Climate Change Is Biggest Health Threat Of 21st Century: Report

Daily Mail:

Climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century, leading academics claimed last night.

Those who fail to take the issue seriously are as morally reprehensible as 18th-century slave traders, they said.

Read the whole story: Daily Mail

Comments

[dgscol]

The practice of harvesting food sources w/o regard for their renewability is the large health regard with respect to global concerns for health.

There are two other major health problems and you will not find the AMA telling you about it - even though they have marginalized smokers. This is the influence of bad food and drugs, imported from foreign countries that are degrading the health of all Americans, and seriously influencing the elderly. They have not warned us of this, have no surgeon general reports, and have shown little concern. The government, consequently has not even bothered to seriously inspect these imports.

Another major serious health concern is food-borne and human-borne pathogens. In the past there had been aggressive program to interdict such threats, even moving to quarantine people to prevent further outbreaks. Again, the government has dropped its concern about this, and the AMA has said little also, like it is no big deal.

But remember -- smoking is evil - the single most easily preventable cause of cancer. IS this becaquse of the business of medicine corrupting the medical communities concern about national health?

[BabblingBrooks]

The major risk to the survival of the human race is that we worry too GD much about saving snail darters and spotted owls and not about getting our butts off this little Campground Earth and into the rest of the universe. The Sun is going to incinerate the Earth in 2 billion years and we'll all die if we stay here.

[AngieMom57]

That's right!

Stay Mindful.
Stay Sober.
Stay Vegan.

[BabblingBrooks]

Maybe, after I finish this burger--it does have tomatoes, lettuce, some jalapeno peppers. Enough vegetables?

[fumes]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas..

they use it in greenhouses to grow plants.

SOOT is a light absorber and is primarily used

to melt ice: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LT461035.htm

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

So is Salt!

hey there man....

[fumes]

hey there onevoice..

i forgot salt thanks!

[realpolitic]

How come when people talk of co2 being a greenhouse gas, you accuse them of being alarmists and wanting to live in fear, yet linking soot to climate change is not being an alarmist or living in fear to you? Why so defensive about co2? Just wondering, but isn;t it a double standard?

[fumes]

soot absorbs the full spectrum of sunlight..

CO2 just traps the infrared.

infrared is just sunset rays or the rays from the heat lamp keeping

your mickey d's warm while you're stuck in traffic.

infrared is that heat lamp you stand under in your bathroom.

at a guess.. you probably don't zinc up for that heat lamp but you sure

do for that full spectrum stuff that will burn you at high noon on the beach.

[dgscol]

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas of any consideration. Actually greenhouses have normal atmospheres, with a little extra water vapor. The water vapor in greenhouses, is the extra gas in a greenhouse, and it is about 30X more effective, per mole, than CO2.

[fumes]

ahem..

isn't it the whole point of a greenhouse to produce an artificial atmosphere?

[BabblingBrooks]

CO2 is a very ineffective greenhouse gas. It isn't pumped into greenhouses. It's in the air! The greenhouses use glass and plastic roofs for their greenhouse effect!

[fumes]

the CO2 is added for the plants to breathe.

[elmerfude]

I keep trying to warn you people. Carbon dioxide being a dense gas and a plant food is accumulating in basements where it is attracting salad eating aliens who thrive on the house plants. But the little bstrds are developing a taste for meat. Just the other day I had to go after one that was after the neighbor's cat. Sooner or later they are going to mix us with greens and bake us into loaves of solent green.

[seakitty]

And a front page story on the NY Times today said that a study showed that the predicted increase in sea levels from a COMPLETE melt of the Antarctic ice cap was cut in half. With the constant wild swings in these models & theories, it's getting harder to take them seriously.

And this latest report comes from a "team of scientists, lawyers, doctors, economists and engineers". I'd love to know the size of govt grants this "team" gets every year.

[GuyRC]

Wild swings? Interesting choice of words for a single paper that comes up with a different value for sea level rise. Ten feet is still a lot of sea level rise if you live in Florida. This isn't really a swing is it but let's say it is, what other paper can you recall that supports your use of the plural for swing? When ice is piled up on the order of a mile thick you might expect estimates of water level increase to vary from one study to another if you thought about it.

[seakitty]

Perhaps the wild swing where "scientists" went from predicting an upcoming ice age in the 1970s to where they are now. Perhaps the dire predictions about "intense hurricanes" after Katrina, followed by years of less than average hurricane seasons. You may also have noticed that "experts" are now expecting a cooling trend for a decade or so (just long enough to get those treaties and policy changes to get in place). Perhaps it's the move away fromt the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" which is wonderful for the alarmists because that way they can blame warming, cooling, snow, mist, rain, drought and every other climate change -- isn't part of the etymology of the word climate rooted in the Latin word for "change"?

[realpolitic]

I guess your response shows that conservatives have little tolerance for ambiguity! You may want scientists to tell you exactly what is going to happen and when, but wth somehting as complex as the climate that precision is not possible. Science is always improving which is not a bad thing or cause for denial arguments, but a good thing.

A ten foot sea level rise would be disatrous for countries like Bangledesh, which is slightly above sea level and has about 150 million people. You are talking about tens of millions of climate refugees. The article gives no timeliemes, though.

Here is a link which shows how much land different cities will lose to flooding with different increases in the sea level.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/san-francisco.shtml

[seakitty]

So, when we've taxed ourselves into oblivion and spent trillions on inadequate technologies and then the scientists halve their estimates 20 times over, your reply will be....?

[BabblingBrooks]

The computer models are bogus. They are linear models of a chaotic system and inherently unable to predict climate accurately. The "parameters are constantly adjusted" to prevent their giving totally ridiculous readouts.

This is computer nerd speak for "we have to keep fudging the data to keep from looking like complete idiots."

It's all propaganda designed to appease environuts and get grant money.

[fumes]

at a guess..

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

at some point.

until then could we please control our soot?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LT461035.htm

[realpolitic]

Good idea, Fimes! but many of the things which cause soot are also linked to co2 emissions.

[fumes]

soot's easy to trap and CO2 isn't..

soot absorbs sunlight..

CO2 doesn't.

[friedfish2718]

I am pushing for this climate change. I have a bundle on mental-health related stock. The prevalence
of mental derangement can only go up!

[mergina]

Most of humanity is never going to make it to the turn of the century.

[BabblingBrooks]

I think Paul Ehrlich said everybody would be starving by now in 1968 or 1970. He was wrong, of course. I suspect you are wrong, too.

All the doomsayers have proven wrong time after time.

[marlovian]

Reports are the leading cause of misinformation.

[WillWilson]

In addition to health dangers of climate change, I've posted plots showing just a few of the environmental inequities (affecting health) seen across the United States:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?cat=9
We still have a long ways to go to provide all Americans equality of health and opportunities.
And as long as denials keep getting posted in these comment sections, for readers honestly trying to understand the science behind global warming (and other topics), I've posted a graph of our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

I've also posted information showing the reality of global warming, and some consequences measured in other organisms:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

Other plots show increasing sea levels, too:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

Will Wilson

[vie2012ne]

If every liberal would just stop exhaling, that would solve several problems at once. C'mon, step up to the plate -- put some skin in the game.

[elmerfude]

Since conservatives are so fond of carbon dioxide as a plant food and a vitamin, I suggest you live in a carbon dioxide chamber for awhile with your house plants.

[realpolitic]

Is science and devil worship the same thing to you?

[ConservativeHippie]

No but organized religion and "science worship" are alot alike. People involved with either have the same hateful attitude toward anyone who sees things differently.

[JanBjernfalk]

The Daily Mail? Seriously?

In the UK, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, somewhat akin to the National Enquirer in the USA.

The reader comments on there are interesting though.

[Richard2]

We have already lived through almost ten years of the 21st Century. What great health problems has so-called global warming caused over the past ten years, a period of unprecedented human CO2 releases into the atmosphere?

On the other hand, we have poverty as a threat to human health. We have a lack of food as a threat to health. And we have a lack of heat in the winter, as a threat to human health. We also have diseases as a threat to health.

Many people have died of these causes over the last ten years. None have died from "global warming."

In addition, much of the money spent on global warming conferences at fancy locations around the world could have been better spent fighting poverty, supporting food production, investing in power plants and improving medical research and care.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

very true, there are other issues indeed.

Some of the issues are on a rise from climate change, particularly the spreading of diseases that were thought to be wiped out.

And as food production goes, we are producing more than ever, but climate change threatens that as well. See the Hardiness Zones:
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

wonder what it will look like in another 50 years?

[realpolitic]

According to the WWF,

"Damage resulting from extreme weather events already imposes a heavy toll on society
that few economies are easily able to absorb. Floods along the Yangtse River in China in
1998 were responsible for 4,000 deaths and economic losses of US $30 billion. In the
same year, extreme weather conditions in Florida lead to drought and widespread
wildfires caused the loss of 483,000 acres and 356 structures from fires, and resulted in an
estimated US $276 million in damages. These kinds of economic impacts have increased
dramatically over recent decades."

"Changing levels of precipitation,
more severe El Niños or tropical cyclones, acute coral bleaching such that corals would
not have time to recover, or a stagnation of the Ocean Conveyer Belt and the collapse of
the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are risks. Governments and businesses that fail to implement prudent climate protection measures must bear part of the responsibility for the consequences of these kinds of catastrophes by either reducing their emissions or paying into a compensation fund."

"The dramatic floods in Mozambique that left thousands stranded and the recent bleaching coral reefs around Fiji are characteristic of what we can expect in a warmer world."

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/xweather.pdf

[TJCole]

I say the Yellowstone Caldera is an even greater threat and it may erupt due to the pull of the Super Massive Black Hole in the center of our galaxy as we approach Dec. 21st 2012...and the great alignment with this black hole and the sun and moon all simultaneously...

Then you'll see some real global warming, and then a new ice age as well no doubt, if the earth doesn't tilt again upon it's axis as well...

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Maybe, maybe not- Is this what the Myan and Inca believed in?

Whether or not that happens, there is nothing we can do about it. Releasing large amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere is something we can do something about though.

[ConservativeHippie]

Wait a minute TJ. You're walking a tightrope with this kind of talk. Do you mean that we are coming to the end of a 5125 year cycle that ancient civilizations tried to warn us about? As we near this "great alignment" it's changing our climate as well as the climate of other planets and all this arguing about it is just getting in our way. I believe the ancients were giving us a "head's up" so we could be working together to prepare for what's ahead. They knew what we soon will find out, all things not sustainable will cease that Dec. Actually, I can hardly wait.

[Semaj51]

How can anyone expect to gain greater support for global warming (opps, I mean climate change or whatever it is now being called) if people who do not support their views are reviled? Personally I support the need to reduce pollution and oil dependence, but I read history and noticed that there has been many rapid climate changes in the past (just ask the Vikings who settled in Greenland). And I recall that is wasn't that many years ago when there was a "panic" about the upcoming ice age.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Two fallacy's and one truth, ok maybe two truths...

T - In todays lexicon it is referred to as climate change, largely a result of a memo by Frank Luntz to GOPers in 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Might I also point out the IPCC has the term "Climate Change" in its name... Not a really big point

T - many rapid climate changes in the past, also true, but none as large in scope during our time on this planet, and none were a result of something we caused as directly as we are doing with releasing copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, mostly from sequestered fossil fuels.

F- Cooling panic in the 70's- This was not a panic, this was a short, brief frenzy in the media. Did you just see the swine flu frenzy? The global cooling theory and panic had fewer supporters.

F- The vikings who settled Greenland. Greenland was never green but for small sections, during our time on this planet.. Ask Fumes to tell you the last time a coniferous forest was there on Greenland. Or better yet, look up the Inuit, who managed to survive on the island. Research of the naming of the island will also point to the irrelevance of the work "Green" in the name (dare I point out that the vikings who settled there came from Iceland...?).

[ConservativeHippie]

"T - many rapid climate changes in the past, also true, but none as large in scope during our time on this planet, and none were a result of something we caused as directly as we are doing with releasing copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, mostly from sequestered fossil fuels."

If we are causing this change, then what caused the others?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

CONT'd

There is a lot of misinformation. But there are simple facts that cannot be ignored.
- The concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere play a very large roll in the climate.

- CO2 is a green house gas.

- We are releasing tons of stored CO2 into the atmosphere. This is carbon that has been out of the active cycle for millions of years.

People of opposing views are not reviled. Most people hear sound bites of things that seem plausible, aka, "They called it Greenland for a reason" or "We exhale CO2, it can't be bad for the environment" - these half truths muddy the water. A deeper examination of the sound bites almost always point to an alarming picture. One that we are increasing the heat trapping gases in our atmosphere that will warm our planet.

[rwext]

1 volcanic eruption causes more climate change than all the CO2 man has emitted ever .. and volcanic eruptions have little CO2

[GuyRC]

Was there a panic? Not really. There was a media storm that was supposedly based on science though it turns out there were only one or two scientists behind it. Your support is also a red-herring based on the idea that people get to vote on science. You got to vote for representatives in the government, who then decide what policy will be put in place. We had 8 years of fossil fuel lobby induced denial and obstruction that I guess you voted for, now we have a slight government majority I voted for that supports the overwhelming scientific consensus. We don't expect to get your support.

[GuyRC]

And go ahead and link the post where you were reviled, compare that to vie2012ne above.

[sc300nc]

Another study funded by those who have swallowed the climate change pill that shows that climate change is a threat....hmmmmm

[Jamie Kowalski]

Meanwhile, the opposition has zero studies to show.

I'll stick with the scientists on this one. It's obvious you'll stick to your side regardless of the avalanche of new studies.

[cfunston]

Really? You will stick with the scientists? Will you stick with the 700+ (Including several of the original UN IPCC scientists) that claim climate change is a natural occurance and not a cause of man-made CO2 emmisions?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3


Of course, I am sure your talking points memo already has character assassinations explaining how these 700+ prominent scientists are not "Real" climate scientists, and that everything is "settled".