Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 3 October 2024 – 850 words/3 minutes
From the annals of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation comes this beauty of a headline above a news story (h/t Matt Briggs) :
Global Stroke Burden Continues to Rise, With Climate Change Gaining Influence
And the news? Nothing really, just yet another Global Burden of Disease paper in the Lancet: “Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021”
John Hopkins says:
“A stroke, or brain attack, happens when blood flow to your brain is stopped. It is an emergency situation.”
There are generally three different types of strokes:
“Strokes can be classified into 2 main categories:
Ischemic strokes. These are strokes caused by blockage of an artery (or, in rare instances, a vein). About 87% of all strokes are ischemic.
Hemorrhagic stroke. These are strokes caused by bleeding. About 13% of all strokes are hemorrhagic.”
And two sub-types:
“Hemorrhagic strokes occur when a blood vessel that supplies the brain ruptures and bleeds….
Intracerebral hemorrhage. Bleeding is from the blood vessels within the brain.
Subarachnoid hemorrhage. Bleeding is in the subarachnoid space (the space between the brain and the membranes that cover the brain).”
One more piece of information:
“The occurrence of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a devastating cerebrovascular event that accounts for 5% of all strokes”
You may be asking yourself this question:
“What could be the possible causal connection between Climate Change and the occurrence of stoke in the general worldwide population?”
And a good question is far more valuable than a good answer.
My answer? There is no causal connection – not even a barely biologically plausible connection or association. Nothing whatever.
But as always, The Science must have its way and The Science insists that if something is bad – as in undesirable – then it must be caused by Climate Change.
And sure enough, a dedicated group called “GBD 2021 Stroke Risk Factor Collaborators” (a list of authors 1,700 long) wrote the Lancet Neurology report linked in the first paragraph.
Usually, I suspect immediately that the journalist, in this case, Todd Neale, has paraphrased something he thinks the authors have said. But no, the paper includes this:
“These findings are in line with research showing that rises in ambient temperature (including heatwaves) and climate change are associated with increased stroke morbidity and mortality. Because ambient air pollution is reciprocally associated with the ambient temperature and climate change, all of which synergistically influence cardiovascular disease (including stroke) occurrence and overall health, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce ambient air pollution cannot be overestimated. Experts have recommended that governments increase implementation of a clean-energy economy, promote unprocessed plant-based food choices, and globally phase out industrialised animal farming.”
If one ever needed additional proof of John P.A. Ioannidis’ finding that “Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” – this is it.
And what is the evidence on which the 1,700 authors base this statement? Here is their visual summary:
[click here to see larger image in new tab/window]
There it is – The Science. Let’s look carefully and see if we can find climate change as a “risk factor” on the left-hand side of each of the four sections.
NOTE: Risk factors are not themselves causes. Risk factors are conditions or behaviors that have been found to be associated with an increase in incidence of some outcome. The graphic above shows risk factors and not causes.
Ah, there is no occurrence of Climate Change as a risk factor. In fact, in the panels A, B and C, there are no risk factors that are components of climate at all – not even components of weather.
But, there is always a way where the outcome is predetermined!
Down on the right, in panel D, which is about risk factors of Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), which represents 5% of all strokes, we see at the bottom of the list, Low Ambient Temperature and High Ambient Temperature.
Yes, by golly, those are components of weather (and long-time weather adds up to climate).
And we can see that they have found that Low Ambient Temperature (How low? Who knows?) to be a risk factor in 4.5% of the 5% of strokes worldwide. This means that COLD may be a contributing factor in 0.225% (0.00225) of the Global Burden of Stroke.
And High Ambient Temperature? (How high? Who knows?) A risk factor in 1.1% of SAH stokes, which are, to repeat, only 5% of total Global Stroke Burden. This brings the risk factor of High Ambient Temperature for the Global Stroke Burden to a frightening 0.055% (or 0.00055).
Hey but where is the evidence for CHANGE? As in Climate Change?
There is none.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I wish I could say that this kind of reporting is an anomaly – the exception. Unfortunately, it is not. It is now the norm.
We are fed a constant stream of propaganda in place of news – propaganda in place of science news – propaganda in place of science research findings.
Don’t ask me about politics.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Back in the distant past when I was in tertiary education we were shown a graph illustrating the correlation between the increase in diagnoses of insanity and in the numbers of radio licenses purchased for the 1930s.
Funny stuff. Today it is gospel.
Whatever the topic is these days, adding the magic words “Climate Change” gets you published and funded and written about in the major media. Nothing new there.
How about, “The effects of climate change on the flavor profiles of M&Ms Peanuts candy” … and that would get it funded, published, and written about.
Climate change has caused additional M&M flavors!
Nope, the flavor profile is still chocolate and peanuts, but CC has caused more M&M colors (or maybe it’s LGBTQRTY+ that causes more colors; it’s so confusing trying to keep up).
Yeah, but the cocoa beans are getting whacked by climate change, as are the sugar crops and peanut crops. O god, by the year 2100 our M&Ms are going to taste like crap, all due to climate change!
Forgot about the cocoa beans…
…additional M&M flavors – to melt in your hand before they get to your mouth. Oh the humanity!!
We should apply for a grant to do that study. Maybe we could get M&M/Mars to sponsor some of it. We would probably have to compile data over at least 10 years, and would need volunteers to eat the candy and record their observations…
I volunteer. M&Ms are one of my favoritest food groups.
Would eating 5 of the green ones meet the suggested daily vegetable 5 intake?
Just don’t eat the yellow ones. They’re not ripe yet.
No, but you would be extremely lucky.
I’ll do one on the effect of CC on Snickers Bars. No telling just how bad the peanut crops are becoming. I think I can find volunteers for sampling that candy, including me!
Duane ==> Well done, sir! I never cease to be amazed by the quirky responses from WUWT readers.
“Because ambient air pollution is reciprocally associated with the ambient temperature and climate change,”
“associated”? In other words there is a correlation? Whatever happened to the statistical truth that correlation is not causation? E.g. CO2 is correlated with the GAT but without a theory explaining how and by how much there is no causal link. And the “greenhouse” effect has never been proven. You can see rising CO2 in places where the temperature is cooling. I.e. no causal theory that *works*.
Association is a much weaker relationship than correlation which implies a linear and possibly dependent relationship. Association cannot be used to support a claim of a causal relationship between variables.
1700 authors? Really? I think it was Willis E. who noted that the quality of a scientific paper is inversely proportional to the number of authors.
Rick ==> Yes,I had to go to the Supplemental materials, cop and paste the authors list into my text editor, do some search & replace to turn that into a list with one author on each line, then add line numbers….> 1700.
And are they all cardiovascular physicians AND degreed Climate Scientists?
“CO2 is correlated with the GAT but without a theory explaining how and by how much there is no causal link. And the “greenhouse” effect has never been proven.” T. Gorman
Two Possibilities:
(1) Almost every scientist since 1896 has been wrong, and Gorman is a genius
or
(2) Almost every scientist since1896 has been right, and Gorman is doing his best job to make conservative CAGW skeptics appear to be science denying fools (along with Bnasty)
My vote is for (2)
Third possibility. (100% certainty)
RG is talking through his brain-washed AGW-cult a*se and has absolutely no empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Cannot produce any evidence.. hence proving Tim Gorman correct.
Everyone except RG votes for (3)
The theory is SUPPOSED to be encompassed in the climate models. Yet the climate models have to be adjusted continually to match reality – and in fact they are running too hot even *after* adjustment.
This means the theory n which the climate models are based is UNPROVEN. As Feynman pointed out, a theory that doesn’t match reality is wrong.
Tim ==> You shortened the quote: “Because ambient air pollution is reciprocally associated with the ambient temperature and climate change, all of which synergistically influence cardiovascular disease (including stroke) occurrence and overall health, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce ambient air pollution cannot be overestimated.”
Just spouting sciencey:
Utter nonsensical gibberish.
There is also a consistent correlation between sales of “organic” foods and diagnoses of autism.
Tom,
Just this morning I was shopping for honey in the supermarket. A man with a daughter of 10 or so appeared, saying “Find me some organic honey, please. It has to have “organic” on the label”.
How sad. This guy had been suckered by propaganda that he was now teaching his daughter. All honey is similar, no such thing as organic honey.
It goes to show the power of advertising, even of products with false labelling. It is also depressing to see pharmacies stocked with alternative medicines, that is, products unable to show efficacy and so not able to be stocked as real pharmaceuticals.
Geoff S
Organic is renamed “biodynamic agriculture”, renamed by Robert Rodale to remove the association with the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler was a great promoter.
Any time I read of CO2 as pollution, my eyes glaze over and I immediately discount everything said in the article. The US government NAMED it as a pollution SO THEY COULD CONTROL IT. And here we are. Without CO2, we would not be here and the earth would be barren. We are lucky we can survive with this trace gas about as low as it has ever been.
Illegally named it a pollution.
jshotsky ==> Air pollution is a real thing — and in these studies they generally mean PM2.5 — the science for which is as shaky and mostly-imaginary as Climate Science.
That said, it is bad to live in a house that burns coal on an open indoor cook stove with no chimney — of over wood burning stoves with only an air hole in the roof. Women forced to breathe that smokey air year after year have breathing-related health problems and the rest of the family, subjected to the same smokey air during the winter heating season, suffer similarly. Currently about 44% of the world’s households primarily relying on solid fuels for cooking.
CO2, however, is not a pollutant but rather an important part of the atmosphere and a necessity for life on Earth,
This article was not talking about real pollution – it was calling CO2 a pollutant and climate change as the cause.
“Because ambient air pollution is reciprocally associated with the ambient temperature and climate change, all of which synergistically influence cardiovascular disease (including stroke) occurrence and overall health, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce ambient air pollution cannot be overestimated. Experts have recommended that governments increase implementation of a clean-energy economy, promote unprocessed plant-based food choices, and globally phase out industrialised animal farming.”
j ==> They actually like to have it both ways…they use the consensus science about PM2.5 (which is as flimsy as most CliSci) and properly call it “pollution” (though a great deal of it is actually natural) and then use that “the science” to also apply to the false “CO2 is pollution” finding.
Of course, cars, trucks, coal-fired power plants all do produce some real air pollutants as we all know — I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s smog years.
It’s JohnS Hopkins. Give the old Quaker his due. Shout out to all the throats on the bottom level of the Eisenhower.
Shockingly Bad…. Yet Entirely Predictable…
Story tip
Broadcaster [Chris Packham] joins board of Climate Emergency Fund.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/oct/04/chris-packham-appointed-to-board-of-climate-emergency-fund
You can Getty it if you really want it.
Good luck to them. He’s probably been recruited only as a mascot. The man is as thick as a post.
I thought the saying was ‘thick as two planks’…
I think it is actually “thick as TWO short planks”
Indeed it is.
Strativarius, interesting story, so much big money pushing the green agenda.
Equally shocking is the Guardian’s fundraising blurb at the end of the article :
“This is what we’re up against
Bad actors spreading disinformation online to fuel intolerance.
Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want you to see.
Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate emergency and other established science.
Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press.”
They at the Guardian are the biggest hypocrites going…
“…asked by lead feature writer Tim Adams, a 30-year Observer veteran, if she and her colleagues at the paper’s owner the Scott Trust would “fulfil the trust’s obligation to look after the Observer”, Bateson replied bluntly: “The Scott Trust’s responsibility is to the Guardian, not the Observer.”
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame
The Guardian – built on slavery – sold its lucrative Autotrader interest off shore – for tax purposes…
Increase in incidence of stroke can be sheeted directly to Howard Florey. The development and application of penicillin has contributed mightily to life expectancy; largely eliminating infection as a cause of death means people live a lot longer and die of other causes. Stroke being common in old age.
Atmospheric CO2 is becoming a major contributor to strokes as well now because it has improved productivity of crops and the resulting increase in food production and improved nutrition mean people live longer also resulting in incidence of stroke increasing.
Of course a nuclear war could reduce the incidence of stroke if the initial heat and subsequent fall-out kills enough young people.
Who reads the Lancet? It is government propaganda.
So old age is the top factor in strokes! Reciprocally climate change causes old age.
Our bodies aren’t going to last forever.
It’s a good thing that improvements in medicine, sanitation, heating, AC, etc. have increased the average lifespan. But also means there’s going to be an increase in “Old Age” related causes of death as our bodies wear out.
The proper way to check is to examine the incidence of stroke per age cohort over time. e.g. “What is the incidence of ischemic stroke in males from age 31 to 40 in 1950 versus 2000?”
Stress is also a possibility in exacerbating probability of strokes.
Those people perpetually in panic about climate change probably increase their risk.
Other who laugh at it, probably decrease theirs. 🙂
Stress was also the cause of ulcers until Nobel Laureates Warren and Marshall studied bacterial causes.
Do we infer that the frequency of strokes is related to, or affected by, the $$$ expenditure on stroke research?
Geoff S
Rick ==> The Lancet is a leading outlet of Climate Change and Health Propaganda — by editorial narrative and journal policy.
They state so publicly. (Well, they don’t call it propaganda….)
Stroke and Age ==> Can can and does happen at any age — just under 40% occur in those younger than 65. The older one gets, the more likely stroke becomes. This is true of ALL cardiovascular diseases and conditions.
The main problem with the usual climate change causes everything bad propaganda is we need 1000 Kip Hansens w0rking full time to refute the claptrap.
Strokes are blood circulation problems that can be avoided with exercise, losing weight and lowering blood pressure (using drugs if necessary),
The most dangerous season for circulation related medical problems is the winter. Fortunately, winters are warmer since 1975. In Michigan the winter snow shoveling was 10 minutes for all of last winter versus once a week in the late 1970s.
From a common sense point of view: If you don’t want to exercise and can’t lose weight, you can use cheap generic medications to control your blood pressure. But even if you do, you’ll eventually die anyway. If you live too long, your brain may fade away and you may become a large burden to your caregiver children and relatives.
Did you just describe Biden?
Curious minds want to know.
Define necessary.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Propaganda is organized bullshit.
Organized in that image really should be changed to fabricated.
From the data presented, a mildly warming planet will reduce the incidence of the 5% SAH.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. /sarc
This really sends me into orbit. It really is such bu** sh**. What is it … the Thought Police is chasing you to make sure your climate change behavior is in line with the “accepted” limits. Yes, it is shades of Orwell 1984. And who is the guardian of climate change behavior … start with the United Nations IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If you fall in line, you may stand to benefit from UN recognition and funding i.e., $$
This really sends me into orbit.
Watch that blood pressure, you might have a stroke.
Hey, maybe that’s the causative factor?
Tony G ==> High blood pressure (HBP) is a huge factor in Hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) including Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). But about 87% of strokes are ischemic — meaning due to blockages in arteries in the brain (sometimes veins). It is not generally thought that ischemic stroke is cause by high blood pressure. So, HBP is a factor only in about 13% or stroke.
All of the risks for of HPB slop over into risks for stroke because of that 13%.
I’ve long maintained that researchers claiming “climate science” as a cause of anything is intellectual laziness.
Climate science is the cause of many harmful policies, climate change is the cause of nothing, it is an effect not a cause.
Everything is because — Climate Change.
This is not to be questioned.
The Lancet has decayed into an outlet for rubbish and finds itself on a par with The Journal for Homeopathy and Blood Lettings.
Willis E. has a statement about the number of authors (for this type of stuff) that the worthiness is an inverse of the multitude. I don’t recall his exact wording, but 1/1,700 gets 0.00059 veracity. Close enough!
This Lancet paper is an extreme example of Eschenbach’s theory that the more authors a paper has, the worse it is. 1700 authors of utter nonsense.
1700 authors. Did they all write 3 letters each? 🙂
Who was left to do the independent peer review?
Climate Change is a money making industry specializing in airware.
For decades the length of women’s hemlines was a better predictor of economic activity than all the experts.
Then it was discovered the depth of winter snow in the US Midwest was even a better predictor.
The first time I visited Montreal was in January of 1967. Miniskirts were recently in fashion. Though it was about -20 deg F, the young women were still wearing their new miniskirts. I noticed (I was in my early-20s at the time) that there was a bright-red band of flesh between the hem of the skirt and where the skirt line had formerly been, just above the knee. Apparently, the upper thigh had not yet acclimated to the cold temperatures.
I always promoted the medical cure for that band of flesh – massage by the hands of an experienced male. Geoff S
Another effect of climate change is brain shrinkage but it could be that the actual causal link is reversed :
Maybe strokes cause climate change? Anybody ever consider that?
A stroke can lead to cooling of the whole body.
Kip,
Nice post. The medical field has gone “woke” as well as seeing climate change everywhere. Quite sad!
Two issues:
: “Because ambient air pollution is reciprocally associated with the ambient temperature and climate change,…” Note “reciprocal“.. So, the higher the temperature the lower the pollution, thus fewer strokes. Problem solved! [Am I missing something from these 1700 authors?]
In the chart please note the category “Household pollution from solid fuels” which accounts for 11.2% of total strokes and 8.8% of the most common type [ischemic].
This category causes over 3 million deaths worldwide every single year mostly from respiratory diseases in poor & developing countries. Mostly women and children who are forced to heat their homes and cook their food by burning wood, crop residue and dried cow dung producing indoor air pollution. This is the moral cause for fossil fuels! Allowing these people access to adequate energy from a stable electric grid or locally using nat gas/propane would save millions every year, not mention the daily hours needed to gather the biomass fuels plus having light at night to do homework.
Yet the climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge this obvious consequence of their no fossil fuels policies.
Weird, doesn’t matter what report/study it is, as soon as any mention of synergy appears, I get that siren sound from Kill Bill going off in my head.
Maybe the connection to strokes is all the spinning they do to blame everything on “Climate Change”?
(There should at least be an increase in dizziness.)