More wailing over Trump’s killing Obama’s overreaching climate regs – this time the doctors weigh in

From the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS and the “how do people survive the climate change when they move from New York to Miami?” department, comes this warning that has all these deaths attached to the press release. As I said about a similar press release wailing about potential excess deaths earlier today, show me death certificates that puts climate change as the cause.

ACP decries devastating impact of climate change order

Washington (March 28, 2017) President Trump’s executive order on climate change will have a devastating impact on public health, said the American College of Physicians (ACP) today. President Trump signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to roll back the major ways that the U.S. is combatting air pollution.

“Today’s executive order moves us in the wrong direction on this issue,” said Nitin S. Damle, MD, MS, MACP, ACP President. “It signals a retreat from our nation’s efforts to curb carbon emissions and address climate change. Climate change is a problem we should be attacking aggressively on a global level.”

In a 2016 paper, Climate Change and Health, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, ACP outlined the negative consequences that climate change will have on public and individual health. The paper cited higher rates of respiratory and heat-related illnesses, increased prevalence of diseases passed by insects, water-borne diseases, food and water insecurity and malnutrition, and behavioral health problems as potential health effects of climate change. The elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable.

The executive order specifically directs the EPA to rewrite, and presumably, loosen the standards set forth in the Clean Power Plan. As cited in ACP’s paper, implementing the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. would avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days.

“Climate change is real, is largely the result of human activity, and is affecting our health now. ACP is very concerned about the harmful health effects that climate change is having on our patients,” continued Dr. Damle. “We need to take action now to protect the health of our community’s most vulnerable members — including our children, our seniors, people with chronic illnesses, and the poor — because our climate is already changing and people are already being harmed.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 28, 2017 9:04 pm

Obama and John Holdren purposefully built a massive climate change gravy train over 8 years. A dependency not unlike the opoid epidemic.

Ending that climate money teet sucking will not come without a lot of whining from the teet suckers.
That includes Physicians with climate-sounding research grants seeing “their” money redirected to defense and the Wall.

Maybe they shouldn’t have bet everything on a “should be a felon” for their Presidential candidate last year?

Reply to  joelobryan
March 28, 2017 9:54 pm

COLD WEATHER KILLS MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN HOT WEATHER. This trend is true in cold and also in warmer climates.

Excess Winter Mortality is the number of people who die in the four Winter months, as compared to the 4-month average for the non-Winter months.

Excess Winter Mortality globally is about 2 million people per year, including about 100,000 per year in the USA and up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom. Excess Winter Mortality rates are high even in warm countries like Australia.

Paradoxically, rates of Excess Winter Mortality are sometimes greater in warmer climates than in cold ones, probably because people in cold climates adapt better to cold weather.

Sensible governments encourage practices that reduce Winter Mortality, such as cheap energy, central heating, good home insulation, and free flu shots.

When governments foolishly adopt costly green energy programs. they drive up Winter Mortality – real people die in increasing numbers due to doctrinaire government incompetence..

A common-sense approach for governments would be to encourage cheap energy policies, not to drive up energy costs and winter mortality rates. Governments that drive up energy costs to “fight (fictional) global warming” are following imbecilic polices that preferentially kill off the elderly and the poor.

How is this related to influenza? The flu is a major contributor to Winter Mortality. Greater and lesser flu’s are a chronic seasonal threat to all societies. Governments that adopt imbecilic policies that drive up energy costs and increase deaths from influenza are incompetent governments that should be defeated.

That includes most federal governments in Western Europe, Canada and the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta, Australia and some of its States, etc.. Governments in the United Kingdom and the United States recently were changed and adopted sensible energy polices, after years of delusional green energy nonsense.

Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

When imbecilic politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.

Regards, Allan

Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 28, 2017 10:06 pm

The best part is the climate bedwetters have taken to heavy drinking to allviate their psychiatric condition related to TDS.

Marc Morano relates this on his Climate Depot site about Gina McCarthy interview with Politico:

““The approach they’re taking is really a slash-and-burn approach,” she told POLITICO.
“I really honestly don’t know what dragon they’re trying to slay here,” McCarthy added. “I really don’t. If they’re saying EPA has done something illegal, then let the courts decide that. If they think that EPA is anti-economy, then show me some data that shows that.”
McCarthy, who returned to her native Boston after the White House handover, admitted that she has turned to one of her city’s tried-and-true methods of coping with frustration: “We drink a lot of coffee during the day and other things at night. And night comes earlier and earlier.”

Drink heavily Gina … and might I suggest a handfull of Xanax pills with that? Sleep well.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 28, 2017 10:11 pm

“Paradoxically, rates of Excess Winter Mortality are sometimes greater in warmer climates than in cold ones, probably because people in cold climates adapt better to cold weather.”

paradox falsifies the paradigm.
maybe it’s really vitamin D deficiency.
cuz it sure ain’t cold.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 3:27 am

Gnomish – if I understand your comments, then you’ve got it wrong. Read the paper.

Adaptation and low energy costs are the keys to lower winter mortality.

Countries that drive up energy costs due to nonsensical green energy policies also increase winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

The numbers are huge – Excess Winter Mortality in the USA is about 100,000 per year. That is equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 14 weeks every year.

Maybe you should nuke Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 5:36 am

Since the liberal agenda seems to be to kill off the poor after milking them for votes their energy policies seem to make perfect sense.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 6:49 am

“Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society”

So true and the COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS might also note the increased life expectancy due to warmer weather as well.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 3:43 pm

“Adaptation and low energy costs are the keys to lower winter mortality.”
nice narrative – got any substance? i really looked and found none.
that’s why i say it’s not a winning talking point for the argument because it’s not substantiated by facts.
it can stymie a noob- much like the claim of 97% consensus does – but do examine the causes of death and find out it’s NOT cold (which you have already observed in the warm country statistics but disregarded)
the individuals who die in winter are mostly old and infirm who can’t tolerate much stress no matter where it comes from and they die of ailments. temperature is not an ailment and is not a vector of any diseases.
correlation is not causation and excess winter deaths happen everywhere away from the equator.
the case for vit D deficiency is stronger, imo.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 6:44 pm

Canadian Medical Association, CMA Policy

‘Climate Change and Human Health’, 2010, 5 pages.


“Climate change is increasingly recognized as a significant threat facing society and has the potential to be one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st century.”

PDF at:

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 29, 2017 8:48 pm


CMAJ, Sept.22, 2015

‘Doctors call for divestment from fossil fuels’

“Recently, climate change has been framed as a health issue.”

Article has links to more information on this topic.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 30, 2017 6:16 pm

gnomish – I repeat – read our paper AND read the references, especially the Lancet paper.

Then you might actually start having some hard information with which to form your opinions.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
March 30, 2017 8:52 pm

Canadian Medical Association

Resolutions Adopted (Confirmed), Aug.24-26, 2015 – Halifax, NS

P.4, No.49:

“The Canadian Medical Association will promote the health benefits of a strong, predictable price on carbon emissions. (DM 5-21).”

P.7, Nos.81-83:

Re: Fossil fuel divestment and reinvestment.

Reply to  joelobryan
March 28, 2017 10:14 pm

Remind me to check on my physicians political beliefs re climate change. I dont think these people portrayed in this post would be reliable enough to remove my or anyones appendix competently or at the right time.



Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  rogerthesurf
March 29, 2017 3:40 am

Yeah, when I worked in hospitals they used to tell me that the ones who weren’t good enough to treat patients went into medical administration. Nowdays, there is obviously a category of doctor who is even worse and he or she goes into…climate change alarmism.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
March 29, 2017 8:21 am

That “paper” as usual is pure speculative fiction, or as we used to call it back in the day, SciFi. Anyone can “predict” anything with the usual Malthusian gloom, but it’s no better than the similarly “scientific” output of a Ouija board. And I second the above, “physicians” (mostly drug pushers, these days) are NOT meteorologists!

Warren Latham
Reply to  joelobryan
March 29, 2017 1:58 am

+ millions

… and very well put.

Reply to  joelobryan
March 29, 2017 5:07 pm

The entire climate change fraud has done serious damage to scientific credibility. The SCOTUS has ruled the CPP to be unconstitutional as it subverts the will of the Congress. The EPA needs to have a complete re-staffing and be forced to obey the original mission statement set out by Congress and the President. All the current employees are corrupted and should not be on the Government payroll. Physicians beware of playing in the La Brea tar-pits of far-left agenda politics.

Henry chance
Reply to  joelobryan
March 29, 2017 8:26 pm

In a modern hospital surgery that have an anesthesia machine. They can give drugs, Oxygen etc.

The most common brand of equipment is made by Ohio Scientific. They of course now monitor blood gases. On a machine is a canister of CO2. Your increase in blood CO2 causes your pulse rate to rise. If you are given pure O2, you will have problems. Yes they give you CO2.

Louis LeBlanc
March 28, 2017 9:07 pm

Almost unbelievable, but apparently some doctors will say anything they think sounds compassionate.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
March 28, 2017 9:17 pm

A corollary to a well-known aphorism: “Those who can, do. Those who cannot, head up professional associations.”

I would not let one of the “doctors” that lead the ACP, the AMA, or any of those organizations touch me – I don’t have a suicidal personality.

Reply to  Writing Observer
March 29, 2017 3:17 am

I often wonder if these chaps have access to information denied to the rest of us. I say that because the actual stuff we get to see is unconvincing at best and downright twisted most of the time.

What is it they see that makes them so sure but looks so false to us/

Reply to  Keitho
March 29, 2017 10:50 am

First temptation here is to hammer you (sorry, not enough caffeine in the system, I get cranky).

Second thought in reality, though – their bank balances and stock portfolios are information, which they have access to, and we do not.

So you are quite correct.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
March 29, 2017 4:26 am

I notice that as a group, doctors are well paid. However, their concern for the environment and so-called carbon “pollution” seems to fall by the wayside when it comes to their own lifestyles. I haven’t seen a doctor making a house call in a horse-drawn carriage lately. (Oh wait! I forgot. They don’t make house calls any more.)

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
March 29, 2017 8:24 am

Remember: Doctors are card-carrying members of the Deep Blue Bubble of the Upper Middle Class. You have only to see the titles of magazines in their waiting rooms; the Atlantic, the New Yorker, NatGeo etc.
Of COURSE they’re going to fall in line with that ol’ time “consensus.” BTW, they practice medicine by “consensus,” too–still pushing the nonsense of low-fat diets, low salt, etc. in the face of contra-indicating biological, empirical, reproducible, evidence. And so it goes . . .

Rhoda R
Reply to  Goldrider
March 29, 2017 1:03 pm

Depends on the doctor. Mine isn’t in love with Government interference and isn’t enamored with much the SJWs have to offer either so I suspect that he’s not a fan of AGW either.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
March 29, 2017 11:24 am

I wonder if these people are on the list Delingpole writes about in this article the other day . It is a stunning description of what the EPA has become!

Gary Pearse
March 28, 2017 9:10 pm

I do believe we will be seeing a lot of psychosomatic illnesses arise. Remember the ”Pause” in temperature rise caused Climate Change Blues, although most of them were women climate scientists in Australia I believe. Trashing CC has got to be worse than the Pause. One thing, it will cause poverty among climate scientists – hundreds of thousands of them who administer a simple linear equation that needs only one climate scientist to do anyway. And of course the climate laity will be losing its entitlements. The rent a mob business will provide employment for some of them for awhile. Yeah, there is going to be a lot of illness before all this hysteria dissipates.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 29, 2017 12:48 am

Wailing and gnashing of teeth on a Biblical scale . . to hear them tell it ; )

Pop Piasa
Reply to  JohnKnight
March 29, 2017 4:44 pm

Speaking of Biblical, I wonder when the clergy is going to step in and bash Trump as a “globe-trashing heretic” or “pawn of the rich”. The prog’s will need to cover all the bases while protesting reality.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 29, 2017 8:27 am

On the subject of psychosomatic illnesses: I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, met an immigrant landscaper (and these guys work outdoors in all weather, like slaves) with a case of “Chronic Lyme,” or “Fibromyalgia,” or “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Not. Ever. Funny how those only seem to stick to genteel rich ladies with time on their manicured hands to worry themselves sick about things like “climate change!”

Reply to  Goldrider
March 29, 2017 11:26 am

Golsrider, We didn’t have time to become sick or take time off to be sick.( But we do pay the price as we get older).

Reply to  Goldrider
March 29, 2017 11:26 am

That’s because immigrant landscapers and outdoor laborers don’t demand their aches and pains be given a name and declared a disease. They KNOW they are going to hurt and why. Sedentary people and those of the fairer sex demand to be told the have a “disease” and a named one at that.

Cold in Wisconsin
March 28, 2017 9:11 pm

In our area (Sougheastern Wisconsin, just Downwind of the Chicago smog pipe) the most significant air quality issue in summer is Ozone. How does CO2 affect that parameter? The Ozone levels are SO much better than when I was growing up. Air quality has definitely improved, even as the temperature has increased. How can that be???

Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
March 28, 2017 9:22 pm

Cleaning up real pollutants like combustion side-products of nitrates and sulphur are the reason for improved near surface ozone decreases. Good policies based on 70s-80s science.

The EPA over the last 20 years got off onto the carbon pollution scam under the Clinton-Gore regime.
OBAMA-Biden took the fake carbon pollution scam to new levels.

Reply to  joelobryan
March 29, 2017 8:29 am

We need to keep Messrs. Trump and Pruitt on that theme–pound the truth in the press as loud, strong and often as the Left pounded the CO2 lie.

March 28, 2017 9:18 pm

What is and has been killing people is the money these warmist fanatics have taken out of the worlds economy, that could have been used for the real good of the planet and mankind!

Reply to  TG
March 28, 2017 10:15 pm

Hear hear!

Reply to  TG
March 29, 2017 1:32 pm

TG, what so many folks ignore or can’t comprehend is this: only the individual who earns the money, creates the jobs, and serves his own best interest as he sees fit can accomplish this. Individual liberty and voluntary association are the only “real good of the planet and mankind.” What people too often call that “good” is instead built on and carried out with theft, force and fraud; the lie these politicians and “scientists” are pushing. It is incredible to me that so few people seem to see and understand the mass of false altruism and fraud that masquerades as compassion for the poor and concern for “the planet.”

And the miracle is that vast numbers of people in the world are finding a better, cleaner life in spite of the lies and theft. Just think what might happen if everyone rejected trying to control the lives of others – whatever motive drives them to do so now.

March 28, 2017 9:35 pm

On trump’s executive order, CNN has been quoting climate alarmists and the need to de-carbonize the economy. At least the pictures accompanying the article are correct in showing the cooling towers. Water is responsible for climate than carbon dioxide. Yes, a person is a scientist if he believes on AGW even if the person could not differentiate colorless carbon dioxide from water vapor.

Kaiser Derden
March 28, 2017 9:52 pm

rico these jerks as the frauds they are …

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
March 30, 2017 9:07 am

Professional medical groups/associations had to be brought on board the climate change bandwagon.

Lance Wallace
March 28, 2017 9:52 pm

Anthony, you do realize do you not that carbon DOES appear on death certificates. When I was at EPA studying air pollution, we used to say that only one of EPA’s six “criteria” pollutants ever appeared on death certificates: CO.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 29, 2017 4:40 am

and would that really have been carbon monoxide from suicide by tailpipe?

March 28, 2017 10:03 pm

The third largest killer of people in the US is doctors. Why would I pay the slightest attention to that crowd?

Reply to  Alex
March 28, 2017 10:17 pm

What or who is number one or two?



Reply to  rogerthesurf
March 28, 2017 11:35 pm

My wife researches that kind of stuff. She said heart disease followed by cancer. I discovered a new word ‘iatrogenic’.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
March 29, 2017 4:15 am

Actually water coolers kill more people than doctors. Check it out there are water coolers in all hospitals and less water coolers than doctors hence the water coolers have a higher cide rating.

Reply to  Alex
March 29, 2017 4:43 am

Alex while your’e on a learning curve..look up how many of the meds prescribed actually have more chance of killing you than the “illness” they gave them to you for
since i learnt to read the real data and assess the actual worth n safety
i pretty much stopped using pharmas except for when i am seriously ill..and even then very very carefully. after research.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 29, 2017 6:45 am

Drugs can be a expanding circle where one keeps getting another medication to offset the ill effects of the previous medication, With older folks this can get out of control pretty quickly. So yes good advice, pharma can have great benefit, but avoid it if you possibly can.

Reply to  Alex
March 29, 2017 11:28 am

You might want to if someday you have a car accident and you need one to repair your punctured aorta and massive infection that follows. Or just go home and take your chances away from those killer doctors. I hear medicine men can actually still be had.

Steve Lohr
March 28, 2017 10:03 pm

Good grief!! My only hope is that the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and screaming bloody murder will become a caricature of complete imbecility. Will they give us no peace?!!!

Reply to  Steve Lohr
March 29, 2017 8:32 am

Most of this country is smart enough to know they have “peace” the minute they shut off the MSM and go outside. They can see with their own eyes and feel with their own skin what the weather is doing, unlike the loons who inhabit houses of media mirrors on the sterile coasts. Why do you think Trump got elected?

Reply to  Steve Lohr
March 29, 2017 3:11 pm

Probably not for a while.

Keith J
March 28, 2017 10:20 pm

Plants don’t grow well in freezing weather.

Ed Bo
March 28, 2017 10:31 pm

We obviously must forbid our frail old folk from retiring to Florida and Arizona — for their own good!

Reply to  Ed Bo
March 29, 2017 12:41 am


The Canadians who migrate to Florida for the winter have a higher mortality rate than the general rate for Canadians. The mortality rate for Canadians generally is around seven deaths per thousand per year. For the snowbird population it can exceed twenty. The snowbirds are dying three times as fast as the general rate for Canadians.

LOL You can prove anything with statistics. link

Tom in Florida
Reply to  commieBob
March 29, 2017 4:57 am

It’s probably how Canada controls health care costs for the elderly. Send them to Florida to die.

Reply to  commieBob
March 29, 2017 7:24 am

Maybe it’s all the head injuries.

March 28, 2017 10:47 pm

Establishment physician groups have long been pushing anti American programs – civilian disarmament, sovietization of medicine, various restrictions, medicalization of life, and … CAGW.

I recently got an earful from one of my MD college roommates about the CAGW “crisis”. Was wondering where it was coming from, although I still half suspect our university, too.

Reply to  mike
March 29, 2017 3:10 am

They need to have a chat with the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. They’re a lot more down to earth.

michael hart
Reply to  4TimesAYear
March 29, 2017 5:56 am

Yes. I’ve watched some of those Doctors for Disaster Preparedness talks when they are being addressed by speakers like Tony Heller and Richard Lindzen. The audiences usually seemed sensible, well informed, and not presenting any symptoms of climate hysteria.

March 28, 2017 10:52 pm

Apparently, the Endangerment rule categorising CO2 as a pollutant to be controlled was NOT repealed by this order.

Reply to  nipfan
March 29, 2017 6:37 am

The endangerment ruling is not subject to presidential orders.

Reply to  nipfan
March 31, 2017 10:37 am

Doesn’t matter. The “Endangerment Finding” doesn’t mean that money or controls have to be applied to it, only that they could be.

March 28, 2017 10:56 pm

The standard response of Warmistas, when pooh-hooing non-climate “scientists”, is to advise that if you are sick, visit a doctor. If you want climate advice, ask climate “scientist”.

Reply to  davesivyer
March 29, 2017 5:52 am

Liberals love to appeal to athority, until you find an authority that has facts and doesn’t agree with their religious mantra.

Reply to  davesivyer
March 29, 2017 6:36 am

My response is, If you are sick I would not recommend visiting a quack. As far as climate, it has not asked any climate scientist for advice. Seems to be doing fine on it’s own.

Doc Chuck
March 28, 2017 11:39 pm

Spokesmen for my colleagues have long found irresistible portentous virtue signaling over collective matters outside their expertise which purport some relation to the “health” of the public, despite every enthusiasm for evidence-based measures in their own practices. Go figure!

Chris Hanley
March 28, 2017 11:47 pm
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 29, 2017 5:53 am

Nice one!

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 29, 2017 6:40 am

I think world nations have to immediately schedule another Paris summit (with plenty of food, drink and escort services of course) and demand all countries increase CO2 output or suffer a “Not Enough CO2” tax.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 29, 2017 7:48 am

I am still laughing.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
March 28, 2017 11:48 pm

“In a 2016 paper, Climate Change and Health, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, ACP outlined the negative consequences that climate change will have on public and individual health. The paper cited higher rates of respiratory and heat-related illnesses, increased prevalence of diseases passed by insects, water-borne diseases, food and water insecurity and malnutrition, and behavioral health problems as potential health effects of climate change. The elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable.” — All these are hypothetical-stereotype statements.

First foremost part is: they must tell the readers what they meant by climate change? Are they talking global warming or urban heat island effect or natural variation?

Droughts and floods and heat and cold waves are part of natural variability. They are modified at local and regional scales through modifying climate system — ecological changes. Let me present a case of 1970’s wherein wheat from Mexico was imported in to India under PL-480 programme. This carried with it a weed, namely Parthanium [local name Congress Grass]. This weed spread like a wild fire both in urban and rural areas. The spores caused Asthma.

Urban areas with air pollution [not carbon dioxide] and with urban heat island effect steadily raised the chest diseases. more particularly among children and elders. —— etc

We must question the authors publishing the impact of climate change, what they meant by climate change? So far global warming has not reached a level that influence nature. Even journals must ask the authors to specify what they meant by climate change?

I used to participate TV discussions with Doctors on such issues and I questioned them but they have no answers.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
March 29, 2017 1:21 am

Very well written

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
March 29, 2017 6:57 pm

As we really know,there are two types of “climate change”. The first has always been happening and probably always will. It is probably due mostly to the sun, but the cause is open to discussion. The second, the “man-made” kind, is largely or entirely due to the output of computer “models”.. As anyone who knows anything about programming computers can tell you, programs can be arranged to show whatever you want them to show.

Chuck Wiese
March 29, 2017 12:00 am

Expect the screaming to become louder and more hysterical when the Trump Administration ends the “meals on wheels’ federal funding to the well fed climate establishment that is used to only the best for producing the least, misleading the public along the way. Ending the attitude of entitlement never ends without a nasty fight to those who were on a gravy train.

But this chain of dependence must be broken. The perps could care less about what they are doing to the public to get those meals, from academia to special interests like this.

Reply to  Chuck Wiese
March 29, 2017 6:30 am

Actually, Meals on Wheels is now on track to having a banner year for donations from private citizens, corporations and foundations…

Thanks to the Fake News Media. The MOW kitchen where I volunteer just had a 25% uptick in donations.

Dare I say…yeah for Fake News hysteria!! Keep up the good work; there are a lot of non-profits that could use some fake news hysteria.

Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
March 29, 2017 11:37 am

Stark, please correct me if I am wrong but the hysteria was crazy and I guess beneficial to boot. I read somewhere the government actually only supported MOW with $250,000? (Trump’s salary could pay for that, you know the one that he is not taking?)

Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
March 29, 2017 3:16 pm

Don’t say that too often or people will figure out they can actually exist without government handouts.

March 29, 2017 12:02 am

because our climate is already changing and people are already being harmed

This statement is really making the rounds. It has been all over the popular press lately.
I would love to pin these people down. Exactly what part of the climate has changed, in what way, by how much?
Exactly how many people are being harmed, in what way, and by what, exactly?

Reply to  TonyL
March 29, 2017 6:33 am

This is how “people being harmed” is done. Health problems vary over time, for example malnutrition. So just hunt for some health problem that has increased recently and blame Global warming. Voila done. Simple as 1,2,3 we have a Climate Change health crisis.

Even though CO2 alarmists like to disregard the past, I would invite them to visit the ice ages to see humans being harmed. And also to move their vacation homes to Alaska as a hedge against impending global warming doom.

March 29, 2017 12:46 am

“Climate change is a problem we should be attacking aggressively on a global level.” Well, yes – that’s been done thoroughly for some time. What about a Scientific approach?

Robert from oz
March 29, 2017 12:46 am

I know this is a little bit OT but hoping you wise Americans can help me with this .
Apparently here in OZ , unreliable and secure are the same thing !,-reliability-issues-after-hazelwood/8397696

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 29, 2017 12:48 am

The best ever definition of an alcoholic= Someone who drinks more than their doctor.

Gina, sweetness, why are you drinking so much coffee?
Let me guess: To wake yourself up, to ‘feel better’ and to be bright and alert?
So I then ask, why were you ‘asleep’.
Why do you endure such a bitter and strong tasting stuff so as to feel better? Why were you feeling ‘bad’ in the first place?
I suggest its because you eat so much sugar in the form of carbohydrate food.

But it goes full circle, Positive Feedback at its most delicious.
Doctors say we need to eat carbs “to get energy” – from glucose basically.
Little do they say that glucose is quite toxic to animal cells. They never say we can internally make enough glucose, on demand, by slicing up fat molecules. As we evolved to do.

And so, in a panic stricken (the over-active startle response of chronic depressives) and the childish naivete of minds & brains that are always half asleep that builds windmills, solar panels and Ivanpah we stagger ever onwards towards oblivion – sure in the knowledge we are the smartest critters that ever lived. We know that last bit because everyone else always tell us so – there is no independent evidence or witness to the fact.
Meanwhile, we can’t even mange a puddle of water that we ourselves created.
(Oroville for the depressives who’ve forgotten already)

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 29, 2017 8:39 am

It’s by watching the wisdom of the critters in my back acres that I know we sure AREN’T the smartest. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the horses, deer and wild turkeys shook themselves off, looked around, and went right back to work on the pastures. People? “OMG, everything below 34th St. is flooded, the subways aren’t running, the power is down, O the HUMANITY, what’ll we DOOOOOO . . . ” The critters just winked!

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 29, 2017 11:48 am

Gluconeogenesis, in humans, ‘burns’ amino acids, not fatty acids, to make the glucose. Glucose in its usual extracellular fluid amounts is *not* toxic to cells. Some cells, such as neurons and chondrocytes and red blood cells, primarily or solely, use the Krebs cycle for cellular energy needs. About 4/5 days of starvation are needed to switch neurons over to fat burning, and that isn’t necessarily good for them.

Glucose requires a transporter to get into cells. Fructose doesn’t, at least not to the same extent. Humans easily convert fructose into glucose, usually.

Ever had hypoglycemia? Yes or No? It isn’t a good state to be in. Same with hyperglycemia, or hundreds of other too low/too high states; where the distance away from optional represents the health risk.

That said, physicians are human too, so they are just as susceptible to the madness of crowds as the rest are. They do, though, have reality to deal with, unlike some other professions that I know of.

Reply to  cdquarles
March 29, 2017 3:37 pm

Being diabetic, I have gotten down to 23 mg/dl blood sugar (1.27 mmol/l). You DO NOT want to go there. Many diabetics die from low blood sugar. It was one reason for the increased research into an artificial pancreas that had both insulin and glucagon. In spite of people despising carbs (and dozens of other unscientific ideas) they are necessary. Protein does not raise blood sugar if you are really low. Glucogon may kick in for nondiabetics and help.
It’s so discouraging to read people dissing anything they personally have found as their new raison d’être to condemn society for. Constant cursing of doctors and sugar and medications is no better than the global warming believers.

Reply to  cdquarles
March 30, 2017 7:52 am

Indeed. I’ve had mild hypoglycemia (from fasting) and I’ve seen someone need intervention from serious hypoglycemia. It is not a pretty sight.

Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 12:59 am

From the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS and the “how do people survive the climate change when they move from New York to Miami?” department,

similar the PIK, the Potsdam Institute of Klimatology, “how do Norwegians come south of Cologne for skiing in the alpes, without having to deal with extreme storm floods.” department,

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 11:48 am

I wonder what the “College of Physicians” actually is. Is it it College where they learn to be “Physicians” It sure sounds Grand doesn’t it? From what I can see there isn’t much “learning ” going on, looks more like a “Safe” place every day, pathetic.

Martin A
March 29, 2017 1:00 am

I think there is far too much premature optimism being displayed here.

President Trump is just a minor hiccup in the progress of the Great Global Warming Religion.

In 1000 years from now we will still be praying to Saint Mann and Saint Hansen to save us from the demons of Beegoyl and Seeodoo. The fact that climate catastrophe has never happened will be taken as proof of the necessity for the sacrifices that will been made.

Reply to  Martin A
March 29, 2017 3:38 pm

Or some new demon we need to be saved from.

Roger Knights
March 29, 2017 1:12 am

The average contiguous US temperature has only risen a little in recent decades—less than one degree F, and that mostly at night—so how can it already be affecting health here?

Obama’s programs would only moderate future global temperature rises by less than a half a degree or so, so how can a half a degree affect health as badly as these docs claim?

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 29, 2017 6:23 am

By the magic of the CO2.

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 29, 2017 8:41 am

Since when does The Narrative need to resemble Reality?

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 29, 2017 8:45 am

Common sense tells us it can’t, Roger! Our daily temperature fluctuates much more than half a degree or so but we have always managed to endure that with no ill effects. Right now in central Virginia, the daily highs and lows are fluctuating by as much as 20 degrees day to day, if this were so bad for our well-being I would be surrounded by dead bodies. I don’t think any of these Anti-scientists ever hear the words that come out of their mouths.


Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 1:16 am

How come Swedes from Oslo to Rome into the Sixtine Chapel through the drought steppes of Munich.

Via the

Matt S
March 29, 2017 1:44 am

How much more moronic crap are we going to put up with in the name of climate change?

Reply to  Matt S
March 29, 2017 8:42 am

Just as long as skeptics are afraid to open their mouths in business, academia, even cocktail parties and tell the real story on this issue.

March 29, 2017 2:11 am

Given that there are more retractions in medicine, biochemistry etc etc etc than any other field, who in their right mind is going to listen to a mere quack?

“Quack, leave thy trade; thy dealings are not right, thou tak’st our weighty gold, to give us light.” – Hieroglyphikes of the Life of Man, Francis Quarles, 1638

March 29, 2017 2:49 am

Hahahahaha… goof grief. You could replace climate change with chocolate pudding and that statement would hold together just as well. I think any doctor subscribing to this claptrap should treat our most vulnerable for free. Lead the way.

Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 3:06 am
March 29, 2017 3:07 am

I think they’re asking the wrong question. They should be asking why the well-to-do elderly like to fly south for the winter. 🙂

Tom in Florida
Reply to  4TimesAYear
March 29, 2017 4:52 am

Or ducks for that matter.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 5, 2017 12:46 am

Any critter that migrates, lol ^_^

Terry Warner
March 29, 2017 3:17 am

On an individual level the impact of +/- a few degrees is trivial and adaptation easy.

For the population as a whole there may clearly be some (very few) who would be pushed past their personal survival limits. They are probably already very ill anyway.

But this report is unbalanced as it fails to reference the positive impacts of a temperature rise – reduced frequency of pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, reduced pedestrian fractures with reduced ice, reduced vehicle accidents due to lower skid risk.

And paradoxically, for much of the northern hemisphere a temperature rise may reduce greenhouse emissions as less space heating is required.

March 29, 2017 3:28 am

Full implementation would have resulted in far more than 3000 deaths.

March 29, 2017 4:07 am

The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control, even Obama and Trump. If climate change is really a problem tnen Mother Nature is the one to blame. Climate change and air polution are two different issues. There is no real evidence that the small changes in CO2 that have happened have any effect on either climate or asthma. In fact increasing ones CO2 intake is often used to help stop an episode of hyperventulation.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  willhaas
March 29, 2017 12:58 pm


The EPA is selling the argument that all toxins have no safe dose. Linear ‘premature death’ attributions are projected from some attributed rate at a high dose to zero, even if there is no detectable response to low or other values. This means they attribute premature death or disease or cancers to exposure to any natural substance known to be toxic at some level.

For example if a lethal dose 50 (LD50) is 1 gram per 100 kg person, then if the entire population swallowed a lethal dose it would kill half the population. The other half would survive. At one microgram exposure they say 1/2 of 1/1,000,000th of the population would die. 150 people. Linear extrapolation.

Rather obviously there are few substances that are fatal 50% of the time at 1 g and still fatal sometimes at a millionth of that dose. But that is what is used for these days to create ‘premature death’ attributions then to claim they can be avoided. This is a logical error. Attributable does not mean avoidable because all exposures are in a personal context.

It is well known from the claim that there was ‘no safe limit for radiation’ even though natural sources shower us all the time, and we evolved in that environment. See

The validity of LNT is widely disputed for all sorts of good reasons. It is used by the EPA to create inordinate demands for lowering exposure, either because it is possible to do so and it helps keep businesses striving to reduce pollution, even if there is no practical return on the investment, and also to use regulations in the international sphere to either punish those who cannot meet the requirements, or to simply drive competitors out of the market. Obviously it is used by the US coastal people to fight against the mountain people. It is also used to argue in favour of various technologies – not just ‘renewables’. The whole point of private advocacy is private benefit.

The clean power plan held that there was a few attributable deaths and attributable illnesses due to PM or other exposures. If they set minimum limits below which there was no attribution, (i.e. realistic limits) the argument would fall away for a lot of toxins are very low exposures. Simply breathing clean mountain air will be said to be a cause of health problems from ozone because of the LNT argument.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 29, 2017 4:47 pm

The EPA needs to take action against another very toxic gas in our atmosphere, N2. 100% N2 will kill 100% of the time. More heat energy is held by N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere then by any other gas and N2 is a very poor LWIR ratiator so it does not lose heat energy to space as readily as the so called greenhouse gases yet N2 gains heat energy through conduction and convection. A doubling of the amount of N2 in our atmosphere would have a much larger warming effect then doubling the total amount of the so called greenhouse gases. The EPA needs to take action to decrease the total amount of N2 in our atmosphere. Removing all of the N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will definately have a cooling effect.

Reply to  willhaas
March 29, 2017 1:37 pm

Exhaled breath is about 4% carbon dioxide. That’s 40,000 ppm. It’s hard to see how going from 250 ppm to 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 (i.e., what we breathe in) would have even the slightest effect on anyone.

Reply to  godzi11a
March 29, 2017 4:56 pm

It should be illegal for people to exhale because their breath is so toxic. The Earth would be a much better place if we eliminated the top two greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, and with them all life that depends upon them. O2 is another gas that is bad for the environment because of O3, NOx, other oxides that are bad for the environment and the amount of heat energy trapped in O2 because O2 is a poor LWIR radaitor to space. Everything is really bad for the environment.

March 29, 2017 4:11 am

I suppose doctors have never heard of the cure being worse than the disease.

Reply to  thingadonta
March 29, 2017 11:52 am

Sure they have ;).

March 29, 2017 4:43 am

Should the reporting of iatrogenic illness and death be voluntary or mandatory?

Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S.
Physicians advocate for changes in how deaths are reported
By Vanessa McMains / Published March 20, 2017
Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s third leading cause of death—respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year.
The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates.
“Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven’t been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics,” says Martin Makary, professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an authority on health reform. “The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used.”

Reply to  brent
March 29, 2017 11:54 am

I have my doubts about this or any other politically motivated, government funded studies such as this one. Doubly so when they project deaths from dubious statistics.

Show me the 200,000 + wrongful death suits each year.

Reply to  cdquarles
March 29, 2017 3:41 pm

The legitimate ones.

March 29, 2017 5:06 am

Are not doctor meant to ‘do no harm’ in their dealings with their patients? If government funded data indicates temperatures effectively not changing (within limits) then why are they saying this?

Reply to  steverichards1984
March 29, 2017 11:52 am

That was true in the past. I am not so sure of that, today.

Reply to  cdquarles
March 29, 2017 3:44 pm

I don’t think it’s true any more. They removed that oath quite a while back. There are several things doctors do that would be considered “harm” by much of the population (medications not included).

March 29, 2017 5:13 am

This is the same group that pushed the low fat and cholesterol, high carbohydrate diet that caused the diabetes epidemic we’re currently experiencing.

Reply to  RH
March 29, 2017 3:45 pm

I don’t remember high carbs and I don’t think this is entirely why diabetes is rising. Blaming one factor in a complex situation is what global warming people do.

March 29, 2017 5:14 am

The elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable.

They forgot to add minorities and women. All liberal fairy tales start with those groups as being ravaged by the evil conservatives.

Reply to  philjourdan
March 29, 2017 7:00 am

When you do the maths there has been about 1million extra winter deaths in the UK since the climate scam started (Hansen et al turned up the heating in the senate?).

It now appears from my own research that it is very likely the cause of this warming was the Greens themselves as it stems from a REDUCTION in pollution following the 1970s clean air acts.

So, it turns out that the Greens were responsible for the warming – which they claim was so harmful – but in fact, if anything reduced the underlying massive winter death rate that affects not only the UK but is a global phenomenon also affecting places like India (20x the death rate from cold than heat).

So … when the scam is revealed … what will they do … they’ll claim they caused the warming, that the warming was good etc.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 29, 2017 3:11 pm

@ Scottish
For years I had responsibility for a crematorium and cemeteries in a city in NZ. Always the death toll was at its highest in late winter. It seems that this is a universal phenomenon. The argument went that the colder weather finally ‘knocked them off’.

March 29, 2017 5:14 am

This demonstrates the inherent stupidity of ‘Legislative fiat by eExecutive order’. What is so easily done (presidential executive orders) can easily be undone by executive order when a new President enters the Office. Actual laws are much more difficult to retract.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
March 29, 2017 3:46 pm

Obama mentioned that after Hillary’s defeat.

Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 5:35 am

Colonian Pub / Kneipen Order: and do you want your Pilsener ‘dry’ or do you want a Corn with?

Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 5:54 am

Woll’n Sie ihr Kölsch’ trocken oder woll’n Sie noch n’Korn dazu?

Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 5:57 am

Woll’n Sie ihr Kölsch’ trocken oder woll’n Sie noch n’Korn dazu?

Corrected :

Woll’n Sie ihr Kölsch’ trocken oder woll’n Sie noch’n Korn dazu?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 29, 2017 6:55 am

I’d got as far as wondering what “n’Korn” could be …

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 29, 2017 7:15 am

Scottish Sceptic:

n’Korn is Uisky is Uodka is Wässerchen

is water of live.

Thanks for stand by – Hans

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 29, 2017 7:41 am

The difference is –

Scott – Uisge

Slavic – Uodka

German – Uaesserchen

/ cute tiny waters /

all says: DESTILLATED C6H12O6


no viruses survived, sheer energy delivered.

What’s more to ask.

March 29, 2017 6:21 am

“The paper cited higher rates of respiratory and heat-related illnesses, increased prevalence of diseases passed by insects, water-borne diseases, food and water insecurity and malnutrition, and behavioral health problems as potential health effects of climate change. The elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable.”

Those risks have always been with us and as far as higher rates of those risks, there is no evidence to support that claim. Actually plenty to discredit it, since global population is increasing as well as life expectancy. It is shocking that physicians would make such outrageous claims. Witch doctors would make those kinds of claims.

Climate change has always been political and the political winds are changing. Groovy.

Reply to  Alx
March 29, 2017 10:37 am

You give witch doctors too little credit.

Mumbles McGuirck
March 29, 2017 7:09 am

For great hilarity, today the PRC (Red China for us old guys) announced IT planned to stick by the Paris Accords.
Of course they do. They won’t try to reign in their CO2 output until 2030, about the time their industrial energy use will peak. And, according to the Accords, they are responsible for monitoring their own compliance. For lying Commie bastards, nothing could be sweeter. ‘m surprised they said this with a straight face, but hey they’re Chinese. 😉

H. D. Hoese
March 29, 2017 7:11 am

I have dealt with a fair number of doctors during the Anthropocene, and recall no non-medical discussion on climate, but concern with heat did come up. They are so overwhelmed with an aging population and rules that defy proper adjectives, it would only be the political types that would have the time to consider the problem beyond the season.

When my granddaughter entered medical school, the dean told them that they were faced with an unprecedented amount of information, and “…half of it was wrong.” If they cannot extrapolate that some to the system at large, probably don’t want them anyway. Remember, pre-medical students had, at least prior to the Anthropocene, a science related college education.

March 29, 2017 7:16 am

Have all these “professional associations”‘ leaderships succumbed to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy? What type of people gravitate towards the management teams of these associations – the political types? Do they represent what their membership thinks/wants or are they chosen for their “progressive” bona fides?

Doc Chuck
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 29, 2017 12:27 pm

PiperPaul, if you are not already familiar with Physicist Harold Lewis’ eloquent letter of resignation from the American Physical Society several years ago, you will find it amply revealing in addressing the very questions you posed.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Doc Chuck
March 29, 2017 12:30 pm
March 29, 2017 7:22 am

Trump has kicked the hornet’s nest.
This confirms that climate change really is the flagship of the hard left totalitarians.
Let ’em buzz and sting all they like.
The more they do so, the more they broadcast their contempt for democracy and for most of the population.

March 29, 2017 7:44 am

“In a 2016 paper, Climate Change and Health, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, ACP outlined the negative consequences that climate change will have on public and individual health.” The journal’s name is misspelled. It obviously should be Anals of Internal Medicine…

March 29, 2017 8:33 am

You DO realize that no one but us reads this shit anyway? 😉

Elston Solberg
March 29, 2017 8:41 am

Well said Allen!

March 29, 2017 8:45 am

How do they sleep at night???? First, increased plant food may indeed cause more pollen which in turn may cause an uptick in asthma complaints. But the standard non-pharmocological treatment is to breath in less oxygen and more CO2 rich air such as from a paper bag.

The world is full of nutty professors.

Bruce Cobb
March 29, 2017 8:46 am

The ACP are just mouthing the standard, boilerplate Alarmist bunkum, geared towards physicians.

March 29, 2017 8:59 am

Let’s not forget to consider the following too:
The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), a two-year probability-based telephone survey (n = 9,386) of exposure-related human activities in the United States sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that respondents reported spending an average of 87% of their time in enclosed buildings and about 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles. That’s 93% of their lives spent inside climate-controlled enclosures.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which also looks at patterns of human exposure to pollutants, has shifted to an approach using instruments small enough to be worn on the human body, and sophisticated enough to detect levels of a wide range of harmful substances. Studies of more than 3,000 subjects in 14 US states and 1 Canadian province tracked human exposure to 30 different Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs: hydrocarbons), PM10 (respirable particulates), pesticides, and carbon monoxide.

These studies strikingly showed that the highest levels of human exposure occur indoors, not outdoors.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 29, 2017 11:42 am


Right on. The outside air is so clean that cooking and smoking, emissions from carpets, furniture, human skin dust, dust mites, evaporating fillers in the walls, eroding paint, hair spray, varnish, nail polish remover, mould spores in the furnace filter and on and on are the major pollutants in an advanced society, largely because power stations, factories and vehicle emissions have been reduced so much in the past 50 years.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 29, 2017 1:20 pm

Not only that but keep an eye on developments as Colorado and California lead the way in legalized recreational marijuana outcomes — for respiratory, psychiatric, obstetric, perinatal (also passed in breast milk), as well as opioid drug gateway consequences as they demonstrate their real concern “for the children”. Will a special urgency even arise for self-driving cars spurred on by increasing injurious automotive outcomes from our drug-addled drivers (beyond the current promotional prospects of more relaxed and productive passengers)? Stay tuned.

March 29, 2017 9:10 am

Should your doctor bring up climate change during an exam, keep in mind as you weigh your response that as members of the upper classes, virtually all doctors have a higher than average carbon footprint.

March 29, 2017 9:15 am

So, … what I see are a lot of people championing combating climate change, when many of them are already doing this every second of their lives, MOSTLY INDOORS.

Indoor air pollution, then, seems like the more relevant concern.

But baring intelligent judgment on this realization, all champions of the environment seem to resort to some incarnation of “think of the children”, for example citing potential child mortality-rate increases resulting from continuing carbon dioxide emissions.

Yeah, real smart.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 29, 2017 9:20 am

Of course, a doctor should bring up climate change, as he works in his accommodating climate-controlled office, to which he drove in his stylish, high-dollar, climate-controlled automobile, from his (presumably) upscale, climate-controlled house (one of several, perhaps).

My dear man, since you spend 93% of your entire life INDOORS, you would do well to focus on the effects of OUTDOOR climate on your health. Yeah, real smart.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 29, 2017 11:37 am

Air pollution indoors can be much worse than outdoor air. If there is a cigarette smoker in the house, the family is exposed to air quality in terms of PM2.5 worse than ‘Beijing on a bad day’.

I have been reviewing the exposures measured in upland Kyrgyz homes (rural Kyrgyzstan). The doctor measured PM2.5 as high as 7000. Beijing declares a red alert above 300.

By placing an advanced combustion dung burning stove ($120) in their homes, the PM2.5 was reduced to the range of 10-40 microgram per cubic metre, meeting all three tiers of performance for developing countries (which are expected to meet them in stages) of 125, 75, 25 (or numbers similar to that).

March 29, 2017 10:53 am

I thought scare nonsense would die down some with the passing of the Obama God. I think they are taking the long view in waiting for the second coming of an over reach campaign. Their only real risk is in voter fatigue or a turn to voter anger. But then that is always the source of risk for Party loyalists just trying to do their part in a thousand uncoordinated efforts of doom (and bad science).

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 29, 2017 11:32 am

“implementing the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. would avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days.”

No promise of ‘avoidance’ is valid.

Please everyone, note that no ‘deaths’ are ’caused’ by the things they are avoiding. A premature death is someone who died of multiple statistically attributed causes before the age of 86 – the ‘standard age’ at this time (something some people have contested as unrealistic). Let’s accept it for the moment. Anyone who dies after 86 years of age has died postmaturely.

1700 heart attacks does not mean 1700 deaths. You get the idea? So keep your eye on the fake news outlets mis-reporting this sentence as “air pollution which was to have been prevented will kill 3600+1700+90,000 people per year”, or some such.

Also note that it is not possible to forecast the future of anyone’s premature death. We have no idea what their gender, nutrition, exposure, inoculations, water quality or genetic complement is.

The premature death numbers are attributed to the deaths of people who were born after 1931 and who are not alive now. What the future holds is unknown. It may be that the future exposures and consequences will be identical to those experienced since 1931, however this is unlikely in the extreme given their life expectancy at the time as in their 50’s.

In short, just because you can reasonably attribute contributing factors to the premature deaths of a cohort of the population that experience living >1931:<2017, does not mean that you can use the same 'exposures' to predict what will happen, or be avoided in future, for people who will die between now and the year 2103.

Who knows? By then global cooling or warming may have killed everyone with runaway feedbacks worse than a Hansen nightmare. Or not.

Joel Snider
March 29, 2017 12:14 pm

‘Climate change is real, is largely the result of human activity, and is affecting our health now.’

I wonder what part of their medical degree allows them to say this with such assurance? Or is it possible they are just parroting statements from alarmist practitioners of a discipline they don’t practice, which they just blithely trust out of hand? And then just pretty much lump any environmental factor that could potentially cause stress under the heading of Climate-caused?

Or am I just becoming cynical?

John F. Hultquist
March 29, 2017 1:27 pm

Watch the following conflict over the coming years.

In the US, western forested lands have been building up the fuel load since non-native settlers began moving in. Yes, there was logging but fires were suppressed and in-filling of other non-forested meadows and slopes began. Then Smokey Bear and friends got serious about putting out fires. Then the “viability regulation” within the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 was applied to old growth forests to save the Northern Spotted Owl. [1991 – Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans case]

Fires need fuel, and now it is there.
Those studying the forests understand the need to deal with this issue. Prescribed burning is one way, perhaps the best way, of reducing the fuel load. However, the smoke irritates some people and is a serious danger to others.
So there’s the conflict. The choice is regular and smaller fires or so called mega-fires. Place your bets.

James Fosser
March 29, 2017 2:47 pm

As Albert Einstein once said . ”Let the shoemaker stick to his last”

March 29, 2017 4:04 pm

Don’t think much of the physicians. The body is 16% carbon. Our food is 16% carbon. In anaesthetics and emergency medicine, there are CO2 monitors to make sure that people have enough Carbon Dioxide in there body – too little and they die.
If these doctors believe carbon is such a pollutant and risk to our lives, I recommend they go on a carbon free diet.

March 29, 2017 4:55 pm

We are accustomed to various special interest groups cooking the books to promote their interests in Washington. We don’t expect the science establishment to be cooking the science, but that is what is happening. The arrogance and irresponsibility exhibited by the science establishment is quite amazing. It will take a while for the public to adjust to the idea that organized science is as corrupt as the trial lawyers or the teachers’ union. Global warming theory is so malleable that it predicts anything! More cold, less cold. More snow, less snow. What a powerful theory. And what’s even more amazing is that climate change can be averted by just increasing your taxes! Thankfully, adults are now in charge.

March 29, 2017 6:51 pm

From the article: ““Climate change is real, is largely the result of human activity, and is affecting our health now. ACP is very concerned about the harmful health effects that climate change is having on our patients,” continued Dr. Damle.”

I’m very concerned that there are so many deluded doctors in positions of authority. Someone should ask these doctors where they get all these crazy ideas.

Reply to  TA
March 30, 2017 4:13 pm

Doctors can get deluded ideas from the same sources as non-doctors. They’re DOCTORS, … not people with specialized climate knowledge. They look to the same sources for CLIMATE information as anybody else who is not involved in the study of climate.

Doctors just happen to have a greater level of public trust than climate scientists currently do, and this fact is being exploited to try to elevate the catastrophic human-caused global warming proposition.

April 4, 2017 8:26 pm

Oh bullshit! Nobody ever died from 500 ppm of co2!

April 4, 2017 8:29 pm

Gee my wife and I go to Vegas at least once a year! I just don’t know how we survive the climate change?!

%d bloggers like this: