Now A Climahysteric Org. Wants Doctors To Discuss AGW With Patients

The road AGW is traveling down has taken a turn from Silly Lane (worse acne, alligators in the Thames,  collapse of gingerbread houses) to Stupidity Rd.

The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, believes there is a direct link between climate change and better health.

Of course, that isn’t anything new. There have been all sorts of chicken little fairy tales about AGW harming people’s health. Of course, the same could happen if the climate turned much colder, as it did during the Little Ice Age, especially with that Black Death thingy going around at the start of it. I thought all you folks on the Left believed in Darwinism, evolution, survival of the fittest? Anyhow, these chicken little’s mean man induced warming

Their controversial plan would see GPs and nurses give out advice to their patients on how to lower their carbon footprint.

The Council believes that climate change “threatens to radically undermine the health of all peoples”.

It believes health professionals are ideally placed to promote change because “we have ethical responsibility… well as the capacity to influence people and our political representatives to take the necessary action”.

Yeah, um, plain stupid. Idiotic. Ridiculous. Moronic. Asinine. Keep your global warming off my body!

Other proposals include for all developed nations to pay an extra five dollars a barrel on oil and a tax on airline tickets. This would go into a special fund to develop low-carbon alternatives to existing technologies, they say.

Why does virtually every climate alarmist proposal involve raising the cost of living? I guess they haven’t heard about the CRU email and document scandal.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

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

31 Responses to “Now A Climahysteric Org. Wants Doctors To Discuss AGW With Patients”

  1. Reasic says:

    First of all, why do you keep taking the opinion of a small group of people and applying it to all who agree with AGW?

    Secondly, you apparently haven’t read the IPCC AR4 WGII report, which clearly states the many consequences of a warming planet. You and others here continually rail against everything AGW, as if it’s obviously wrong, but you never give any specific examples from the source of our understanding on AGW, and then try to debunk it. For example: “Sure, the IPCC Working Group II report states that an increase in temperatures will result in reduced cereal harvests around the world, but (insert your own rebuttal, backed by scientific research, here)”. Anything else is hot air.

    Finally, as much as you’d like it to, the CRU issue does not disprove AGW. You people always do this. You take something that you don’t understand in the first place out of context, blow it out of proportion, and then claim it alone derails all of the climate research to date, including the basics of atmospheric physics, which are agreed upon even by skeptical climate scientists.

    Your arguments would carry much greater weight, if you’d only try to understand the subject you are arguing against BEFORE you do so.

    • Hmm, just a small group of people were responsible for junk science, destroying data, faking data, “hiding the decline”, and other bad scientific practices at East Anglia, which provided a big boost the notion that mankind is at fault.

      Very few deny that warming happened. But, you folks who believe it is all Man’s fault (yet refuse to live the life,) have not proven that it is man’s fault, just a lot of maybe’s and possibly’s and could be’s.

      So far, all that has been proven is that warming occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age, just like it happened during the Medieval Warm Period. What caused the MWP? No cars or heavy industry then. What caused the Little Ice Age? Climate change?

      You are stuck in a loop. Warming happened, so it must be Man’s fault, because warming happened. One doesn’t necessarily cause the other. 4 billion years of changing climate, and you want to deny nature, and just blame Man. Why?

      Yes, warm periods cause issues. So do cool periods. So do “normal” periods. Nature is a dynamic system. Things change.

      Your own arguments would carry weight if you weren’t so stuck on the Religion of AGW, and refuse to see any evidence that denies your religion.

  2. Trish says:

    Loons, the whole lot of them.
    Nothing can be simple to these folks, it always has to be a tragedy ready to occur. I think the medical profession ie my doctors and nurses ought to keep their focus directly on my health, and leave politics and the idiotic global warming issue out of it.

  3. Reasic says:

    Therein lies the problem, Trish. You think global warming is “idiotic”, which says something of your knowledge on the subject. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if you really understood climate science.

    For the record, though, I personally don’t see the point in my doctor talking to me about my carbon footprint, either.

    • As far as understanding climate science, I think we get it. The main players hide data, change data, falsify data, block scientists who have different viewpoints, say they will change the way peer review works, use junk computer programs, monitor 3 trees and say Man is at fault, etc and so on.

      It is up to those of you who believe Man is at fault, mostly or solely, to prove it. You can’t. You just point towards data that says it has warmed, so, must be Man. And you want to destroy economies and limit personal freedom in the name of Doing Something. Despite flat line and reducing temps while CO2 has continued to go up.

  4. Trish says:

    I think it would be nice if we would say that climate science is debatable, at best that the fix is not in at all. And may never be.
    I am all for protecting the environment; but not by acting rashly and with no regard to the affects some of the ways true believers would like to change how we live, make on our existence.

  5. mojo says:

    If my “personal physician” (as they call it) dares to mention the subject in ANY context, I’ll have a new doctor before the week is out.

    Stick to medicine, pal. Religion ain’t your beat.

  6. Otter says:

    Interesting that reasick points to the IPCC report, which is based upon Fraudulent data to begin with…

  7. Reasic says:


    It has been proven, and the proof is in the IPCC reports that you so despise. That you think it’s about three trees and it’s warming so it must be man shows that you know not of what you speak. Our proof is available for you. Where is your rebuttal?


    Step number one is understanding the threat. If you don’t, then you can’t possibly honestly debate about what to do about it. If you don’t think there’s any problem, then you will put no effort into the solving it.


    Got any proof for your assertion? Where is the flawed data?

  8. Reasic says:


    …and refuse to see any evidence that denies your religion.

    What evidence? I’d love to see some. I’ve been asking for it, but no one has obliged.

    As for our evidence, one of the most prominent fingerprints of man’s activity on recent warming is the observed simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, which is exactly what is predicted to happen, if greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, were mainly at fault. If the Sun was mainly at fault, there would be a uniform warming throughout our atmosphere.

    We have found the most likely culprit for warming, and have provided detailed explanations for you. However, your side has provided nothing but red herrings, straw men, hyperbole, and conjecture. You speculate in generalities about it being simply part of a “natural cycle”. What does that mean? Where is your scientific documentation to prove it? At least provide a scientific rebuttal to the fact that man is mostly at fault. I’ve seen nothing of the sort. Only guessing, which you somehow think trumps science.

  9. TFMo says:

    Detailed explanations…except that it looks like some of that explanation was deliberately falsified, and this particular bit of fakery has been used, in part or in whole, by many other scientists who came to the conclusion that TREE PRETTY, MAN BAD!

    And they call US the deniers?

  10. Trish says:

    Understanding the threat requires the “belief” in a threat, and believing in something like global warming as a threat requires one to have scientific PROOF, which to date has never been provided, by AGW theories, ever. I would be happy to work to do anything to keep my planet alive and well, but not at the expense of destroying the ONLY country who can do so, and also assist others when we are prosperous. So, I propose we continue to use fossil fuels (especially while we are in a recession, and such things as CALIFORNIA drilling and taking advantage of their resources to its fullest capacity to save their economy) cleanly and grow our economoy back to health, before we act upon long term disussions, that will cripple us pf we implement them now or in the next 10 years, yet help no one or no country.

  11. TFMo says:

    Precisely, Trish. The left has sought to end the debate by cheating and deceit. None of the so-called fixes for AGW will do a blessed thing to help the climate, even if such a thing is even possible. Monkeying around with things we do not fully understand rarely leads to anything good, and even our top scientists do not know ALL the factors driving our climate. This knee-jerk reaction, blaming Man for all the world’s ills, is going to cause serious problems that all the money in the world won’t fix. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap and Fake, none of these would solve any of the problems being claimed by the left. All it would do is leave countries unable to enact changes in the event of a real catastrophe.

    Much like the bright idea to give people in Africa mosquito netting to help fight malaria. Seems like a good idea on paper, but then a person would have to be in the mosquito netting 24/7; kinda hard to go find dinner when you can’t leave your hut. Of course, there is already an excellent way to fight the mosquitoes: DDT. But thanks to a left-wing enviro-nazi hack and a work of pure fiction, DDT is now banned from use, which has resulted in millions of deaths.

  12. reasic says:


    Again, you’ve avoided provided anything remotely resembling a logical rebuttal, and instead, have resorted to childish remarks. Let me know when you decide to grow up and have big boy arguments.

  13. reasic says:


    Again, you’re making proposals about what to do about a problem, without first fully understanding said problem. Yes, scientists have provided sufficient proof that man is mostly responsible for recent warming. For example, one good piece of evidence is the result of various detection and attribution studies. There is also the fact that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. These point to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as the primary source of warming. We also have proof that man is primary responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen in over 650,000 years.

    Do you understand all of these pieces of evidence, and also have access to rebuttals to each of them? If this was the first time you had heard of ANY of these items I mentioned, I would seriously question whether I really knew that AGW was false. I only scratched the surface on the plethora of information that is available on the subject.

  14. reasic says:


    DDT is now banned from use, which has resulted in millions of deaths.

    You are just full of BS, aren’t you? DDT was never banned for antimalarial use. The only thing that was banned was the indiscriminate use of DDT as a herbicide, in part because the problem bugs were developing a resistance, in addition to the fact that its overuse was causing environmental problems. DDT is still allowed to treat for mosquitoes, in addition to other alternative chemicals and treatments (i.e., nets).

  15. TFMo says:

    Dodge, dodge, duck, weave…is that how the “big boys” do it? Apparently so, given all the interesting things found in the recently leaked e-mails.

    And like them, you ignore the fact that I have provided this information SEVERAL TIMES already, both to you and to you John Ryan and to other trolls on other sites, and in posts on my site, and on Ghost’s site. And like John, you ignore it while claiming that I provide nothing more than rhetoric. Fortunately, most of the people here have considerably more intelligence than your average Kos kid or Lizard or Huff Puffer.

    Let’s ask the Africans how much DDT they’ve been allowed to use, hm? Given that that is what I was talking about. Read much, Reasic? Apparently not. I know it’s hard to function outside the left’s echo chamber, but do try to keep up. It’s expected of “big boys.”

    And no, scientists have most certainly NOT provided “sufficient proof.” In order for it to be sufficient OR proof, it has to actually be based on FACTS, rather than fudged figures. Thus, what has been provided is OPINION dressed up and presented as fact. In other words, a lie designed to push an agenda.

    Come back when you’ve figured out the difference.

  16. Trish says:

    Well, we could nuke the planet, rid it of all lifeforms and thereby, carbon doxide. And at the same time, a long cooling period would ensue. That ought to make Reasic and the rest of the AGWer’s happy…

  17. Reasic says:

    lol. TFMo, yet AGAIN, you’ve ignored the specific argument I made, and instead, resorted to bloviating. Several comments ago, I explained for you that one important sign that warming is man’s fault is the fact that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. Any response to that, specifically? How about to the fact that models have been run with both natural and anthropogenic forcings, and the anthropogenic models matched more closely the warming that we’ve seen? Any response? How about the fact that numerous attribution studies have pinned recent changes in climate mostly on human activity? Any response to that? How about the fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen to levels that are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years? Any response?

    Please, for once, respond specifically to my claims. Also, if you feel that I’ve missed some very important evidence that you’ve provided to support your case in the past, please provide that as well. I’ll be glad to look it over.

  18. Reasic says:


    On DDT, if you have some evidence that DDT has been banned for antimalarial use in Africa, please provide it. Who imposed the ban?

  19. Reasic says:


    No response to my claims? Just nonsense about nuking the planet? Why won’t ANY of you engage me on the facts?! Why do you keep talking about nonsensical methods for dealing with the problem, when you don’t even understand or acknowledge the problem in the first place? Can we at least settle on whether the problem exists first, and whether it is caused mostly by human activity? Then, we’ll get into fixing it.

    So, about my evidence… Please read back over my comment to you, and even my recent comment to TFMo, and let me know if you have any rebuttals or objections. Thanks.

  20. Trish says:

    I can find as much proof it doesn’t exist as you have offered that it does. Point is, why wouldn’t you like to hear that we aren’t absolutely and entirely at fault???? What harm would that do?
    What if (as over 30,000 scientists on one report have stated) the climate changes cyclically, and we have no power over it?????

  21. Reasic says:


    So, you have no specific rebuttals to my actual claims, which are based on scientific findings?

    Also, I haven’t stated that man is “absolutely and entirely” at fault. I have stated, as has the IPCC report, that man is MOSTLY at fault. No credible scientist denies that there are also natural factors at play.

    I have two problems with your petition. First of all, it is not scientific proof of anything. It is the opinion of various people. Secondly, it has been shown to be filled with many, many errors. It contains numerous fake names, duplicates, and even people who have publicly stated that they do not agree with the petition. It uses the term “scientist” very loosely, as only a handful of signers are scientists in the relevant field. Besides that, the methods by which the petition was carried out were questionable at best. I even received a copy in the mail. This thing was sent out to anyone and everyone, and contained very misleading information, with a form to fill out and send in. Not at all objective. In short, the petition is bunk.

    Your article from Lindzen is interesting, because in it, he basically agrees with 95% or more percent of climate science, some of which many skeptics still debate. His argument lies in the amount and even direction of feedbacks, such as water vapor. Again, I have two problems with this. First, he must make his case in scientific literature. This is an article, which states his opinion. Secondly, he does have an alternate explanation for recent warming, called the Iris Hypothesis, but it has been tested and it has so far failed in research attempts. So, he resorts to misleading the public in the media. That’s fine and dandy, but it doesn’t discount the research that has been done to date.

    And finally, you have a link to page, which states that global warming is a hoax? So, the planet hasn’t warmed? Is that the argument? It seems that your pieces of evidence don’t even agree with each other.

    Trish, please put together a logical argument, not just a few links you find through a quick google search. I’ve provided you with several scientific pieces of evidence, all backed by scientific research, and documented in the IPCC report, and you’ve provided me with a debunked “petition”, one rogue scientist’s opinion, and a link to a very non-scientific page. Do you discredit science as a whole?

    What do you have to say about the evidence I have provided for you?

  22. Otter says:

    Hate to say it, Trish, but it was clear from the beginning that he would dis any links you provided. He’s hooked on the carbon cool-aid.

  23. reasic says:


    So, I’m supposed to just agree with the evidence provided, or I’m “dissing” it? Really? I provided detailed objections. Do you have any rebuttals for them?

    You know, for a group of people who constantly complain that AGW is about politics rather than science, you all don’t seem to understand or appreciate science. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but a list of names is not science, and neither is an opinion piece written by a scientist or a bunch of random links. You need a hypothesis, which you can then test in scientific research.

    So, do you value science or not? So you have rebuttals for any of my points? Do you have any counterpoints for my evidence that man is mostly to blame for recent warming? Or, do you just want to continue to avoid any detailed arguments, and instead, drink the denialist kool-aid?

  24. TFMo says:

    No, Dipstic, you asked me to provide a specific, and I did.

    Is DDT OFFICIALLY banned in Africa. No, but the UN is trying to make it official. And rather than impose an OFFICIAL ban in Africa, they’ve made it abundantly clear that the full use of DDT there will be punished.

    As for your “evidence” of AGW, there is a distinct difference between coincidence and causation (something you lefties still haven’t figured out.) If my son blows out his birthday candles and wishes for a bike, then discovers we bought him a bike, it does NOT mean that his blowing out the candles and making a wish made it happen.

    As for your models, considering how the hysterics have fudged the data and attempted to DESTROY the raw data, it calls their results into question. Your argument boils down to “so we don’t have real data…we still KNOW this is whats happening.”

    No, we DON’T know this is happening, nor do we know the exact cause of any of it happening if it actually is. Pushing a meme is not proof. Stamping your foot and insisting it’s true does not make it so. So far, all that has been proven is that the climate is changing. Congratulations. You’ve proved that our climate is not the exact same day after day. You have not PROVEN that Man is the cause. At best, you’ve proven that the climate is changing and living creatures on this planet produce CO2.

    More importantly, your side has proven that, by cooking the books and destroying data to avoid FOIRs, we can not simply take their word or their research at face value.

  25. TFMo says:

    I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but a list of names is not science, and neither is an opinion piece written by a scientist or a bunch of random links. You need a hypothesis, which you can then test in scientific research.

    Funny, but this is essentially all that the left has provided. Seems to be perfectly acceptable for YOUR side, but when we do it, we’re “ignoring science.” Typical. And again, the left has managed to screw this one up by providing false data and attempting to “redefine” peer review.

  26. Reasic says:


    What specific did you provide?

    Is DDT OFFICIALLY banned in Africa. No, but…

    Exactly. DDT is not and wasn’t ever banned for antimalarial use. Please provide some source for your claim that the UN will punish anyone for using DDT in an antimalarial capacity.

    As for your “evidence” of AGW, there is a distinct difference between coincidence and causation…

    That’s exactly the problem. Very detailed analyses have been performed in order to determine the causes of warming. You have provided no rebuttals to these scientific findings. Instead, you have only made general arguments against the credibility of the science, based on very question anecdotal evidence and incorrect assumptions. Now, do you value science or not? You lament AGW being about politics rather than science, but you have yet to provide anything remotely resembling a scientific argument.

    As for your models, considering how the hysterics have fudged the data and attempted to DESTROY the raw data, it calls their results into question.

    This overgeneralization is fallacious and irrational. You are blindly ignoring scientific findings, based on your misunderstanding about the private conversations between a handful of scientists. Not smart.

    No, we DON’T know this is happening, nor do we know the exact cause of any of it happening if it actually is.

    You’re right. YOU don’t know if anything is happening, because you’re acting like a child with his fingers in his ears, singing “I can’t hear you!”. I’ve given you several pieces of scientific evidence for AGW, and you still haven’t specifically countered any of it. You’ve only diverted with red herrings about CRU, DDT, and your general distrust of scientists.

    To be honest, I don’t know if there’s anything I could provide for you to convince you that man is mostly at fault. This is a scientific subject, which needs to be understood through scientific research. Therefore, any evidence I provide will either be, or will be the result of, scientific research. Judging by the complete disdain you have shown to date for scientists and the scientific process, I can’t see that there is any credible evidence I could provide for you that you wouldn’t simply dismiss as a product of evil libruhl sienteests, who manipyoolayt datuh.

    If all of the work of climate scientists to date — everything the IPCC reports are based on — is complete and total bunk, wouldn’t it be extremely easy to refute in scientific literature? Couldn’t the arguments be picked apart extremely easily? If so, why hasn’t that been done? If you think it has, where is it?

  27. Reasic says:

    Funny, but this is essentially all that the left has provided.

    No, TFMo, here is where you are terrbily wrong. My side as 99.9% of the scientific research on the subject backing us up. You only have a lot of special interests, talking heads, and politicians, backed by a few rogue scientists and their opinions, none of which have passed a scientific test. A person can have an opinion all day, but what matters is whether it can be proven in scientific literature. If you’d ever look into it (which you haven’t), you’d see that most statements from people on my side are generally backed by scientific research.

  28. TFMo says:

    Wow. I can see that the echo chamber has permanently damaged your ability to reason, Jackassic. Ever single one of your little rants in your previous posts can easily be attributed to the climahysterics.

    Your “99.9%” of the scientific research is rendered invalid, since your side has been caught screwing with the data.

    Talking heads, like you and so many other trolls who endlessly jump on right-leaning sites, and for what? To “edumacate” us poor conservative hicks? No, not buying the altruism here. You and your ilk are simply here to annoy. Job well done, you’re annoying.

    Politicians. Snookums, there are a hell of a lot more politicians pushing this nonsense than are standing against it; no wonder, considering how much mney there is to be made. Al Gore is a prime example; he was worth a little over 2 mil when he lost the 2000 election. He’s now worth over 20. And once again, you claim I haven’t read any of the research, haven’t looked at a single scrap of data, I’m just repeating Glenn Beck’s talking points, or Rush, or whomever. And again, no. Most of the stuff I read DOES come from your side. AND AGAIN, even people on YOUR side are having trouble reconciling the numbers.

    All that you’ve managed to prove is your loyalty to the meme. You haven’t proven that Man is responsible for the climate changes, you haven’t proven that your side DIDN’T fudge the numbers, you haven’t proven a damn thing, other than the fact that you support the side that has been caught LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA.

    THIS is why no one gives half a damn what you say. This is why you aren’t going to convince anyone that you have the first clue what you’re talking about. You and the rest of the Global Warming/Cooling/Whatever moonies have shot your credibility.

    Had such a thing happened on the Right, your side would be DEMANDING public stonings, fines, and hunting down anyone that had so much as passed them on the street and discrediting them. But we’re supposed to just blow off the FACT that your side has committed the greatest fraud in the world’s history.

    Nope. Sorry. I’m holding you and your side to the exact same standards you insist we follow, and giving you the exact same treatment the Right would receive; ridicule and dismissal:

    You’re an idiot. Goodbye.

  29. Reasic says:

    Your “99.9%” of the scientific research is rendered invalid, since your side has been caught screwing with the data.

    Man’s role in warming has been proven through scientific research, and spelled out for you in IPCC reports. That you don’t value actual science doesn’t negate that. You make claims about the manipulation of data, and use those to generalize about ALL scientists, and ALL research, but as I’ve tried to explain to you countless times, this is a farce. My argument IS proven, in scientific literature. Now, it is your turn to counter it with a VALID rebuttal. It is YOU who has failed to prove your assertion that the ACTUAL science, referenced in IPCC reports is bunk, or based on manipulated data. In order to prove this, you would need to provide critical examples where data was manipulated, proof that the manipulation occurred, AND a logical argument for how the tainted research negates the theory that recent warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature. It would be nice, by the way, if you could also find one or two arguments that provided a viable alternative explanation for 20th century warming, which are backed by scientific research.

    I don’t know if you truly realize how vast of a conspiracy theory you are touting here. Nearly every scientific body in the world agrees with the theory that recent warming has been MOSTLY anthropogenic in nature. We’re talking the world’s Academies of Science, Earth Science, Meteorology, Paleoclimatology, Biology, Human Health, Physics, and other various scientific organizations from all around the world. Do you really believe that all of these people have been duped, or are in on this massive “fraud”?

    So, I’m not going anywhere. I would honestly like to see what proof you have to support your claims. I know that you think it’s all bunk. I want to see you prove it. What, specifically, was manipulated, and how does it negate the theory of AGW?

Pirate's Cove