AGW Today: It’s The Greatest Health Threat Of The 21st Century

The scare-mongering continues

Global warming is the biggest public health threat of the 21st century, eclipsing infectious diseases, water shortages and poverty, a team of medical and climate-change researchers concluded.

Once they realized they would get some great grants for doing more studies!

The phenomenon will be felt first in the developing world, further burdening a population already in crisis from food shortages, said the report from University College London that was published today in The Lancet journal. The changing climate will also cause real and lasting damage to the Western world, affecting generations to come, said Anthony Costello, a pediatrician at University College London.

The same Lancet that came out with that silly statistical study that libs used to say the U.S. had killed a hundred thousand Iraqi’s? Yup. You know what will cause real hardship in the developing world? Increasing the cost and/or reducing the supply of modern energy sources. Perhaps if these liberals were so concerned, they would allow the use of DDT to save millions of lives every year without threatening those countries.

“Climate change is a health issue affecting billions of people, not just an environmental issue about polar bears and deforestation,” Costello said during a news conference. “We are setting up a world for our children and grandchildren that may be extremely frightening and turbulent.”

Polar bears are doing so great that Obama has kept Dubya era rules in place. In may areas, such as the USA, there are more trees now then when the Pilgrims came to our shores. However, deforestation in areas such as South America are an environmental concern, which has little to do with AGW. Not much concern from the Left over the Generation Theft Act creating a frightening and turbulent future for the kids and grandkids, eh?

A warmer planet will flood cities, leading to mass migration of coastal-dwelling residents and triggering wars as resources such as food and water become scarcer, the researchers said. Rising temperatures will spread diseases like malaria and increase deaths from flooding, drought and more intense storms.

The ocean levels went up a whopping 8 inches during the 20th century, and had been going up that amount per century most of the last several thousand years. In other words, the norm. As far as malaria, back to DDT. And even teh UN IPCC cannot make a claim that storms will get more intense. Know why? Because the worst storms are caused by a clash between very cold air and warm air. If warm is meeting warm, storms aren’t as bad.

“This is not a disaster movie with a happy ending,” Costello said. “This is something that is happening and we need to do something about it now. To try and put spurious body bag figures on this is going to be very, very difficult.”

No, this is real life, and is something that has happened throughout the history of the Earth, and, notably, back during the “dark ages,” during the Global Climate Optimum. During that time, culture expanded, they grew wine in Britain, and the Vikings became farmers in Greenland. Then came the Little Ice Age. People where ice skating and having parties on the Thames, the farming Vikings died out, and, oh, yes, the Black Plague killed somewhere between 30% to 60% of Europe’s population. Interestingly, I’d say that global cooling was the greatest threat from around 1200 A.D. to around 1850.

It’s all about the scare for control. Because, as John Christy said “The problem is that the solutions being offered don’t provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe.” If there is no detectable relief, then what is the point of the legislation and rules?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “AGW Today: It’s The Greatest Health Threat Of The 21st Century”

  1. Reasic says:

    I’m not going to touch the climate change issue in this one, because I’ve pointed out how you are wrong countless times, and you always end up ignoring my arguments.

    However, I will point out that you are also incorrect about DDT. DDT is not, nor was it intended to be, banned for use in the prevention of malaria. The ACTUAL concern was that DDT was being sprayed indiscriminately, which was not only bad for the environment, but was resulting in mosquitos building up a tolerance to the chemical.

    The chemical is known to be highly toxic to aquatic life, and also to cause eggshell thinning for many birds.

    So, how is it that you, a person who claims to be concerned about the environment, can ridicule efforts to control the use of a chemical that is toxic, is allowed for disease vector control, and for which there are viable substitutes?

  2. Go look that up again, Reasic. While there is a small merit to egg shell thinning, 1st world governments threaten to, and will, deny aid to 3rd world countries that use DDT, the ones that need it the most, which leads to millions of human deaths. All because one lady had a freakout and wrote a book.

    You have your opinion of AGW, I have mine. Funny how how folks on your side of the argument rarely walk the talk though, eh?

  3. Reasic says:

    Teach, you are the king of unsubstantiated claims and generalities:

    …1st world governments threaten to, and will, deny aid to 3rd world countries that use DDT…

    Which governments? Give me some specifics — names, links, articles, anything. True, Rachel Carson wrote a book, but she understood the concerns of disease vector control, and actually favored the controlled use of DDT to fight malaria. There has never been a ban on DDT for this use.

    Funny how how folks on your side of the argument rarely walk the talk though, eh?

    Who, specifically, and what have they failed to do? Funny how you’re more convinced by baseless generalities about people, than by actual scientific evidence, eh?

    Every time I submit you with a scientific rebuttal to one of your countless nonsensical claims, you drop the argument. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I know I’d definitely want to be sure that my opinion was supported by the facts. I know for a fact that yours is not. If you were truly interested in truth and objectivity, you would engage me in a friendly discussion on the subject, and then see where the facts lead us. You, however, always avoid such conversations, preferring instead to stick to your assumptions, red herrings, generalities, gossip, and partisan talking points on the issue.

    That’s fine if that’s what you prefer, but don’t pretend to be concerned about the environment or the truth. You can’t have it both ways.

Pirate's Cove