Health Effects of Climate Change report edited

[Karlin]

Full Version of White House "Edited" CDC Climate Report - with highlights! -
http://tinyurl.com/ytxa3u

The full report from last week on the health effects of global warming and climate change [GW/cc] is there at that link , with all the RED being what was edited OUT by the White House.

There was originally 3,107 words, edited down to just 1,500 words once the White house got thru with it.

An increase in many significant diseases is forecast to occur due to Gw/cc.

This report was the "Climate Change and Public Health Statement" of Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It is no small deal, this is the major health agency of the USA.

Denial is no joke, these politicians are playing with our lives and the stability of planet earth's atmosphere.

Importing oil and refining gasoline are the two biggest money-makers in the energy and transportation industries, and these politicians are protecting their profits by denying climate change.

 

[Extrafire]

...and these politicians are protecting their profits by denying climate change.

Oh, knock it off! You catastrophists keep saying that and you know it isn't true. What they deny is that climate change is MAN MADE! Get it right next time.

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Besides which, what would you suggest we do to save the planet from certain doom? I've been asking that question for a month and a half and not one of you has an answer.

 

[Tonington]

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Of course, it's hard to tell what the implications and direct causes are when the report by the top health scientists are chopped. Prosperity and adverse health conditions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Extrafire]

Of course, it's hard to tell what the implications and direct causes are when the report by the top health scientists are chopped. Prosperity and adverse health conditions are not mutually exclusive.

Couldn't be all that adverse, considering the doubling of life expectancy.

 

[Tonington]

Health is not only quantity of life, but quality of life. But again, it's hard to know the adverse conditions without the full report of those in the know.

Do you endorse the censure of government scientists for political partisanship?

 

[Extrafire]

Health is not only quantity of life, but quality of life. But again, it's hard to know the adverse conditions without the full report of those in the know.

Do you endorse the censure of government scientists for political partisanship?

Well you know how much better the quality of life is than before the industrial revolution.

And no I don't, but that's not what I'm taking about.

 

[Tonington]

Well that's the whole point of this thread. That same administration also canceled the NASA project which would for the first time give climatologists satellite data which records how much incoming solar energy is reflected and how much is absorbed, 24 hours a day.

 

[Extrafire]

Yeah, I know what the whine is about. Seems rather a trivial concern, compared to the benefits derived from all that energy usage.

 

[Tonington]

Yeah, I know what the whine is about. Seems rather a trivial concern, compared to the benefits derived from all that energy usage.

I don't think health concerns should ever be considered trivial.:roll:

 

[Extrafire]

The health concerns being talked about are trivial compared to the health benefits that have ensued.

 

[Tonington]

The health concerns being talked about are trivial compared to the health benefits that have ensued.

Did you read both articles? I'll say again, health concerns are never trivial. Are we to accept the gains we have made and then cast off future detrimental health effects because some kind of ahead of the game attitude? What a load of crap.

The health effects will not be equitable. The poorest stand to lose the most, and the poorest are the lower tail of those distribution curves. I don't think they would see added pressure as trivial.

 

[Canucklehead]

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

.

There couldn't be any correlation to the increased life spans, healthier lives and a decrease in death rates for most any given disease/ailment to the advent of modern medical care, could there?

I did not read the report but have read enough to know that we will be confronted with virii and bacteria which have not seen the light of day in centuries or millenia... it could quite possibly make the death of all those natives due to the flu a few hundred years ago look like a mere runny nose by comparison.

For what it's worth though, the planet will be fine. Homosapiens, however, may not fare so well.

 

[Niflmir]

Oh, knock it off! You catastrophists keep saying that and you know it isn't true. What they deny is that climate change is MAN MADE! Get it right next time.

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Besides which, what would you suggest we do to save the planet from certain doom? I've been asking that question for a month and a half and not one of you has an answer.

Labelling a person is really low brow.

What is Karlin suggesting we do to protect people and the planet from possible adverse consequences of climate change? That we don't censor the people that are informed about these issues.

People have been giving you answers for months but you just disregard them.

 

[Extrafire]

Did you read both articles? I'll say again, health concerns are never trivial. Are we to accept the gains we have made and then cast off future detrimental health effects because some kind of ahead of the game attitude? What a load of crap.

The health effects will not be equitable. The poorest stand to lose the most, and the poorest are the lower tail of those distribution curves. I don't think they would see added pressure as trivial.

The "future detrimental health effects" are nothing more than fortune telling. No-one knows the future, and if you went back over all the studies and papers of the last 50 years you'd find a whole plethora of predictions of dire health effects that never materialized. I'll bet good money that these predictions won't happen either. Do you check your horoscope in the paper every day and believe that too?

But just for you I'll go over some of them

Direct effects of heat,

We can take a lot more heat than some people like to admit. It isn't the heat, it's the acclimatization. If you're acclimatized to 30 and it goes up to 40, you suffer. But if you're acclimatized to 40 and the temp is 40, you don't. This has been well demonstrated, so if the overall temps increase, health effects would be minimal at worst.

Health effects related to extreme weather events,

Like a heat wave? We already get them. Again, minimal effect.

Air pollution-related health effects,

Air pollution is chemicals and particulate in the air. Not caused by GW.

Allergic diseases,

Caused by chemicals and pollutants, not global warming. Some allergies like "hay fever" may increase, but that's about all. Minimal effect.

Water- and food-borne infectious diseases,

That's why we have chlorination and refrigeration and health regulations. Unlikely to increase at all.

Food and water scarcity, at least for some populations,

Overpopulation of desert areas may result in water shortages. Food can be (and is) transported.

Mental health problems, and

Caused, no doubt, by climate fear mongers in school kids

Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects

The same as now.

As I said, I doubt the disease problem will materialize. If that were the case, then we'd already see serious problems in warmer climates, like Florida, Texas, California, while Canada, Norway and Russia would be much healthier areas of the world to live. Our energy consumptive ways have doubled life expectancy. Do you really believe these imagined future diseases will cut the average life expectancy in half? Gimme a break! You guys are so gullible.

 

[Extrafire]

There couldn't be any correlation to the increased life spans, healthier lives and a decrease in death rates for most any given disease/ailment to the advent of modern medical care, could there?

Why yes, my point exactly. Modern medicine requiring a lot of energy.

I did not read the report but have read enough to know that we will be confronted with virii and bacteria which have not seen the light of day in centuries or millenia... it could quite possibly make the death of all those natives due to the flu a few hundred years ago look like a mere runny nose by comparison.

For what it's worth though, the planet will be fine. Homosapiens, however, may not fare so well.

Nonsense. Humanity thrives during warming eras. If you want to know what real disease epidemics are like, watch this excerpt from the History Channel.

 

[Extrafire]

Labelling a person is really low brow.

Yes, I've been labeled a few times myself (denier, delayer)

What is Karlin suggesting we do to protect people and the planet from possible adverse consequences of climate change? That we don't censor the people that are informed about these issues.

I'll agree with not censoring. Including not censoring the "denier" side, presenting both sides equally to the public and to school kids.

People have been giving you answers for months but you just disregard them.

I haven't been back on here for two months yet, and I only posed the question a month and a half ago, and only Tonington has attempted to answer it. Neither he nor anyone else has put forward a solution to the problem posed in my question.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Extrafire, lol?
The fact that White House edited the whole darn thing and reduced the report to a crumble, that IS serious whether Global warming be true or not.

the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population.

These has to do with the massive infrastructure advancement, medical breakthrough, high quality of life, and energy output....mostly oil now days. This prosperity is only temporary, if you need my opinion.

Overpopulation of desert areas may result in water shortages. Food can be (and is) transported.

transportation requires use of energy and that energy is oil which is unsustainable. We don't know when it will run out and are you suggesting we keep increasing energy demand ALL over the world? Have you calculated the cost of food after transportation?

You guys are so gullible.

I don't really care much about global warming but I know that I'd rather believe in global warming than White House.

 

[Extrafire]

Extrafire, lol?
The fact that White House edited the whole darn thing and reduced the report to a crumble, that IS serious whether Global warming be true or not.

Yeah, I didn't disagree with that part of the conversation.

These has to do with the massive infrastructure advancement, medical breakthrough, high quality of life, and energy output....mostly oil now days. This prosperity is only temporary, if you need my opinion.

Yup, all due to energy use. We depend on it to maintain our way of life. Our prosperity is vulnerable to global political upheavals and/or disruption of our energy supply. If neither happens, we'll continue on more and more prosperous.

transportation requires use of energy and that energy is oil which is unsustainable. We don't know when it will run out and are you suggesting we keep increasing energy demand ALL over the world? Have you calculated the cost of food after transportation?

In the long term, oil supplies may well be unsustainable, or if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct, it will be unlimited, though much more expensive. We know that we have 90 years in reserves at this point. Energy demand all over the world has nothing to what we do, it's what is happening as third world countries come up into the modern healthier economies. Are you suggesting we keep them backward and poor?

I don't really care much about global warming but I know that I'd rather believe in global warming than White House.

Oh I believe in global warming, and global cooling, for that matter. Perfectly natural. It's the human cause I dispute, and the impending disaster that I deny. As for the White House, I'm no fan of the current occupant, or the previous one either.

 

[Niflmir]

I haven't been back on here for two months yet, and I only posed the question a month and a half ago, and only Tonington has attempted to answer it. Neither he nor anyone else has put forward a solution to the problem posed in my question.

The fact that you don't agree with what people suggest does not mean that people have not proposed solutions. Since you seem to disregard that fact that I too put something there, however brief. Furthermore, what qualifies you to judge the validity of proposals?

 

[YoungJoonKim]

In the long term, oil supplies may well be unsustainable, or if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct, it will be unlimited, though much more expensive. We know that we have 90 years in reserves at this point. Energy demand all over the world has nothing to what we do, it's what is happening as third world countries come up into the modern healthier economies. Are you suggesting we keep them backward and poor?

No..I think we should be poor and go back. Start from scratch weeee

if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct

I have no idea how oil can be unlimited. Rather, I think that's a awkward position...