and sugars.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 23, 2017 10:26 am

Indeed, and the BMI is a terrible way to assess ‘obesity’.

March 21, 2017 4:25 am

Conclusions Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.


“increase with” : that has no power to indicate causation.

More likely glucose intolerance caused by diet changes.

Reply to  Greg
March 21, 2017 4:34 am

yeah what i was thinking
run the states of poverty/low income/junkfood over that and?
i suspect the high diabetic areas coincide

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Greg
March 21, 2017 6:12 am

I think you’ve nailed it. The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that soft drinks will be consumed.

Reply to  Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 6:47 am

What about Louisiana?

Reply to  Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 10:56 am

I don’t believe Louisiana is going to get consumed.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 12:17 pm

Illinois is missing

Reply to  Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 12:52 pm

Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 at 6:12 am said:

I think you’ve nailed it. The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that soft drinks will be consumed.

Yeah, I thought of that one too, but I’m wondering whehter the oversight is even more basically ridiculous, … like population density is greater in warmer climates, and so, duh, of course you are going to notice a higher statistical occurrence in those regions where there are MORE people living! … than in cooler climates, where FEWER PEOPLE LIVE.
comment image

Karl Compton
Reply to  Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 2:23 pm

Sweet tea, too!

But I suspect part of the reason is that older folk tend to move to warmer climes.

Soooooo many variables not controlled for here. Junk science deluxe.

Reply to  Greg
March 21, 2017 11:40 am

What people are susceptible to this type of nonsense? What scares me is that those who advance this propaganda have control of our public school systems. No wonder they are handing out high school diplomas to kids with 8th grade reading proficiency. Great strategy! Dumb them down and then baffle them with bullshite .

Reply to  Greg
March 22, 2017 9:24 am

Yesterday it was 62, today it’s 63, and I’m thinking beer and barbeque. I’ll just have to hope I don’ t pass out tomorrow with my climate-caused diabetis. Been there, done that only it was wintertime. Go figure. Was it the change from 30 to 31degrees.
It couldn’t have been the 8 lbs. of Christmas candy I ate.

Chris D.
March 21, 2017 4:25 am

I’m not sure if the authors took this into account, but sometime within the first half of the study period, the ADA lowered the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes. Anyone more knowledgeable about this change want to chime in?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Chris D.
March 21, 2017 5:13 am

Really don’t know too much about it, except that about 8-10 years ago a pre-diabetic group started to show up in tabulated data for health care providers. It’s pretty common for people in the health field to “broaden” any definition of a condition, since the more people that are impacted the more money they can grab. Look at what’s happening in mental health.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 6:54 am

That “pre-diabetic” thing just cracks me up. Forty five years ago when I became diabetic, you were LOUDLY chastised for saying “pre-diabetic”. You were either diabetic or not, just like you were pregnant or not. Now there are commercials and a website to see if you are “pre-diabetic”. IF this was only to alert people to the need to change their habits and eat better and exercise more, then it might be useful. However, odds are at some point “treatment” will be thrown in. Based on TV advertising, one generally sees commercials about the disease or condition, then later the treatment (like non-24, HPV and cancer). If the pattern holds, there will be a “treatment” announced.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 7:24 am

Pre-diabetic is an important distinction. People who are pre-diabetic are likely to become diabetic, but they have a great chance at reversing the trend through diet and exercise.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 8:43 am

I went to the “doihaveprediabetes” site: This based on age, sex (women have a less chance than men? I’d like to see the research on that one), gestational diabetes ever diagnosed, high blood pressure, physical activity, relative with diabetes, weight status. (Note: IF I wasn’t diabetic, I would score too LOW to be diagnosed with prediabetes.) This is nothing we don’t already know. Labelling it as a “disease” or “condition” is as foolish as dry eye or peeing too much. It’s worthless. It’s nothing but “risk” factors—like higher temperatures will now be.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 10:46 am

Sheri — without going into too much detail, a web site is not going to diagnose diabetes or pre-diabetes. The distinction is based on a blood test. The website is trying to address your risk factors as to whether or not you could have undiagnosed diabetes. Their point on the gender question is that men are more likely to have undiagnosed diabetes because they tend to go to the doctor less.

They could have (should have) just asked how frequently you visit the doctor. I go much more frequently than my wife and I can’t beg loud enough to ask her to get a periodic blood test. All that being said, I have had two brothers with diabetes — one of who died at age fifty due to complications from diabetes (after going blind and having several digits amputated.) He was a poster child for medical non-compliance.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 12:20 pm

There could be such a thing as Pre-Pregnant so Pre-Diabetic isn’t a far stretch
Pre-Pregnant, those who plan on becoming Pregnant
Pre-Diabetic, those who plan on becoming Diabetic

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 4:13 pm

locanbona: Yes, they can use an A1C and assume that if it is elevated you’re heading for diabetes. IF they test on a regular basis (which you can do if you want by buying the test over the counter—the scale may be slightly different that what labs do) and the numbers keep going up, that’s a problem. If they stay level and are not significantly out of range and your health is good, no reason for panic. I fear the medical community gets a bit crazy trying to fit everyone into the same mold.

Annual blood tests can show one elevated blood sugar (fasting), but again, it’s one result. I’m not sure I agree that frequent doctor visits are good—unless you just mean an annual physical and blood work. You would think by now the A1C would be part of the panel since doctors so love that test.

There are definitely poster children for non-compliance out there. I knew several.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 21, 2017 5:59 pm

Sherri — it wasn’t really my point about frequent visits to the doctor. Your citation for “” had the assumption that men are more likely to have undiagnosed diabetes because they make fewer trips to the doctor. I thought that reasoning was specious. Instead of making it gender specific, they could have just made the point “if you are over fifty do you have an annual checkup” or something like that.

Assuming reasonable health, once per year should be fine.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 23, 2017 10:30 am

Some of that is being forced on them, though ‘evidence based medicine’ and some of it is peer pressure and some of it is that physicians are just as susceptible to fads as the rest of us.

Reply to  Chris D.
March 21, 2017 7:22 am

Yes, in 2000 they changed the criteria for diagnosing diabetes (and started developing a category of “pre-diabetes”. I believe it may have also changed in 1991.

The fasting plasma glucose diagnostic threshold for diabetes has been lowered to 7.0 mmol/l (126 mg/dl), and impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose 6.1–6.9 mmol/l [110–125 mg/dl]) has been introduced as a new category of intermediate glucose metabolism. These changes recognize that the old fasting threshold did not match the 2-h (postload) threshold well and that both micro- and macrovascular disease develop at lower fasting glucose levels than previously recognized.

The reason is because of better, less expensive diagnostic tools and better information as to what happens in diabetic patients as they age.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 21, 2017 8:47 am

It’s still over-reacting. Medicine does not in any way understand what and why diabetes causes bad outcomes. (Ignoring any disease generally has bad outcomes, so those who ignore the condition will likely have bad outcomes.) Many diabetics live for decades with no complications, some live a decade or less. Both can have identical blood A1C for the whole period. Blood sugar is only ONE component of many. This is like saying CO2 is the thermostat for the planet.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 21, 2017 10:55 am

Sheri — medicine knows a lot more about diabetes than you give them credit for. Yes, it is only one of many aspects of your body which can go wrong, but it is a very serious health risk right now. Diabetes is more about how your body regulates blood sugar than it is about the absolute measure of blood sugar. More significantly, like every subject, there is a ton of bad information out there which muddles the knowledge base (thank you Dr. Oz.)

Reply to  Chris D.
March 21, 2017 8:23 am

Someone should run a simple rank correlation between the states’ average temperature and incidence of diabetes. Non-parametric would avoid any data assumptions. Just glancing at the various states with Idaho and SD being near highest raises questions.

Reply to  Chris D.
March 22, 2017 9:29 am

Several years ago Medical science considered a glucose level of 140 to be normal. That was lowered to 120. Some want it even lower. When they vote again to raise the level to 160 I’ll run through the streets yelling

Reply to  Chris D.
March 22, 2017 9:35 am

They voted and lowered the acceptable glucose level from 140 to 120. I’m waiting for the new electorate to rise it to 160 and then I’ll be cured. Medical science in action!

Ian Magness
March 21, 2017 4:26 am

Oh For F’s S!!!
What a load of nonsense!
YET ANOTHER pseudo-scientific study that has started with the specific aim of blaming AGW for a problem, and – quelle surprise! – it has manged to find and adjust data to provide “proof”.
In the bin pronto.

Reply to  Ian Magness
March 21, 2017 2:10 pm

The objective is to get grant money. Lots of money.
But – yes, “In the bin pronto.”


March 21, 2017 4:32 am

There seems to be a significant increase in diabetes and the weather /climate has nothing to do with it. Something must be amiss. Diet/exercise/genetics do play a role but something ‘environmental’ on a widespread basis is up. We are looking at something that interferes with various organ function. Is it something in the food supply or water? How can anyone trust the EPA, FDA or any other 3 letter agency nowadays?

I’ve noticed that Big Pharma is advertising their diabetes products all too frequently. Something is up.

Reply to  john
March 21, 2017 4:36 am

for decades i kept saying that the HUGE push to fake sugar replacer was NOT smart!
I’m pleased to be proven right at last.
thebody doesnt KNOW whats coming real or fake sugars
so it senses sweet and produces insulin
no sugar and the insulin is there but nothing to work on.
rinse repeat endlessly over a period of time and?
obesity and diabetes rises.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 21, 2017 6:03 am

Yes, my saying oz,

The body is no Chem lab: insulin is produced whenever the tongue says ‘sweet’!

Juan Slayton
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 21, 2017 7:22 am

oz and johann,
If any of the common artificial sweeteners affect insulin production, it should be simple to verify that experimentally. Have you got a reference to such a study?

tom s
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 21, 2017 7:26 am

BINGO. All the fat people in my office drink diet coke/pepsi. And they are all diabetic in all likelihood. I am probably 15lbs over but never eat fake sugar and my blood work has always been very good. Genetics to blame for some of it, but… I also eat real butter.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 21, 2017 8:30 am

This is likely most affected by lifestyle. In my family alone, my Dad had late-onset diabetes and controlled it completely for 20 years by diet (went from 220lbs to 170lbs). Three current family members have late onset and opted for insulin and keep eating like pigs. They haven’t lost a pound and make no effort to reduce dietary triggers.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 21, 2017 11:11 am

Late onset diabetes cannot be managed by insulin injections. It needs a pill, such as Metformin.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 22, 2017 12:46 am

Juan, there’s not so much reliable studies on nutrition, eg

That’s why that much ‘meta studies’.

Greg Woods
Reply to  john
March 21, 2017 5:04 am

Global warming can cause one’s brain to swell – just an example: Micky Mann…

Mark from the Midwes
Reply to  Greg Woods
March 21, 2017 5:57 am

And subsequently heads will explode!

Reply to  Greg Woods
March 21, 2017 6:53 am

at last- the explanation for Excess Summer Deaths.

Reply to  john
March 21, 2017 6:55 am

Must there always be a conspiracy? Can’t it ever, ever be something else?

Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 12:29 pm

“Must there always be a conspiracy?”

If there’s major corruption in “high places”, then; Yes . .

Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 4:16 pm

I don’t equate corruption with the “c” word.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 10:53 pm

Thanks Sheri! Must not be conspiracy.

There is great competition between the food producers. When a producer gains the advantage by adding more sweeteners, other manufacturers must follow suit.

Therefore, it’s us consumers mainly responsible for the supply on the shelves.

Reply to  john
March 21, 2017 8:41 am

John, the reason diabetes has increased is because people are living longer. And diabetes is better treated. In the past many people with diabetes would have died after a few years and been removed from the statistics.

March 21, 2017 4:32 am

Have type 2 diabetes. Under control when I lose weight, control diet, and exercise. Not so much when I do the opposite. We already know all of that. Main use of what seems like a waste of money study will be clanging on about the social cost of carbon.

Another peer reviewed nothing burger to be quoted as real science by a politician.

Reply to  troe
March 21, 2017 9:00 am

You are nearly there Troe when you mention car -bon. The root cause of the majority of type 2 diabetes is excess ingestion of car-BOHYDRATES.
All carbs are sugar. Eat no more than 30 grams of carbs a day and stuff yourself with good protein.
Red meat, eggs, cheese, a avocados oily fish and bingo your diabetes disappears in a month or so.
Mind you big Parma will be upset.

Reply to  waterside4
March 22, 2017 5:00 am

The cause of diabetes is unknown.

Reply to  waterside4
March 23, 2017 10:51 am

Au contraire, the human and all other material life forms have redox based electrochemical mechanisms. It is blood sugar and, more particularly, the rate of rise of blood sugar (initially at the liver tissue level, then later at muscle and fat tissue levels) that triggers pancreatic secretion of insulin, modified by other peptide hormones and receptor regulation. Cells protect themselves, within limits, to receptor overload by down-regulating the receptor, since the receptor function is related to binding of the ligand, protein conformation changes, cell membrane permeability change (Na/K, Ca/Mg) that are chemically transduced to other chemical signals, internal and external.

I have yet to see a paper demonstrating that ‘sweet’ at the tongue has an effect, directly, on blood sugar or insulin. I can see an indirect effect, via the brain, though. Sweet = fruit = need to get ready for digesting food. When the anticipated sugar doesn’t arrive in the gut, I suspect that effect gets blunted.

Now add to this that ‘obese’ folk get told to reduce their caloric intake. Well, guess what, drinking ‘diet’ soda can do that; but it isn’t guaranteed. Never mind that moving that bigger body itself requires a larger muscle mass to do it and maintaining body mass is a survival mechanism; so it is no surprise to me that ‘diet and exercise’ don’t really do very much overall. For diabetics in particular, though, that advise is more likely to be sound for that particular individual and still may not change things much in the end.

March 21, 2017 4:34 am

… they appear to have made a credible attempt to tease out a small effect from a noisy data set.

A vanishingly small effect from a VERY noisy data set.

Reply to  rovingbroker
March 21, 2017 8:48 am

They have skills.

Johann Wundersamer
March 21, 2017 4:41 am

“The number of adults worldwide affected by diabetes has quadrupled since 1980 to 422 million, the World Health Organisation has warned in a report on World Health Day. Nearly one in 11 people are now affected by the disease, with obesity and unhealthy eating included in the factors driving the rise.”

No correlation whatsoever with temperatures / CO2. Which says:

Sugar industry + WHO joined the green scam train!

Tom in Florida
March 21, 2017 4:50 am

It’s Twinkies all the way down.

March 21, 2017 4:50 am

Conclusions Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.

And what about “indoor” temperature?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  marianomarini
March 21, 2017 5:21 am

Let’s follow the logic. More people stay indoors under air conditioning. Most people keep the temperature under 80F inside. The human body then uses more energy to stay warm which triggers the desire to eat carbs. Indoor people load up on carbs to stay warmer inside then go outside where it is very warm and get diabetes. See, it all follows.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  marianomarini
March 21, 2017 6:06 am

Exactly my first thought. How many people are actually exposed to the temperatures they are using? Air conditioned home to air conditioned car to air conditioned office and back again.

It wouldn’t surprise me if people in the US were now colder on average than 10 or 20 years ago.

tom s
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 7:33 am

I know I freeze in my office year ’round. I am starting to really hate AC. I’d rather be hot. Every where you go it is cold indoors in the summer. And living in MN i get plenty of cold….don’t need it all summer too!!

James at 48
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 10:22 am

Psych meds plus frankenfoods makes people suffer from an endless hot flash. They love to crank AC and make us normals pull on our sweaters. I also notice the “hot flash” crows are typically overweight.

Reply to  marianomarini
March 21, 2017 8:47 am

A high indoor temperature prevents metabolic diseases. I sure this kind of correlation could exist directly because cold raises blood pressure via closing extreme blood circulation, or by correlating with poor people living in uninsulated houses on bad diet.

This kind of correlations often disappear when you take other dependent variables into account. If you don’t, you are doing lousy science.

Reply to  Hugs
March 21, 2017 8:50 am

I’m going over and put another log in the wood stove!!

Johann Wundersamer
March 21, 2017 4:52 am

“Your comment is awaiting moderation:

OK with me, there’s already enough literatur on that topic:

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 21, 2017 8:49 am

I’m sure there is no difference between fat made or sugar made obesity.

Reply to  Hugs
March 21, 2017 8:53 am

There isn’t. However, for some reason beyond my fathoming, modern science seems to think one’s pancreas should only kick out insulin a couple of times a week or it’s overworked. So, you eat kale and drink water except on Sunday and Wednesday and you’re in great shape. I have no idea when pancreases stopped working 71% of the time, but it seems they did.

Reply to  Hugs
March 21, 2017 8:54 am

For clarification, the argument against sugar (and HONEY and FRUIT) is it makes your pancreas work too hard.

tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 4:53 am

Claim: Starting an opinion piece with the word “claim” is telegraphing the author’s bias.

Reply to  tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 5:28 am

I notice you didn’t try to defend the study, just attack the author.
How typical.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 6:07 am

But it is a claim.

What else is it then?

tony mcleod
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 6:21 am

When we are in favour it is: New research reveals…
When we don’t like it it’s a claim.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 8:51 am

Most of statistical health studies are utter krapp. So claim.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 9:26 am

Tim Hammond:

You ask

But it is a claim.

What else is it then?

I answer, it is a report of an unreasonable adoption of an unreasonable assumption.

The actual statement you query says

A new study claims a warmer climate is associated with higher rates of diabetes.

The study may have detected a correlation between two data sets but it is not reasonable to assume the correlation indicates anything. It is especially silly to assume the correlation indicates or suggests or implies one parameter is “associated” with the other in the absence of any demonstrated mechanism that would provide the putative association.

The claim of association is very unreasonable.


Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 9:49 am

i thought maybe you’d had some crisis, richard. good to see you.
i couldn’t believe you’d boldly instigate and then immediately retreat.
as emperor of the catwalk, doncha wanna rock your wardrobe?

March 21, 2017 4:54 am

They must be convinced that it must be due to all the CO2 bubbles in the sodas folks consume in their Big Gulps. Somehow, I think it’s more related to the high fructose corn syrup therein. Another reason was the ill-conceived push to go fat-free, because the fat was replaced by sugars, in order to avoid an unappetizing mouth-feel.

BTW, Since the USA and Mexico are #1 and #2 for both diabetes as well as soda consumption, why not throw Mexican States into the comparison as well? They offer a wide variety of desert, highland temperate and tropical climates.

Reply to  Doug Wenzel
March 21, 2017 8:59 am

High fructose corn syrup is basically the same as sugar. Try drinking a “classic” soda with sugar for a month, in volume, then do the same with the corn syrup one. Your weight gain should be similar.

It is the CO2 bubbles I think because diet sodas are claimed to cause weight gain, too.

Agreed that fat-free was a bad idea.

Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 1:28 pm

It’s amazing how much weight I’ve lost now that I limit my Cokes to a single one of those 8 Oz Mexican ones instead of a Large Fountain drink plus a refill.

Of course, the comment about the CO2 bubbles is wholly in jest.

Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 4:15 pm

My husband changed to diet Coke when he figured out he could have more M&M’s!

(He’s lost interest in those now, so please no fits over the M&M’s.)

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Sheri
March 21, 2017 11:52 pm

“High fructose corn syrup is basically the same as sugar.”

Sugar consists of glucose + fructose.

– glucose gets converted into sheer energy / body + brain*

– fructose, by the liver, gets converted into body fat

*suspected to further amnesia: an overreaching on ‘natural reserves’.

Reply to  Sheri
March 22, 2017 7:23 am

I find that the natural foods people agree with you. However, actual research doesn’t back that up. HFCS is 42% or 55% fructose and the remainder is glucose and water. Table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Honey is approximately 50/50 like sucrose is. From these ratios, it looks like all these are very, very similar in glucose/fructose content.

ALL excess sugars get converted into fat in the liver, whether glucose or fructose. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, but it only converts to fat if you eat too much. Same thing happens with foods metabolized anywhere in the body.

MICE and rats gained more weight studies with HFCS but I’m not a rodent. Most studies showing weight gain are very limited in scope and apply only to a very specific set of circumstances. Often, huge quantities are fed to the animals or a huge percentage. This does not reflect reality.

Paul Westhaver
March 21, 2017 5:12 am

Warmer weather (if indeed that is the case) + higher CO2 concentration -> more inexpensive food of the carbohydrate variety + sedentary live styles (TV and computers) -> fat people with a host of medical problems, diabetes being the quickest to become visible.

I am skeptical of the quality of this science.

Gary Pearse
March 21, 2017 5:19 am

Why don’t the states line up north to south vis a vis the the temp gradient. Stupid. It didn’t work so they….. adjusted it. The Adjustocene. How about adjusting for old fat retirees from ND going to AZ. Here is an experiment. Round up a 1000 diabetics from SC and move them to ND and see how many y are cured. what about Mexico or Australia or Singapore

Robert Stewart
March 21, 2017 5:20 am

It is likely that a significant contributor to what is commonly referred to as an increase in temperature in the U. S. is nothing more than the urban heat island coupled with cherry picking by “climate scientists” who find it advantageous to focus on temperature records from those locales. It is also likely that type 2 diabetes is associated with the urban life style, particularly the absence of required of physical activity. So the common factor may be something related to “urban”, which is not compatible with the political needs of the activists behind the creation and exploitation of our daily dose of crisis. So this line of inquiry, as promising as it is, will not find a public patron.

March 21, 2017 5:38 am

Data from US states only for this conclusion? No comparison with incident rates from countries closer to equator and hotter and farther from the equator and colder? It probably would fall flatter than this study.

Reply to  Bob Greene
March 21, 2017 6:28 pm

I was thinking something similar; why not see if the incidence of diabetes correlates with latitude, that being the proxy for temperature? How much taxpayer money was spent on this study? If you made the cut at 30 degrees of latitude, would the population below 30 have a greater rate of incidence than the population above 30?

March 21, 2017 5:42 am

I thought body temperature was self-regulating. Did all the people in the study have fevers?

Steve Fraser
March 21, 2017 5:42 am

This study is questionable on so many levels. The one that strikes me the most is the use of average state temps, while exposure to outdoor temps by the people would have been during the day, not when sleeping. 2nd issue.. no attempt to handle demographic changes (other than age) over the reported period, or for that matter, distribution of the population over,the state geographically. 3) Period ended 2009? Why then?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 21, 2017 8:59 am

Genetic background and living habbits affect a lot, so anyone not segmenting via ethnicity, gender, bmi, smoking, diet etc does badly.

E. Martin
March 21, 2017 5:54 am

The author may not be wrong? In that case there must be enormously high levels of diabetes in the tropics, n’est pas?

Reply to  E. Martin
March 21, 2017 9:02 am

In Amazonia. And not in Fairbanks?

Jeff L
March 21, 2017 6:05 am

Perhaps the most ridiculous claim for what CAGW causes. Go to the store & look at the ingredients list. For ant pre-packaged food ( ie anything that isn’t fresh veggies / fruit / meat / nuts etc) & you will see that almost everything has sugar / sweeteners added to it. Did the authors even consider that with time, use sweeteners has increased? and that might be having an effect? You are what you eat … garbage in … sickness out.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Jeff L
March 21, 2017 6:11 am

Ah yes, the miraculous health properties of fresh things. But cook them up in a dish and all that disappears…if you then package it an sell it of course, not if you prepare the meal yourself, because then the magic “i prepared it myself” factor kicks in.

And since when is sugar, one of the most vital ingredients for life, “garbage”? Or do you think your body can tell the difference between a molecule of glucose that’s in your blood if its come from Macdonalds rather than an apple?

Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 6:41 am

Man made chemicals bad.
Nature made chemicals good.

Jeff L
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 21, 2017 4:11 pm

Do some research on sugar & sweeteners – regardless of source – and effects on your biochemistry , brain function, energy system & microbiome … and how all this relates to chronic disease , like diabetes, amongst others. Then figure out how much sugar & sweeteners you are eating.

Your choice – eat what your want – but your biochemistry is complicated and no, sugar and sweeteners are not ” one of the most vital ingredients for life”.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 22, 2017 12:10 am

Fresh means ‘direct’ from the field.

Ready made means: + flavor enhancer; + sugar + salt for longer shelf life.

Everyone’s own choice.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Tim Hammond
March 22, 2017 12:15 am

Fresh also could say:

Better from Burger King or Steakhouse than from Walmart.

Also depending on the wallet.

March 21, 2017 6:10 am

We were overly optimistic to believe that electing Trump would cure the deep social disease of which climate obsession is a mere symptom. We are very likely to see this coup attempt against the President succeed and the climate madness will come back with a vengeance.

Reply to  hunter
March 21, 2017 6:51 am

We are fighting the coup. Primary any ostensibly on our side who join the plotters.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  hunter
March 21, 2017 11:33 am

Hunter, no chance of pushing Trump off this. His other policies are tougher nuts. The G20 meeting in Germany removed climate from the agenda because of Trump. This without a whimper is a ‘tell’ that Europe is relieved. They see that with energy cheaper in US than half the cost elsewhere in the world without climate change foolishness and the EU neomarxbrothers’ rules taxes and regulations, America is on its way to produce an economy that would be the coup de grace for even China. Also, idiotic papers like this total joke show that climate science his heading for a revolution. Trump is going to make climate science great again, too.

German and Japanese industry are already beginning to invest in US and that is only the beginning. They may be convinced to build their new HQs in Detroit and other urban centres needing renewal. Trump is going to change the whole world because it will have to change.

The next election will be a landslide and, if the Dems don’t get it soon a Conservative dynasty will ensue for a generation while Dems are walking back to the right. I have been fairly good at seeing this kind of thing through ‘tells’. I predicted the next election based on whether the Dems would replace Nancy Pelosi with a young upstart. They chose to stay the NWO BO course and to grieve the loss to Trump for the next cycle. Trump is already campaigning AND giving life to the stock market.

March 21, 2017 6:11 am

Hmm…I eat cakes on the sofa in winter and fish with salad in summer before embarking on bracing hikes. Doesn’t quite chime somehow…

March 21, 2017 6:25 am

Demographic changes are leading to a dramatic increase in diabetes. link

We are getting older, our lifestyles are changing. Almost everything about the population is changing in a way that will increase diabetes.

If we try to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 we will create more impoverished people. Those with diabetes will be more likely to die. link

The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce diabetes, and deaths therefrom, is risible.

March 21, 2017 6:25 am

Breaking news: Living on Earth increases overall risk of developing diabetes.

March 21, 2017 6:31 am

Utter nonsense. Any phenomenon that showed a rising rate at the same time as measurable warming could be shown to correlate but it means nothing about causation. Perhaps a rising diabetes rate correlates with vast amounts of government money thrown at electric vehicles, windmills and solar arrays.

Rhoda R
Reply to  andrewpattullo
March 21, 2017 10:57 am

EBT cards.

March 21, 2017 6:32 am

I think this study is a holdover intended for the former intelligentsia at EPA for use in form-fit science alongside asthma. Grants don’t run out on the same day the numskull granting administrators leave office.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 22, 2017 12:28 am

” Resourceguy on March 21, 2017 at 6:32 am

I think this study is a holdover intended for the former intelligentsia at EPA for use in form-fit science alongside asthma.”

Or back to Doc Holliday’s pulmonary tuberculosis.

March 21, 2017 6:48 am

Btw… troe the medical mensa candidate predictics that warmer temps also correlate with higher incidences if heart disease, cancers, and death rates. My study would be conducted in Arizona and Florida. Idiots.

March 21, 2017 7:10 am

OH. for efffsss sake.I drink two beers and my blood sugar goes down to 4.7. Diabetic? NOT.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Justthinkin
March 22, 2017 2:14 am

Some ~4 years I had the chance to buy Cola Sirup / Cola Base in 2 ltrs bottles, to mix 1:10 with Soda.

Attached only sugar couleur because of the typical cola color.

One day in the store anything left on the shelf was some ‘children Cola Sirup’, of course heavy sugar loaded.

So I returned to beer based diary. Serves me well: after all beer is sugar / C6H12O6 without fructose.

March 21, 2017 7:17 am

A mind numbingly stupid report, based on terrible ignorance of the cause and effect of biochemistry in the body.

While sugar intake is a factor, a core driver of overweight, obesity, diabetes and cancer is George McGovern’s senate committee that created the first Us Govt food guidelines. It was written by the Labor Reporter for the Providence Journal, who was a political activist and a Vegan, who was against people eating meat. There was never any solid science behind the “low fat, high carbohydrate” diets that they pushed. The US govt then fubdef hundreds of millions of dollars in studies on the topic. But their research results didn’t support their pre-conceived political agendas, so they buried the results. Lots of parallels to modern climate data manipulation, for grants and political power via expanding government agencies and funding, while fooling the public.

Another key factor was Ancel Keyes’ 7 country study. He claimed that as saturated fat consumption went up, heart disease went up. Another zealous effort driven by agenda, not science. In reality, Keyes had studied over twenty countries. But taken all together, again the research did not support his agenda that saturated fat was bad. Per the 2015 US Govt Guidelines, they have finally reversed that nonsense. There is now no restriction on dietary intake of saturated fats. None! We need good fats in our diets.

The modern research shows the it is carbohydrate intake (sugar is just one type of carbohydrate) which turns into blood glucose i.e. Blood Sugar. A key problem is the triggering of the hormone Insulin, via high carbohydrate diets and high protein diets (excess protein also converts to blood glucose).

We now know that blood glucose is a “dirty” fuel. It’s use in the cell’s aerobic (with oxygen) energy production in the mitochondria, creates a flood of damaging free radicals that destroy tissues from within, including damage to our cell’s energy producing mitochondria, one if Einstein’s buddies Otto Warburg discovered the metabolism of cancer cells around 1923 and he was awarded the Nobel Prize around 1931. The Warburg Effect has had a resurgence, as modern research is further unlocking the pathway to why high carbohydrate and high protein diets produce destruction in our cell’s ability to produce energy with oxygen.

Net effect… US government guidelines that were not based in solid medical research, spread very harmful high carbohydrate, high protein diets around the world.

Further harming people were political extremist groups like Science in the Public Interest. Much like anti-Science Climate zealot groups today, they made tons of money off of spreading false claims, driven by scare-mongering attacks against fast food companies and processed food producers. Much like modern Climate demonization attack campaigns today, similar Left-wing groups were also attacking businesses with intense propaganda campaigns. They forced Fast Foid producers to drop enormously stable fats like palm and coconut oil in high temp cooking. Instead, those political groups and their friends in the left-wing media actually pushed the use of Trsns Fats, which are very bad for the body.

That is to say, the Left-wi g political groups and Left-wing media groups, along with their political allies like powerful Senator George McGovern, overthrust good diets and created one of the worst possible combinations of food consumption. Their political and funding driven extremism, which was not based in solid science research, likely created more unnecessary human deaths and more major human disease than any groups in US history.

High carbohydrate and high protein diets are now being directly linked to obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s (now being referred to as Type 3 Duabetes) Parkinson’s and other major human diseases, including the vast majority of cancers.

The Warburg Effect outlines the destruction of energy producing mitochondria in the cell’s, which is the mechanism that turns cell’s into the cancerous state. That destruction comes from high amounts of glucose, which is “dirty fuel” causing accumulated cellular destruction and metabolic decline. Lose the primary energy production in the cell’s and they lose the ability to be maintained properly. That metabolic decay is now being seen as the source of the launching point of most of our modern human diseases, that are not microbial based viral or bacterial caused diseases.

So, the horrifically stupid correlation study above, is very similar to the ignorance based, political power and funding driven actions, by organizations and politicians that created enormous human disease and early death.

Someday in the not too distant future, history will understand the corrupt Cabal of politicians, zealous special interest groups and their media allies, who have repeatedly used scare-tactics to drive political and funding objectives, that are once again not based in competent science and medical research.

The Scientific Method must be restored as the high ground of honest skeptical science reviews. The corrupt cabals of political zealots who prey on public ignorance and viciously attack good skeptical science, need to be exposed snd wherever possible, need to be have their power and funding diminished.

It is incredible and tragic how much death and disease the agenda-driven political and big government groups have inflicted upon the US and upon the world.

Reply to  Ben
March 21, 2017 7:43 am

Yikes. Lots of typos in that comment. Should have read through it for corrective edits before hitting send.

Hopefully those typos won’t distract from the importance of the information. Please look past the typos and seriously consider the basis for the comments. That is, support for the scientific method’s honest skeptical reviews, over agendas driven by political extremism, wasteful government spending, harmful government power and politically-driven media extremism.

In the end, solid research is unlocking new understandings about the core causes of multiple terrible human diseases. There appears to be a common core issue of metabolic dysfunction, created by destruction of our energy producing mitochondria. Hopefully the result will be solid food guidelines which can help vast numbers of people around the world, live healthier lives.

Interestingly, that is also the “secret” to vastly lower healthcare costs. It is far more cost-effective to avoid major diseases in the first place, via modern understanding of much less destructive eating habits. Modern research is linking with much older research to create eating guidelines that match how are bodies work, which run contrary to what we were told for decades by anti-science government and extremist political groups, driven by power and funding and not science.

(There are lots of parallels to the modern Climate extremism for political power and funding, while abandoning the scientific method.)

Reply to  Ben
March 21, 2017 9:05 am

So somehow the “new” research is true and the old stuff wrong? On what do you base that idea? The government is now feeding kids kale for lunches (which they dump in the trash) yet nothing changes. Maybe none of these research conclusions are true and we’re so far off from understanding nutrition and its affects as to be completely wrong with every study.

Reply to  Ben
March 21, 2017 8:12 am

Yep, wife and I were “pre-diabetic” until we caught on to the upside-down food pyramid pushed by ignorant, government funded, scientists and politicians.

Reply to  RH
March 21, 2017 3:30 pm

Carb blockers (actually starch blockers) make a low carb diet palatable.

Reply to  RH
March 21, 2017 3:46 pm

RH, I too have been a fan of Dr. Phinney and have watched many of his videos. It a shame that a condition like diabetes can be such a tragedy when the solution for many people is diet based. Sadly my sister in law has been in the hospital for three weeks fighting an infection in her foot caused by her diabetes. The accepted treatment is metformin, insulin and more insulin or other meds to reduce blood sugar. The sugar is taken out of the blood but has to go somewhere and this causes a host of terrible effects in the lower joint, eyes and kidneys. My sister looks like she will keep her foot but she will still be in the hospital for weeks loaded with antibiotics.

To lower blood sugar the sugar (carbs) you eat have to be reduced. For those severely affected there are few safe carbs aside from fibre filled vegetables and some fruit. Patients that have the gastric bypass operation often have their diabetes get better in a hurray and this is because they can’t physically eat enough to raise their sugar levels.

Along with Dr. Phinney, Dr, Peter Attia also has a number of videos addressing blood sugar levels. He was a champion marathon swimmer who suffered from insulin resistance which causes diabetes.

Dr Jason Fung from Toronto treats patients with controlled diets and has successfully reduced or eliminated medication for many. (Dr. Jason Fung) (Dr. Peter Attia)

If you like the videos they will lead to many more

Reply to  Ben
March 22, 2017 4:35 pm

Your body runs on glucose, dumbass.

March 21, 2017 7:23 am

All alarmists STAY INDOORS DO NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE. …well it’s a start.

March 21, 2017 7:24 am

When I was studying dentistry in the mid to late 70’s as well as dental topics we covered medicine and general surgery topics too. One day we had a lecture by a neurologist who told us that in the Northern Hemisphere the incidence of Multiple Sclerosis increased the higher the latitude, near the Equator it was almost unknown. He went on to add that there was no reliable data from the Southern Hemisphere to confirm if this was applicable there, but in the opposite direction and nobody knew why the disease was more prevalent the further north someone lived. Only recently it was discovered that a shortage of Vitamin D (produced by sunlight on human skin) was the cause. This was demonstrable by checking blood vitamin D levels in MS sufferers and comparing them to non-MS sufferers and it is fact that the sun shines more intensely the nearer you are to the Equator. This is good science, the junk science is when there are a whole host of variables such as minute to major exposure to temperature differences and also temperature tolerances between communities and individuals as there are in this case. Today’s Daily Telegraph spoke about this in sarcastic terms, telling its readers that if the lowered the temperature of their homes so they were actually shivering, they would burn an extra 400 calories per hour!

Ill-informed conjecture masquerading as science.

Reply to  andrewmharding
March 21, 2017 7:54 am

Well said andrewmharding. Thank you for your inputs.

Reply to  andrewmharding
March 21, 2017 10:48 am

vit D is also the common denominator for ‘excess winter deaths’.

March 21, 2017 7:26 am

I think there needs to be an award to the worst cause-&-effect correlation fallacy in science each year.

I nominate this study.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 21, 2017 8:10 am

Second that

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 21, 2017 9:06 am

How would you choose only one????

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 21, 2017 9:07 am

i wholeheartedly agree such a prize should exist!

H. D. Hoese
March 21, 2017 7:29 am

There is a little thing adding to the complexity. It is called genetics.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
March 21, 2017 8:23 am

As it turns out, the genetic theory of cancer has been largely turned on its ear. There are genetic factors in a smaller percentage of cases. Perhaps 5 to 7 percent, by some reviews.

However recent research into the genetics of tens of thousands of tumor cells, did not support the common belief of genetic origins, that had been predominate for decades. It was a huge surprise to the researchers. They found lots of genetic variations in tumors. But, their is no statistical basis for the genetic progression assumptions that have driven cancer research.

When they found that their genetic cancer theories were not supported by the enormous amount of research – They used the Astro-physics “fudge-factor” term “dark matter” to indicate that there is another core cause that precedes and dominates the cancers. That “dark matter” effect that is not genetic, is now considered to be the Warburg Effect.

The Warburg Effect is driven by metabolic disfunction, as the result of destruction and decay of energy producing mitochondria in the cells, linked to high carbohydrate/high protein diets. Environmental toxins are also being linked to metabolic disfunction.

The genetic variations in tumor cells are more randomly being generated by high amounts of free radical destruction in the nucleus, combined with the cells’ loss of energy to repair the genetic variations. That’s why there are lots of genetic variations in tumors. The genetic variations in tumor cells are now largely seen to be the EFFECT of metabolic disfunction. The metabolic disfunction is the root cause of the variations and root cause of the lack of repair when the genetic variations occur.

The good news is, that this ushers in a whole new world of research options and less harmful protocols in the prevention and treatment of cancer and other major diseases. Time will tell which options best optimize prevention and treatment strategies as we move forward.

What is needed now is government funding of combination strategies, not just single, isolated drug testing protocols that currently dominate. For those who have a cancer death sentence, we owe them our best research efforts with new combination therapies, which exploit the common metabolic disfunction found in virtually all cancer cells.

William Astley
March 21, 2017 7:41 am

The G.D. cult of CAGW will use any issue to push their propaganda. The type 2 diabetic epidemic has nothing to do with climate change.

Unbelievable, dangerous, super over consumption of refined sugar, fruit juice, and ‘processed’ grains as opposed to the consumption of whole grains, whole fruit, and vegetables is the cause of the type 2 diabetic epidemic.

It is a fact that now 30% of the new cases of type 2 diabetes in the US are in adolescences which is extraordinary as Type 2 diabetes was once a disease that occurred only among the middle aged and aged.
A doctor discussing the trend note that the US is set for a future epidemic of liver failure, blindness, limb amputation and so onto due to the extraordinary early onset of the type 2 diabetes.

Back of the envelope estimates show, that if no action is taken to address this problem, the entire current US budget will be required to ‘treat’ the complications of fatty liver ‘disease’.

How much G.D. refined sugar is put in processed food?

Refined Sugar Consumption Trends in the Past 300 Years:
• In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 2009, more than 50 percent of Americans consume 1/2 pound of sugar per day, which is 180 pounds of sugar per year (ten times more than the amount of sugar consumed in 1800).

In 1890, the obesity rate in the US for white males, age group 50′s only, was 3.4%.

In 1975, the obesity rate in the US of all population was 15%.

In 2009, 32% of Americans were obese.

In 1893, there were fewer than 3 diabetics per 100,000 people in US. Today, there are 8,000 diabetics per 100,000 people in US (roughly 1 in 10).

The role of fructose-enriched diets in mechanisms of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) currently affects 20%-30% of adults and 10% of children in industrialized countries, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Although NAFLD is a benign form of liver dysfunction, it can proceed to a more serious condition, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which may lead to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. NAFLD is accompanied by obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes mellitus, and evidence suggests that fructose, a major caloric sweetener in the diet, plays a significant role in its pathogenesis. Inflammatory progression to NASH is proposed to occur by a two-hit process. The first “hit” is hepatic fat accumulation owing to increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis, inhibition of fatty acid beta oxidation, impaired triglyceride clearance and decreased very-low-density lipoprotein export. The mechanisms of the second “hit” are still largely unknown, but recent studies suggest several possibilities, including inflammation caused by oxidative stress associated with lipid peroxidation, cytokine activation, nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species, and endogenous toxins of fructose metabolites.

March 21, 2017 7:51 am

At best, the study demonstrates its inability to find a clean correlation – South Carolina and Louisiana figures discredit the entire study results. Also the twofold difference between U.S. and global rates also discredits any claims made by the study. It should be obvious that the differences claimed are so tiny and the fact that little confidence can be placed upon them, should have led the authors of the study to seriously doubt any significant affect of temps on diabetes. If nothing else, the study shows that diabetes is largely or perhaps totally unaffected by temps and that natural experiments like these have left uncontrolled so many variables that they should not even be paid attention to in the absence of large correlations,and significant effects (NOT statistically significant effects, which depend heavilly upon sample size and which are often unrelated to actually significant effects). “Statistical significance” is widely misinterpreted by the statistically challenged as meaning “significant effects.” It does not mean that.

Dale S
March 21, 2017 7:55 am

It seems odd to me that the abstract reports the 0.314 per 1000 instead of the obesity adjusted 0.290. I appreciate they aren’t that different, but when you’ve done the analysis for a known co-founder, why not use that figure instead.

More curious to me is the information being concentrated on here — Table 1 shows the error bars for the effect of a 1C rise in temperature for each state analyzed, complete with confidence intervals that almost invariably include zero. But as the article states the change in annual mean varied from -0.11C (Minnesota) to +0.09C (Hawaii). The actual change was *far* less than the 1C being presented for the outliers. The actual temperature-change-related effect for extreme warmer Hawaii looks to be around 0.060 per 1000 and for extreme cooler Minnesota around 0.050 per 1000. These are very small effects.

But why look specifically for those small effects? The proposed mechanism for the effect is a sensitivity to actual *temperature*, not temperature change. There are *large* differences in mean temperature between the states, so if the causal mechanism is significant enough to detect increased diabetes from a tiny temperature differential, it should produce massive and obvious differences from a large temperature differential. Why not use age-and-obesity adjusted diabetes levels from each of the states and correlate them directly against temperature? As figure 2 shows, the difference in mean temperatures between states can be over 20C — why not pluck the low-hanging fruit and test for the effect of this *massive* change instead of trying to tease out a signal from changes of a tenth of a degree or less.

Speaking of figure 2, it states “As can be appreciated from this figure, the diabetes incidence rate increases in most states with higher mean annual temperature, while there is no apparent geographical pattern which could explain this association.” I’m not seeing that from the figure, which represents the diabetes incidence rate increases only by a limited set of circle sizes, with color (red/blue for increase/decrease) hard to see against the red/blue colored temperature background. The largest circles are in Lousiana (decrease), South Carolina (increase), Oregon (decrease) and South Dakota (increase). Yes, there’s no geographical pattern to those four states, but there’s certainly no relationship to higher mean temperature — and higher mean temperature *does* have *marked* geographical pattern. Broaden as I will, I’m still not seeing what they’re seeing. States south of the Mason-Dixon line seem pretty evenly distributed on figure one to me.

If diabetes is more likely with increased temperature, the possible implications from a theoretical 1C rise in the future are dwarfed by the substantial (and voluntary) population migration from colder to warmer states that has been going on for many decades now in this country. This somehow isn’t mentioned in the conclusions though it does take the time to mention “a new record set for the warmest winter in the USA last year.” Nothing in the article to that point mentioned seasonality being important.

Paul Penrose
March 21, 2017 8:04 am

Even the NIH says that weak correlations like this are meaningless unless there is a plausible biological mechanism posited to explain it (and there isn’t in this case). This is the worst kind of data-mining junk science. Clearly they were just hitching a ride on the CAGW gravy train. Just one more example why President Trump is right to derail it.

March 21, 2017 8:13 am

Then more people in Cuba would have diabetes than Minnesota…..right?


Steve in SC
March 21, 2017 8:28 am

Yea and Global Warming has caused a catastrophic shortage of Bulgarian prostitutes and an overabundance of German cats.

James at 48
March 21, 2017 8:31 am

Extra, extra! Read all about it!!! Killlllllllllerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ayyyyyyyyy ….. geeeeeeeee …. double youuuuuuuuuuu! Gives you diabetes!!!! Read all about it!

Stephen Richards
March 21, 2017 8:38 am

So diabetes is more prevalent in Kuwait, Saudi, and Southern India. Right?

March 21, 2017 8:41 am

Climate alarmist is framed around an all-encompassing garden of eden / catastrophic fall narrative. This fits into it.

Rich Lambert
March 21, 2017 8:47 am

I guess one could conclude from the study that to reduce the chance of diabetes you should lower the house thermostat a degree or two. .

Walt D.
Reply to  Rich Lambert
March 21, 2017 9:14 am

The only need to lower it 0.1C every 10 years.

March 21, 2017 8:55 am

Sorry for my idiot comment. No sarcasm please. The study pertain to GW not Temperature. So is the “Avarage of temperature” not the temperature it self that cause diabetes.
This are things that only “educated” alarmist can “see” and I’m not one of them. (need sarc label?).

March 21, 2017 8:57 am

While I have said this before, they have now truly jumped the shark!

This should become the classic example, used in university lectures, to demonstrate that correlation does NOT equal causation.

James at 48
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
March 21, 2017 10:09 am

OT … that has got to be the worst Photoshop I’ve ever seen.

Dodgy Geezer
March 21, 2017 9:30 am

I must admit I am confused.

The study claims that incidences of diabetes increase linearly with body temperature, but I can’t find any actual studies that show this. And I can’t see that slight variations in climate are the same as body temperature….

March 21, 2017 9:32 am

This is the same “best known method”
……that takes new borns
=> and puts them in isolation chambers
manipulated by automatons
(OK, it is people dressed up as automatons),
because they are “paid” to keep the babies alive…today.

The result is?
Who knows.
Pheromones impacting Gender bonding? Mate identification?
during the first day or two of post partum?
…..not known, not “important” to get paid.

But this practice started, big time, 70 years ago.
What “not usual” behaviors have we seen during the past 50 years
…. that have become rampant in the past 10?
……at least according to the propaganda from the “all knowing” urban clueless wonders.

And diabetes is almost exclusively in folk with BMI > 25.
But, they don’t get paid for that.
They “religiously believe” that it is due to the weather.

Mike Smith
March 21, 2017 9:34 am

So, the authors studied temperature and diabetes. They found very little correlation and absolutely no causation.

Nevertheless, they were able to construct a scary headline in support of the AGW fairy story.

Elliott Althouse
March 21, 2017 9:44 am

If increasing temperature had any effect on diabetes or any other disease, the incidence would perfectly correlate to the average temperature in that locale. There would be a big difference between Florida and Alaska, with all the other states aligned in between. The fact that the correlations are apparently a random order of states implies there is no possibility the conclusion of this study could be correct.

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2017 9:46 am

Climate definitely is the cause of bathtub rings, ring around the collar, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, among other things. Science.

Gary Pearse
March 21, 2017 9:59 am

A couple of years ago I made the politically incorrect observation that climate science was a manly pursuit (humanities bandwagoneers don’t count because they are dominantly women anyway, which tends to make my upcoming point). Of course, always a few exceptions. But since climategate, the numbers of female graduate students putting out puffy papers in this science has been growing rapidly as the output from the team has dropped off steeply (fear of Steve McIntyre? No longer able to work in the dark?). This paper is another slack-brained example.

I had a certified genius of a sister and a very smart mother so I didn’t get a chauvinist start that was the norm over 3/4 of a century ago. My early observation of the change in gender of climate science was actually a tongue in cheek piece, but the evidence of the change has gotten too obvious to ignore. Okay, so I think women are as smart as men, but it raises the old question long buried (shallowly perhaps) about women being too nurturing and emtional to be in politics and other once manly pursuits. One line of evidence supporting this is the recent advent of climate depression neurosis caused by the pause. Most of these appear to have been female victims.

By the time the US election was underway, I noted that HC, outside of constantly smearing Trump as a misogynist and noncaring selfish brute, was pushing the nurturing caring stuff- she was ‘for the children, refugees blah blah’ type of thing and the percentage of women that went for this was high compared to that of men.

Now, I recognize there were Golda Meier, Thatcher, Z. Bhutto, Maria Curie, Indira Gandhi, Judith Curry (a hero of mine) and many others but my science on this is definitely stronger than climate science itself. I believe the strides made by women are colossal, but the need is for more confidence so they can let go of the nurture anchor and forget about glass ceilings, what men do or don’t, etc.

March 21, 2017 10:11 am

Diabetes must have been really high in the 1930s when it was especially hot in the US, because more states set their (still) record high temperatures in that decade than in any other decade (even with all the “adjustments” making the 1930’s cooler).

March 21, 2017 10:12 am

The US data is highly suspect for any link to temperature to diabetes risk.

As the pristine USCRN data shows, there has been no warming on average in the USA in the past 10 years.

So, the diabetes increase is from some different cause.

March 21, 2017 10:31 am

I guess that when they say “diabetes” they mean type II diabetes mellitus, and not the early onset type I diabetes mellitus which is a autoimmune disease. It is not diabetes insipidus either, where the problem is with the hormone vasopressin.

If this is a scientific paper, they should have used the proper nomenclature. Is this paper supposed to be peer reviewed? It seems that nobody reviews articles any more.

Gerald Machnee
March 21, 2017 10:37 am

Diabetes started increasing long before the temperatures. Therefore diabetes is causing temperatures to increase as Temperatures cause CO2 to increase. Get rid of sugar and the temperatures will plummet. Did not those dough heads look at this?

March 21, 2017 11:17 am

I hope Trump stops the funding waste for these kinds of studies. End funding for these, PERIOD.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Catcracking
March 21, 2017 1:04 pm

Please not before I get my grant to study how CO2 is causing an increase in dietary iron intake, (or was it air conditioning? whatever …) comment image

Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 21, 2017 1:29 pm

No, it’s clearly dietary iron intake increasing CO2 concentrations ! … because iron lags CO2, as you will plainly see when you get your grant to do a higher resolution study.

Evan Jones
Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Or the other way around, perhaps? That’s actually not entirely impossible if there are some sort of systematic effects in play. Just sayin’. (Improved diet due to prosperity brought about by warmer climate? Or something?)

Reply to  The Original Mike M
April 1, 2017 10:11 am

Charlatan! Increased CO2 is caused by rising pork belly prices!

March 21, 2017 11:37 am

I guess we can blame the disappearance of diabetes on the widespread adoption of air conditioning in the late 20th century.

Walter Sobchak
March 21, 2017 11:42 am

Doctors with computers. They may know medicine. They may know biology. They don’t know statistics. They don’t know data.

Doctors with computers produce the ecological correlation fallacy.

Schrodinger's Cat
March 21, 2017 12:07 pm

I don’t plan to read the details of this study because it sounds like the usual climate junk. The dog is more likely to eat my child’s homework if there is global warming, that sort of thing.

One of the major factors for type two diabetes is ethnicity, with South Asians being 6 times more likely to develop the condition, Africans and Africa–Caribbeans 3 times more likely, American Indians 2.8 times more likely, Hispanic Americans more likely compared to white Americans.

I don’t know the distribution of these ethnic types by state, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that is what is being measured indirectly in this study.

March 21, 2017 12:12 pm

There are so many different variables in play here that they canot make the claims that they are making.

The Original Mike M
March 21, 2017 12:15 pm

This diabetes “study” can’t hold a correlation candle to Jo Ann’s plain as the nose on your face classic –

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 21, 2017 12:19 pm

Doctors with computers.

Evan Jones
Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 21, 2017 4:31 pm

It’s all the terrible damage done by AGW that forced the Post Office to raise its rate. All that increase in rain and snow and dead of night stuff. Therefore that graph supports the CAGW thesis.

(Now if there were just some way to hide that hump.)

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Evan Jones
March 22, 2017 12:07 pm

Phil, does you brother Evan know you are posting under his name?

Evan Jones
Reply to  Evan Jones
March 22, 2017 4:43 pm

Humps are inconvenient. Best kept hidden.

March 21, 2017 12:58 pm

I always like going south. Somehow… it feels like going.. down hill burarum.
comment image?w=500

March 21, 2017 2:51 pm

Global Warming / Climate Change also cause early onset Dementia. You can see it in the postings of the Warmistas.

Barbara Skolaut
March 21, 2017 3:30 pm

Good grief – whotta crocka sh!t. These clowns are insane.

Evan Jones
March 21, 2017 4:26 pm

They find a correlation between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 5000 increase in diabetes per 1C warming. Less so for glucose intolerance. And their conclusion is: Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.

Say, what?

I didn’t notice the word “teeny-weeny” in there anywhere. (Maybe I missed it; I’ll go through it again.)

March 21, 2017 5:30 pm


Incidence of Type 1 and 2 diabetes in 20 to 79 year olds in Benin [quite warm] 0.8%, In Saudi Arabia [also quite warm] 20%.
In Madagascar 4.4% and in not so far away Mauritius 22%.

International Diabetes Federation statistics show that the lowest diabetes rates are in warm countries, mostly in Africa [].

Genetics no doubt plays a part in your chance of developing diabetes but lifestyle / obesity might have something [a lot?] to do with it.

The Blauw and others paper is part of an approach to blame factors other than personal for all ills.
It’s not my fault, temperature is to blame.


March 21, 2017 5:53 pm

What they have shown is that Urban Heat Island causes a rise in Diabetes. Which is reasonable when you think about it. People who live in high density housing do less moderate exercise like gardening, which is known to reduce the risk of diabetes. They are also more likely to eat fast or takeout food as it is more available than in lower density housing areas.

Reply to  Philip Bradley
March 21, 2017 6:05 pm

I was using a bit of literary license. Increasing urbanisation and urban density will cause both UHI and increasing diabetes.

March 21, 2017 6:09 pm

I think people with diabetes have poor cold tolerance so they move to Florida.

Doesn’t that make more sense?

March 21, 2017 6:11 pm

Ok, fine. I agree that there is more diabetes in warmer climes. But this has nothing whatsover to do with a hypothetical global warming. Leave such hypotheticals out of your paper which is not a treatise on global warming.

March 21, 2017 7:43 pm

Just when you think there’s no more correlations to be made associated with AGW.

March 21, 2017 9:19 pm

An example of an utterly discredited form of epidemiology, the “ecological study”. Any secular trend whatsoever can be claimed as having been caused by climate warming. The same claim could be made for the number of types of pizza available in high street pizzarias, the quality of computer animation in cinema and the number of recognised olympic sports. All driven by climate change.

To even approach credibility the authors would need to study periods of temperature stasis and declining temperatures, and demonstrate correlative trends in diabetes. But with all climate datasets in the hands of rabid AGW activists, “the only way is up” for recorded temperatures regardless of real world climate. Climate science is dead.

March 21, 2017 10:16 pm

Arctic circle inhabitants didn’t have type II diabetes at the end of 1800’s.

I doubt it’s the case now in South Sudan either

No one wants to live in misery, except CACA movement for everyone else. Evidence is mounting.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
March 21, 2017 10:17 pm

I think there is some factor-interaction that is not being accounted for in this study…

Duke Silver
March 22, 2017 5:39 am

Not a particularly hard equation here. As we warm we have more food. More food (predominantly carbs from wheat) means increased blood sugar levels and eventually pancreatic exhaustion (inability to produce insulin) or insulin resistance. Voila – you have your diabetes “epidemic”. Not a true epidemic, of course, because it’s caused by poor habits. Answer – eat vegetables, meat and fruits only. Stay the hell away from the grass seeds.

March 22, 2017 9:06 am

Deporting Illegal aliens will lower the rate of diabetes here in America more than anything else.

I have always found it curious that the area that sugarcane comes from and with the highest concentration of sugary fruits has the people most prone to diabetes.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 22, 2017 3:21 pm

Find anything that might be harmfull. Then connect it to climate change, and all is singing and dancing.
It could not be so difficult to find some connection. All is possible.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
March 23, 2017 12:25 pm
Caligula Jones
March 23, 2017 12:18 pm

But…but…Chelsea CLINTON has tweeted about this! It MUST be true!!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights