More almost-pure nonsense about AGW and health, this time even bigger than last time, from two famous medical journals and 18 professional medical organizations.
Anybody could write them down by using a little catastrophical imagination (poverty, death, plagues, famines, the works). They should be titled “No University degree required”.
- The other big issue is that there is an “original sin”, the convenient forgetting of non-catastrophical peer-reviewed literature.
I demonstrated that a few months ago. And I was only able to analyze the bits I am familiar with…who knows how many more articles have been left out.
- There is however another sign that indicates there is something peculiar about all these reports. They are supposed to be written by doctors for doctors, yet they don’t confine themselves to areas that require a doctor’s expertise. And so they end up in unsupported claims.
For example there are no “encroaching deserts in Africa” (the opposite might be happening…yet again, some say, because of global warming). And the forays into rainfall patterns and climate modelling in the earlier report can at best make one cringe.
Add to that some blatant untruths (there are no “clear facts…identified in relation to climate change“;and especially so about health issues).
The result can only be a full rejection of the latest claims. That’s why, whatever the intentions (and professional competence) of those writing them, they are almost-pure nonsense.
An entire article about the unfavourable effects of the weather on people’s health, and not a single mention of anything relating to warmer conditions…
Does anybody know why the BBC and the UK Met Office are unable to logically follow the above, and proclaim a very, very good side of the expected warming in the next years?
How many remember that in revolutionary France, the very unsafe Reign of Terror was unleashed by a self-styled “Committe of Public Safety“?
Times have changed, but “Public” concerns have only become slightly less obnoxious. And so, we have now several examples of “public health” decisions that end up making public health worse than necessary.
The rule looks like the following: when science becomes a matter of public health, politics steps in, kills off the scientific debate, stifles independent research and opts for the (politically) safest option, that is (a) likely to be an oversimplification (effects taken as causes), (b) unlikely to be the best choice by a long shot, and (c) likely to be centered around people having to change their behaviors and just lead a more saintly life (eat bland food against cholesterol, avoid stress against stomach ulcer, burn less coal against, stop using DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitos, or whatever else).
The end result is millions of people feeling the guilt of having brought ill health to themselves (or left almost powerless against diseases, in the case of DDT and ulcers), despite there being no actual good reason whatsoever.
Their underlying problems may or many not be managed but are never solved, and their lives are un-necessarily ruined.
It’s all for the good of Public Health, you know!