Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to gastroenterologist and chief editor of the Australian Medical Journal Professor Talley, politicians of all sides should do what they are told on climate policy, just as they follow the advice of doctors when dealing with the Covid-19 Pandemic. But Talley appears to shy away from offering specific policy advice, other than demanding the government set up a new committee.
Climate change demands same leadership as COVID-19, and Australia is failing
by Medical Journal of Australia
DECEMBER 23, 2020A leading Australian medical clinician and researcher has called on the Federal Government and the health sector to commit to showing the same leadership on climate change as was shown during the COVID-19 public health crisis.
Neurogastroenterologist and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Journal of Australia said in an editorial, published today, that Australia’s response to COVID-19 had been “strong and effective.”
“Key to this success was the valuing by governments of science and data to guide decision making.
“This bipartisan, science-based approach is a model for the future management of climate change, if implemented alongside an appropriate national plan.”
…
Professor Talley called on the Federal Government to establish a National Health and Climate Change Centre within the Australian Department of Health to develop a National Plan for Health and Climate Change with real-time monitoring.
…
Read more: https://phys.org/news/2020-12-climate-demands-leadership-covid-australia.html
Which scientists’ advice should politicians follow? Because there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about how we should respond to the alleged climate crisis.
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Tom Wigley, arguably the most senior climate scientists in the world, say we should go all out building nuclear power plants. Renewables alone they say are not enough to save the world from climate change.
Does Professor Talley mean we should follow their advice and build nuclear power plants?
Or should we follow the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and treat nuclear power as a “false solution” to the climate crisis?
Consider the USGS (United States Geographical Survey) advice on climate models.
According to the USGS (h/t Dr. Willie Soon);
… A climate scenario describes a plausible future outcome associated with a specific set of societal actions that captures the relationships between human choices, greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and consequent climate change as simulated by global climate models. Because scenarios are developed n a risk-based framework with a high degree of uncertainty about future societal developments, the primary scenarios used in policymaking contexts are usually not assigned a formal likelihood of occurrence (that is, each scenario is considered to be a “plausible” outcome without assuming the “likelihood” of the outcome).
…
In the near term (years to one to two decades in the future), natural climate variability is the largest source of uncertainty in climate projections. For time periods approximately 30 to 50 years out, scientific uncertainty about the climate system is the largest source of uncertainty in climate projections. Beyond 50 years, human decisions that affect global greenhouse gas emissions are the largest source of uncertainty.
…
Read more: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2020/1058/ofr20201058.pdf
So policy makers should treat any climate model as if it could happen, but bear in mind that poorly quantified sources of natural variability could overwhelm projected warming up to 50 years into the future, and cause something completely different to happen.
Yet these wild guesses which scientists are not prepared to own are supposed to be the basis of policy decisions which could affect the lives of billions.
It is easy to demand in general terms that politicians should follow the advice of climate scientists, if you hold back from providing specific suggestions about which group of climate scientists politicians should actually listen to.
Policy makers ignore the data/science of C-19 same as they ignore the data/science of climate change.
85.6% of C-19 CASES are among those UNDER 65 years of age. (CDC)
80.7% of C-19 DEATHS are among those OVER 65 years of age. (16% of population)
24.8% of C-19 deaths occurred in nursing homes and hospice care.
Over half of the CASES never see a doctor, hospital or morgue.
Between 12/9/20 and 12/16/20 CDC logged 14,531 deaths attributed to C-19. There were 74,340 deaths due to all causes. The 65+ demographic was accountable for 85% of those C-19 deaths.
If you are 65+ w multiple health issues in a crowded nursing home and the staff brings in C-19 you are screwed, but then you were screwed anyway. In other words: If you are already seriously ill, C-19 will probably finish you off, i.e. no different from the seasonal flu or pneumonia
C-19 is not a problem for the young and healthy herd. Mother Nature and her buddy Grim Reaper are just doing their jobs, culling the herd of the too many, too old, too sick warehoused too close together as Medicare/Medicaid cash cows in poorly run contagious lethal elder care facilities.
Japan has the highest percentage of 65+, 27%, yet still under 3,000 deaths. (WHO)
What do they know/do the rest of the world does not?
If C-19 is mostly killing off old sick people why are our elected morons suspending civil liberties, due process, bankrupting the country with lockdowns, distancing and masked clown shows? Guess they can’t impose the NWO Grand Reset with actual facts. And the lying, fact free, fake news MSM left-wing propaganda coup machine has betrayed its responsibility to democracy and an informed public.
Here in the US, we’re not told any more by the media who is dying from this. All we hear is “There were X number of deaths yesterday…”.
I’m currently on the Atlantic coast in Florida and squadrons of pelicans are all flying south. I guess you’d have to have a brain smaller than one of these birds to attribute this to ‘climate change’.
About 5 weeks ago, a COVID-19 epidemology group at the University of Arizona strongly recommended to Arizona Governor Ducey to lock down the entire state again because of rising Covid cases. Doing so would once again destroy the fragile process of many retail businesses and restaurants trying to regain some financial footing. The group of Drs and PhDs didn’t care. Their paychecks wouldn’t be threatened by such a lockdown.
Arizona Governor Ducey ignored their bleating and whining IYI idiocy, to his credit.
This Aussie gastroenterologist is just another of many thousands of academic Intellectual Yet Idiots. (IYI’s). Best just to thank them for their opinion and then ignore them.
He may be academic but he is not intellectual, like too many of his kind.
Ironic that a gastroenterologist would be full of shit.
**Climate change demands same leadership as COVID-19, and Australia is failing**
And there lies the problem . If climate change gets the same leadership as Covid-19 in Canada we have a problem.
OOPS, I just remembered, we have the same inept leadership in Canada.
A gastroenterology who believes in readings from chicken entrails.
How quaint.
Some doctors are very ignorant and very stupid and very arrogant. The good doctor should stick to medicine but not expect me to accept a referral to him.
Medical doctors get justifiably snarky about laymen giving medical advice; Medical doctors should observe the same strictures about giving climate science advice.
A medical doctor may have a BS science degree somewhere on the path to his/hers MD degree, but that doesn’t qualify them as an atmospheric physicist.
Prof Talley displays signs of tunnel vision, common to gastros I bet.
paul courtney
He has hands-on experience with material roughly equal to climate data.