“Climate Change” Means Living Sicker And Dying Quicker Or Something

All because you took a 3 minute shower, used more than 2 sheets of TP, ran the sink while brushing your teeth, and keep the thermostat at 68 instead of 58

Climate Change Means Living Sicker and Dying Quicker

With much of the country still suffering through a record cold snap, it’s hard to think about global warming. But this horrific winter is the “weather on steroids” that climate scientists have been predicting for decades in which hotter days get hotter and cold spells are even more intense.

Beyond images of emaciated polar bears and drought-cracked lakes, however, there remains a major part of climate change’s impact that the media have neglected. Yet it is the one that may have the most immediate and profound consequence for our lives: how rising temperatures, higher carbon-dioxide levels and the corresponding changes in ecosystems will have a serious effect on our health. A recent report in the British medical journal The Lancet noted that “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”

In the coming decades, we’ll be living with higher levels of ozone pollution in the air we breathe, killer heat waves, more uncontrolled outbreaks of deadly bug-borne infectious diseases as vectors migrate to newly warm habitats, and fallout from drought-driven agricultural collapse and from increasingly frequent extreme weather events — floods, hurricanes, fires. Because hot air holds more water, we’ll have more torrential rains, more ferocious hurricanes and more dry spells because of heat-induced changes in rainfall patterns. All these changes translate into increasing rates of ills like asthma, allergies, severe respiratory infections, heart and lung disease, cancer, infectious diseases and even dementia and depression.

OK, so more drought and flood. There’s a reason I call it Hotcoldwetdry, because in Warmist world everything is caused by Mankind’s release of CO2. Funny thing is, we aren’t seeing more hurricanes, wildfires, and disease.

There is also the collateral damage from the harsher climate, such as the debilitating injuries and deaths, the dislocation and loss of social cohesion, and the lack of continuity in health care in the aftermath of weather-related calamities. What happened after Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy — when parts of the public health system collapsed and thousands of people went without needed medical care, sometimes for months, leading to much higher rates of disability and mortality — provides a chilling glimpse into a future when storms of this magnitude become commonplace.

Interesting. The 2013 US hurricane season was rather quiet. The US hasn’t seen a landfalling hurricane since 10/24/2005. Only one barely-a-hurricane since 2008. Sandy was made worse due to a cold front. Katrina saw problems because of pitiful, incompetent Democrat politicians. Does anyone remember all these problems in the other states affected, which were run by Republicans?

In the absence of mitigation strategies, we’re going to live sicker and die quicker on a hotter planet. “We’re going to see incremental changes in the next five or 10 years but that might not compare to what we’re going to see in the next 30 or 40 years,” says Dr. John Balbus, a senior policy analyst who leads the climate change and health effort at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. “Scientists don’t want to be alarmist, but they have systematically underestimated the threat.”

Crystal ball time. Hysterical, ranting prognostication is a specialty of Warmists. Perhaps they can tell us what the exact correct temperature of the Earth should be? Oh, and why there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years, and only an increase of 0.28F since 1990?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to ““Climate Change” Means Living Sicker And Dying Quicker Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    “There’s a reason I call it Hotcoldwetdry…” – Because you don’t know any better?

    The optimal temperature for human existence appears to be that at which human civilization flourished. Is that selfish? Of course it is – but someone needs to speak up for all humanity since the far-right only cares about themselves and the top 0.1 percent whom they worship and serve.

    So 10,000 years ago, after the end of the latest glacial period, the global mean temperature is estimated to be similar to today, likely a bit lower than today. Our species was about 150,000-200,000 years old at that time, having arisen out of Africa and spread across Europe, Asia, Australia, North and even South America. 10,000 years ago the Earth held approximately 4 million Homo sapiens, about the number found in southern Florida today. For the next 5 thousand years the Earth’s average temperature was amazingly constant but started cooling about 5000 years ago, plummeting 0.5 to 0.6 degrees Celsius in that 50 centuries!! Since that nadir, in the past single century the mean temperature has increased 0.8 degree Celsius. N.B. – It took 5000 years for the Earth to cool 0.6 degrees C and only 100 years to warm 0.8 degree C.

    Since the great cooling began 5000 years ago the human population has increased from 10 million to over 7,200 million! One could argue that a climatic optimum for humankind is close to the current temperature or slightly less. The Earth will likely be 1 degree C warmer in another century, continuing to rise unless we reduce CO2 emissions (caveat: Worldwide thermonuclear war or massive volcanic eruptions could help keep the temperature down, but reducing CO2 emissions would be less traumatic, except to the far-right’s masters).

  2. jl says:

    “The far right only cares about itself and the .1 percent..” Actually, we care about the bottom 1% much more than you do, as we would not deny them cheap energy-which probably more than anything else is a factor in helping to pull them out of poverty. “Electricity rates skyrocketing” or whatever Obama said should happen doesn’t hurt the top 1% but is devastating to the bottom 1%. Why do you guys hate the poor so much, J? “The earth will likely warm…” What does “likely” mean? It’s just as likely it won’t. “Since the great cooling began 5000 years ago..” Ah, but you forget the warming in the middle ages, where it was as warm or warmer than now. And it still can’t be explained away. Bummer. “It took only 100 years to warm .8 degree.” Well if you can prove it didn’t warm as fast or faster in the past (looking at 100 year intervals), show us. You know, back before they invented thermometers.

  3. Jeffery says:

    j1,

    Haha. Great joke. The far-right cares about the poorest of the world. Oh man. Can you support your claim that mitigating CO2 emissions will be more damaging to the world’s poor than global warming?

    No. It’s much more likely that the Earth will warm than not.

    “Ah, but you forget the warming in the middle ages, where it was as warm or warmer than now.”

    Sorry, not even close. Just another conservative, low info myth. It doesn’t have to be explained away as it was hardly a hiccup in the gradual cooling.

    Let me get this straight. You trust some “data” somewhere that says it was warmer a thousand years ago but don’t trust the more recent 30 yr resolution data that shows no 0.8 C excursions. Is that what you believe? How selective of you.

  4. Jl says:

    Well, for the first one there’s no proof man’s co2 is causing the warming so I don’t have to prove anything. You still seem to get mixed up on that. The new ” theory” guys are the one that have the proving to do. But I doubt I could find one person that would disagree that upping energy costs would hurt the poor. So again, why do you want to hurt them? “The far right cares about the poor.” Yes, and I see you said nothing to refute that, except “man.” Good one, J. “Hardly a hiccup in the cooling.” So you agree it was there. And it was warmer or as warm as, now. So yes, it does have to be explained away. Moving on, I never said I don’t trust the latest data- just the interpretation of it. You keep coming up with this in “in only a hundred years” stuff. I said, correctly, that it means nothing in that we don’t have comparable hundred year data from long ago. Which we don’t.

  5. Jeffery says:

    j1,

    You’re confused about scientific theories and as I’ve said, there is no evidence that would ever convince you of AGW.

    I don’t have to refute your claim that the far-right cares for the poor. You have to support your claim.

    Likewise, please show the evidence that the so-called mwp was warmer than now.

    As I told you, there is now 30 year resolution for the past 2000 years. No evidence of rapid warming except this past century. And you may think it reasonable that during a 5000 year decline of 0.5C that there were several 0.8C excursions, up AND down, returning to the mean without being detected, but the most charitable interpretation is that you do not understand.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    I don’t have to refute your claim that the far-right cares for the poor. You have to support your claim.

    Done.

  7. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    Religious people give more to churches. Got it.

  8. Jl says:

    J-sure there would. Actual warming that one knows is not caused by any other natural effect. But as climate study is basically still in it’ s infancy, that’s a tall order. And if that were true one would of course have to prove that restricting fossil fuels would have any effect, as coal usage has actually gone up in the last decade. “I don’t have to refute your claim that the far right cares for the poor.” Never asked you to. I said developing countries need cheap energy to advance out of poverty. That’s true- but if you’d like to go there and tell them that putting up solar panels and windmills will get them into the 21st century, go ahead. “No evidence of rapid warming except this past century.” Keep it up, J, and I’ll keep calling you on it. You have no comparable data for the period prior to a hundred years ago to say “rapid” – whatever rapid means. Thermometers weren’t around before then. That’s why I say no comparable data. Anyway, what kind of “rapid” has a 17 year and counting pause? And what kind of “scientist” would refuse to show the data that the whole scam is built upon-the hockey stick? Show us the settled science.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    Religious people give more to churches. Got it.

    You may want to look at the data again. It is that conservatives give more to charities.

    Furthermore, conservatives volunteered more than liberals.

    If you can’t understand the basic information that proves your simple assertions wrong, why should anyone believe anything you say in regards to AGW?

  10. john says:

    Don’t believe Jeff Believe the US NAVY
    The US NAVY says that climate change is happening and that humans are the main cause.
    As far as charity…… how much of church donations goes to the charity of hating others that are different?
    Certainly a high percentage of the charity given to the conservative Westboro church might not be considered to be “charity” by all.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    The US NAVY says that climate change is happening and that humans are the main cause.

    Keep beating this meme john. Maybe someday someone like you will believe it.

    As far as charity…… how much of church donations goes to the charity of hating others that are different?

    Less than liberal donations to charity groups they support.

    Certainly a high percentage of the charity given to the conservative Westboro church might not be considered to be “charity” by all.

    Other than the few members of the Westboro church itself, name one person who has donated to their cause.

    It is amazing that you are actually criticizing people for being charitable and giving of their time and money simply because their generosity shows how shallow and selfish you are.

  12. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    But this horrific winter is the “weather on steroids” that climate scientists have been predicting for decades in which hotter days get hotter and cold spells are even more intense.

    Yeah, except they didn’t. They “predicted” that everything would get warmer, that glaciers and poles would all melt away, that children would not know what snow was any more.

    Those are not statements that wild weather would get wilder. And yet, wild weather is also not getting wilder. Weather is getting colder, however. That was not in their prestidigitations.

    Claiming they did predict this is hogwash and blazingly wrong.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7998 access attempts in the last 7 days.