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
“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.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
By the magic of the CO2.
Since when does The Narrative need to resemble Reality?
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.
PMK
How come Swedes from Oslo to Rome into the Sixtine Chapel through the drought steppes of Munich.
Via the https://www.google.at/search?q=munich+hofbrauhaus&oq=Munich+hof&aqs=chrome.
In times of
https://www.google.at/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/16/oslo-temporarily-bans-diesel-cars-combat-pollution
followed by
https://www.google.at/amp/s/www.thelocal.no/20170118/oslo-lifts-temporary-ban-on-diesel-vehicles/amp
as documented in
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=_2zbWKe_DaXN6QSxwaXwCg&q=oslo+diesel+car+ban&oq=Oslo+diesel+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
How much more moronic crap are we going to put up with in the name of climate change?
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.
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
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.
https://youtu.be/Edwsf-8F3sI
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. 🙂
Or ducks for that matter.
Any critter that migrates, lol ^_^
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.
Full implementation would have resulted in far more than 3000 deaths.
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.
willhaas
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suppose doctors have never heard of the cure being worse than the disease.
Sure they have ;).
Should the reporting of iatrogenic illness and death be voluntary or mandatory?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/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.”
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
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.
The legitimate ones.
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?
That was true in the past. I am not so sure of that, today.
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).
This is the same group that pushed the low fat and cholesterol, high carbohydrate diet that caused the diabetes epidemic we’re currently experiencing.
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.
They forgot to add minorities and women. All liberal fairy tales start with those groups as being ravaged by the evil conservatives.
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.
@ur momisugly 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’.
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.
Obama mentioned that after Hillary’s defeat.
Colonian Pub / Kneipen Order: and do you want your Pilsener ‘dry’ or do you want a Corn with?
Woll’n Sie ihr Kölsch’ trocken oder woll’n Sie noch n’Korn dazu?
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?
I’d got as far as wondering what “n’Korn” could be …
Scottish Sceptic:
n’Korn is Uisky is Uodka is Wässerchen
is water of live.
Thanks for stand by – Hans
The difference is –
Scott – Uisge
Slavic – Uodka
German – Uaesserchen
/ cute tiny waters /
all says: DESTILLATED C6H12O6
meaning:
no viruses survived, sheer energy delivered.
What’s more to ask.
“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.
You give witch doctors too little credit.
For great hilarity, today the PRC (Red China for us old guys) announced IT planned to stick by the Paris Accords.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-03-29/china-still-committed-to-paris-climate-change-deal-foreign-ministry
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. 😉
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.
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?
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.
Here is a local WUWT link to Professor Lewis’ statement: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
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.