Voice of America (VOA), a U.S. government funded international news agency, posted an article titled “Heat, Disease, Air Pollution: How Climate Change Impacts Health,” which claims that climate change threatens human health because it worsens extreme heat, air pollution, infectious diseases, and mental health problems. Each claim is false, with none being supported by existing evidence. Each of these health problems existed before the industrial revolution and amidst modest warming most are getting better.
The article reports that the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared climate change the “single biggest health threat facing humanity,” and that avoiding a temperature rise exceeding 1.5°C warming above pre-industrial levels as countries committed to in the Paris climate agreement is essential to prevent catastrophic health impacts.
Four categories of health threats are particularly highlighted in the VOA article, the first being “extreme heat.”
VOA writes that this year is “widely expected to be the hottest on record,” and heat “is believed to have caused more than 70,000 deaths in Europe during summer last year,” and also cites a Lancet study that claims by 2050 five times more people will die of heat each year if 2°C warming occurs.
There has been a lot of media coverage claiming that this year is the “hottest on record,” focusing on individual months and the northern hemisphere in particular. However, the data used is suspect, not only because the land-based temperature record is flawed and contaminated with the urban heat island effect, but also as discussed in “Media Fails to Examine Actual Data in Making “Hottest Summer Ever” Claims,” media conflate measured average temperatures with average temperature anomaly measurements, which are not interchangeable.
The planet began modestly warming even before the industrial revolution began, meaning 2023 is just a continuation of a multi-century trend. Blaming emissions for this year’s heat in particular ignores other natural factors, like increased water vapor from a massive volcanic eruption, an the onset of a powerful El Niño, and increased solar activity.
As described in Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths, because research shows that cold temperatures actually kill between 10 and 16 times more people than hot temperatures, the slight warming over the past century has likely reduced premature mortality related to temperatures by as many as 166,000 people from 2000 to 2019. The clear evidence shows that cold temperatures kill far more people than hot temperatures and, as a result, as the Earth has modestly warmed, deaths related to non-optimum temperatures have declined significantly.
The next category of health threats discussed by VOA is air pollution. The VOA cites the WHO to assert that outdoor air pollution driven by fossil fuel emissions kills “more than four million people every year,” partially in the form of PM2.5. This figure is not supported by real world data.
Worse still for the claim, VOA admits that deaths from air pollution have fallen over time, not increased, even as the Earth has warmed. As a result, it’s unclear how this category even relates to climate change at all. According to the IPCC, there is no consensus on even the existence of any effects of global warming on “air pollution weather,” or temperature inversion conditions that may cause ground level ozone.
The claim that infectious diseases are on the rise due to climate change has been refuted at Climate Realism many times, for example, here, here, and here, and VOA makes no new claims in this regard. VOA claims that because of animal migration, the risk of infectious disease will spread, especially those spread by mosquitos like dengue, chikungunya, Zika, West Nile virus, and malaria.
The fact remains that no matter what the computer models say, more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that temperature alone is not enough to guarantee migration or longer survival of mosquitoes or mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria. Human interventions like the use of DDT, emptying standing water, mosquito netting, and other methods, far outweigh any effect of temperature.
Paul Reiter, a scientist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained in a paper that “it is facile to attribute this resurgence [of malaria in some regions] to climate change.”
Looking at other animal sources of disease outbreaks like the Bird Flu, the exotic animal trade and wet markets are much more likely candidates.
There is no evidence that modest warming has caused disease outbreaks due to animal migration nor that continued modest warming it threatens to do so in the future.
VOA devotes only a small section to the final category, mental health, writing “Worrying about the present and future of our warming planet has also provoked rising anxiety, depression and even post-traumatic stress — particularly for people already struggling with these disorders, psychologists have warned.”
This shouldn’t be hard to explain, since media and government alarmism has been significantly ramped up over time. Despite data to the contrary, the mainstream media has increasingly used words like “catastrophe,” “crisis,” and “uninhabitable” to describe the condition of the planet. Some media outlets have tried pointing out that this scaremongering is counterproductive, but it hasn’t stopped, with CNN recently declaring that “no place in the US is safe.”
In the light of this near daily the barrage of climate scare stories, it is no wonder that people struggling with or prone to mental illness in particular are deeply afraid. Survivors of a natural disaster may also struggle with PTSD or similar ailments, but it doesn’t mean that climate change is the cause, as discussed in “Wrong, Mainstream Media, Climate Change is Not Causing PTSD.”
In the end, objective scientific data does not show that human health is being negatively impacted by climate change, and it is certainly not the biggest health threat facing humanity. Because almost every claim in the story is refuted by hard data, it actually throws suspicion on much of the good work unrelated to climate alarm that the VOA and the WHO do. It is especially bad that VOA included the WHO’s unverified mental health claims in the story, since it is fearmongering by mainstream media outlets, like VOA, that are the source of climate (reporting) related mental health problems, not climate change itself.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.
While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
The global elite plan to introduce a near-permanent “global state of emergency” by re-branding climate change as a “public health crisis” that is “worse than covid”.
The comingling of climate and covid fears and policies is currently ramping up to warp speed across all propaganda platforms. Kit Knightly explains the shock and awe agenda by media and governments to corral the public into submission. His Off-Guardian article is Why are the globalists calling “Climate Change” a “Public Health Crisis”? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. H/T Tyler Durden
The answer is all to do with the pandemic treaty and climate lockdowns.
The global elite plan to introduce a near-permanent “global state of emergency” by re-branding climate change as a “public health crisis” that is “worse than covid”. This is not news. But the ongoing campaign has been accelerating in recent weeks.
Two Sides of the Same Coin
I have written about this a lot over the last few years – see here and here and here. It started almost as soon as Covid started, and has been steadily progressing ever since, with some reports calling climate change “worse than covid”.
But if they keep talking about it, I’ll keep writing. And hopefully the awareness will spread.
Anyway, there’s a renewed push on the “climate = public health crisis” front. It started, as so many things do, with Bill Gates, stating in an interview with MSNBC in late September:
We have to put it all together; it’s not just climate’s over here and health is over here, the two are interacting
Since then there’s been a LOT of “climate change is a public health crisis” in the papers, likely part of the build-up to the UN’s COP28 summit later this year.
Following Gate’s lead, what was once a slow-burn propaganda drive has become a dash for the finish line, with that phrase repeated in articles all over the world as a feverish catechism.
It was an editorial in the October edition of the British Medical Journalthat got the ball rolling, claiming to speak for over 200 medical journals, it declares it’s…
Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency”
Everyone from the Guardian to the CBC to the Weather Channelpicked up this ball and ran with it. Other publications get more specific, but the message is the same. Climate change is bad for the health of women, and children, and poor people, and Kenyans, and workers and…you get the idea.
And that’s all from just the last few days. It’s not only the press, but governments and NGOs too. The “One Earth” non-profit reported, two days ago:
Both theRed Cross and Doctors Without Borders have published (or updated) articles on their website in the last few days using variations on the phrase “The climate crisis is a health crisis.” Local public health officials from as far apart as Western Australia and Arkansas are busy “discussing the health effects of climate change”
“WHO data indicates 2 billion people lack safe drinking water and 600 million suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with children under 5 bearing 30% of foodborne fatalities. Climate stressors heighten waterborne and foodborne disease risks. In 2020, 770 million faced hunger, predominantly in Africa and Asia. Climate change affects food availability, quality and diversity, exacerbating food and nutrition crises.
Temperature and precipitation changes enhance the spread of vector-borne diseases. Without preventive actions, deaths from such diseases, currently over 700,000 annually, may rise. Climate change induces both immediate mental health issues, like anxiety and post-traumatic stress, and long-term disorders due to factors like displacement and disrupted social cohesion.”
They are tying “climate change” to anyone who is malnourished, has intestinal parasites or contaminated drinking water. As well as anyone who dies from heat, cold, fire or flood. Even mental health disorders.
We’ve already seen the world’s first “diagnosis of climate change”. With parameters set this wide, we will see more in no time.
Just as a “Covid death” was anybody who died “of any cause after testing positive for Covid”, they are putting language in place that can redefine almost any illness or accident as a “climate change-related health issue”.
Two days ago, the Director General of the World Health Organization, the UN’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health and COP28 President co-authored an opinion piece for the Telegraph, headlined:
Climate change is one of our biggest health threats – humanity faces a staggering toll unless we act
The WHO Director went on to repeat the claim almost word for word on Twitter yesterday:
The climate crisis is a health crisis. Air pollution and extreme temperatures are causing an increase in diseases like diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory. People are dying prematurely, and the most vulnerable are being hit the hardest. We must prioritize healing our…
Consider, the WHO is the only body on Earth empowered to declare a “pandemic”.
Consider, the official term is not “pandemic”, but rather “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”.
Consider, a “public health emergency of international concern”, does not necessarily mean a disease.
It could mean, and I’m just spit-balling here, oh, I don’t know – maybe… climate change?
Consider, finally, that one clause in the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” would empower the WHO to declare a PHEIC on “precautionary principle” [my emphasis]:
Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted
Essentially, once the new legislation is in place, the plan writes itself:
Put new laws in place enabling global “emergency measures” in the event of a future “public health emergency”
Declare climate change a public health emergency, or maybe a “potential public health emergency”
Activate emergency measures – like climate lockdowns – until climate change is “fixed”
See the end game here? It’s just that simple.
Oh, and we won’t be able to complain, because “climate denial” is going to be illegal. At least, if prominent climate activists like this one get their way. That’s only a whisper in the background right now, but it will get louder after COP28, just wait.
Until then, like I said, I’m stuck here writing forever.
Background: Nine Elements Shared by Climate and Covid
All true believers of The Science™ of climate change have taken careful note of the lessonsoffered by the coronavirus pandemic during 2020–22 for managing the ‘climate emergency.’ The two agendas share nine items in common that should leave us worried, very worried.
1. Elites’ Hypocrisy
The first is the revolting spectacle of the hypocrisy of the exalted elites who preach to the deplorables the proper etiquette of abstinence to deal with the emergency, and their own insouciant exemption from a restrictive lifestyle. Most recently we witnessed the surreal spectacle of Britain’s Parliament interrogating disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on allegations that he serially broke the lockdown rules he had imposed on everyone else—but not questioning the anti-scientific stupidity of the rules themselves. Possibly the most notorious American example was California Governor Gavin Newsom and his cronies dining maskless in the appropriately named French Laundry restaurant at a time when this was verboten, being served by fully masked staff.
Similarly, Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, Al Gore, and John Kerry have all been widely mocked for jetting around the world to warn people about global warming. I wonder if anyone has done a calculation of the total carbon footprint of each annual Davos gathering where CEOs, prime ministers and presidents, and celebrities fly in on private jets, are driven around in gas-guzzling limousines and preach to us on the critical urgency of reducing emissions? I understand the hookers do quite well during that week, so perhaps there is a silver lining.
2. Data Challenged Models
A second common element between Covid and climate change is the mismatch between models that inform policy and data that contradict the models. The long track record of abysmally wrong catastrophist predictions on infectious diseases from the Pied Piper of Pandemic Porn, Professor Neil Ferguson, is if anything exceeded by the failures of climate change alarmist predictions. The most recent example of the drum roll of “The end is nigh and this is absolutely your last chance to avert the end of the world from climate collapse” is yet another Chicken Little Sixth Assessment Report from the indefatigable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At some point the IPCC morphed from a team of scientists into activists.
“There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all,” the report warns us. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called it a “survival guide for humanity.” But a one-time climate action journalist-turned-sceptic, Michael Shellenberger, described the UN as a “Climate Disinformation Threat Actor.”
Calls for urgent climate action based on the language of “edging towards ‘tipping points” have been made over many years. Atmospheric scientists and former IPCC members Richard McNider and John Christy note that climate modeling forecasts have “always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.” A few examples:
♦ In 1982, UNEP Executive Director Mostafa Tolba warned of an irreversible environmental catastrophe by 2000 without immediate urgent action. ♦ In 2004, a Pentagon report warned that by 2020, major European cities would be submerged by rising seas, Britain would be facing a Siberian climate and the world would be caught up in mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting. ♦ In 2007, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri declared: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” ♦ Most hilariously, in Montana the Glacier National Park installed “Goodbye to the glaciers” plaques, warning: “Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020.” Come 2020, all 29 glaciers were still there but the signs were gone, taken down by embarrassed park authorities.
3. No Dissent Allowed
Third, the rapidly consolidating Censorship Industrial Complex covered both agendas until Elon Musk began releasing the Twitter Files to expose what was happening. This refers to the extraordinary censorship and suppression of dissenting voices, with extensive and possibly illegal collusion between governments and Big Tech—and, in the case of the pandemic, also Big Pharma and academia.
Even truth was no defence, for example with accounts of vaccine injuries, if their effect was to promote narrative scepticism. The social media Big Tech censored, suppressed, shadow banned and slapped labels of “false,” “misleading,” “lacking context” etc. to content at variance with the single source ministries of truth. “Fact-checking” was weaponized using fresh young graduates—with no training, skills or capacity to sift between authentic and junk science—to put such judgmental stamps on pronouncements from world-leading experts in their field.
4. We Want You to Panic
Fourth, an important explanation for the spread of Covid and climate catastrophism is the promotion of fear and panic in the population as a means to spur drastic political action. Both agendas have been astonishingly successful.
Polls have consistently shown the hugely exaggerated beliefs about the scale of the Covid threat. On climate change, the gap between the stringent actions required, the commitments made and the actual record thus far is used to create panic. The notion that we are already doomed promotes a culture of hopelessness and despair best epitomized by Greta Thunberg’s anguished cry: “How dare you” steal my dreams and childhood with empty words.”
5. Only Trust Science Authorities
A fifth common theme is the appeal to scientific authority. For this to work, scientific consensus is crucial. Yet, driven by intellectual curiosity, questioning existing knowledge is the very essence of the scientific enterprise. For the claim to scientific consensus to be broadly accepted, therefore, supporting evidence must be exaggerated, contrary evidence discredited, sceptical voices stilled and dissenters ridiculed and marginalized. This has happened in both agendas: just ask Jay Bhattacharya on one and Bjorn Lomborg on the other.
6. Government Empowers Itself
A sixth shared element is the enormous expansion of powers for the nanny state that bosses citizens and businesses because governments know best and can pick winners and losers. Growing state control over private activities is justified by being framed as minor and temporary inconveniences in the moral crusade to save Granny and the world.
Yet in both agendas, policy interventions have over-promised and under-delivered. The beneficial effects of interventions are exaggerated, optimistic forecasts are made and potential costs and downsides are discounted. Lockdowns were supposedly required for only 2-3 weeks to flatten the curve and vaccines, we were promised, would help us return to pre-Covid normalcy without being mandatory. Similarly, for decades we have been promised that renewables are getting less expensive and energy will get cheaper and more plentiful.
Yet increased subsidies are still needed, energy prices keep rising, and energy supply gets less reliable and more intermittent.
7. Self-Inflicted Damage
Seventh, the moral framing has also been used to discount massive economic self-harm. Alongside the substantial and lasting economic damage caused by savage lockdowns to businesses and the long-term consequences of a massive printing of money, the obstinate persistence of excess deaths is painful proof of collective public health self-harm.
Similarly, the world has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and more connected than today. Energy intensity played a critical role in driving agricultural and industrial production that underpin the health infrastructure and comfortable living standards for large numbers of people worldwide. High income countries enjoy incomparably better health standards and outcomes because of their national wealth.
8. Elites Thrive at Others’ Expense
Eighth, government policies in both agendas have served to greatly widen economic inequalities within and among nations with fat profits for Big Pharma and rent-seeking Green Energy. A lot of money was said to be required to keep Mahatma Gandhi in the style of poverty he demanded. Similarly, a lot of money is required to support Covid and climate policy magical thinking where governments can solve all problems by throwing more money that must neither be earned nor repaid.
In the triumph of luxury politics, the costs of the rich suffused in the golden glow of virtue are borne by the poor. Should a billion more Chinese and Indians have stayed poor and destitute over the last four decades, so Westerners could feel virtuous-green? Alternatively, for post-industrial societies, climate action will require cutbacks to living standards as subsidies rise, power prices go up, reliability comes down and jobs are lost.
Attempts to assess the balance of costs and benefits of Covid and climate policies are shouted down as immoral and evil, putting profits before lives. But neither health nor climate policy can dictate economic, development, energy and other policies. All governments work to balance multiple competing policy priorities. What is the sweet spot that ensures reliable, affordable and clean energy security without big job losses? Or the sweet spot of affordable, accessible and efficient public health delivery that does not compromise the nation’s ability to educate its young, look after the elderly and vulnerable and ensure decent jobs and life opportunities for families?
9. Global Bureaucrats Gut National Sovereignty
The final common element is the subordination of state-based decision-making to international technocrats. This is best exemplified in the proliferation of the global climate change bureaucracies and the promise—threat?—of a new global pandemic treaty whose custodian will be a mighty World Health Organisation.
In both cases, the dedicated international bureaucracy will have a powerful vested interest in ongoing climate crises and serially repeating pandemics.
Confronted with major decisions, we’re repeatedly told by government authorities to “trust the science.”
But by whose scientific authority?
Is it global institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) that assured us the COVID-19 virus originated from pangolins in a Wuhan wet market rather than a laboratory that our own government funded?
Is it the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that assured us masks and shutdowns would help prevent the spread, and that vaccines were safe for low-risk children regardless of the obvious fact no long-term studies were possible?
Is it the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose purposes and alarmist pronouncements its key members and government advocates have admitted being about global wealth redistribution and whose theoretical climate models have proven grossly overheated?
Is it our current president and advisers who claim climate change is causing “historically high” temperatures and severe weather events to become more frequent despite readily available records showing this to be untrue?
Is it taxpayer-funded government agencies and “green energy” subsidy seekers claiming to save the planet from climate doom by replacing the 80% of global and domestic energy provided by fossil fuels by increasing the 3% provided by wind and solar combined and adding millions of electric vehicles that depend on rare earth minerals controlled by China to already overloaded power grids?
Is it scientific journals headed by ideologically aligned revolving-door editors who cycle between government and academic positions to close out dissenting scientific findings in favor of politically compliant narratives?
Patrick Brown, climate co-director at the Berkeley, California, Breakthrough Institute, acknowledged this problem by voluntarily admitting to having censored one of his own studies to increase the chances of getting published.
Writing in the Free Press, Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell us.”
Brown added that editors of scientific journals “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”
Sadly, tragically, much of what is termed “science” today is fundamentally influenced by all of the above.
The late Apollo 7 astronaut Col. Walter Cunningham summed up a different view of science in a statement he offered for the back cover of my first of two books written more than a decade ago on this subject, “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”
My long-time friend Walt observed: “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible. … In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust.”
Included are some researchers at academic institutions whose careers largely depend upon getting funded by government grants and thence published in likewise bias-confirming journals.
As for that science being “settled” regarding a human greenhouse gas-caused climate crisis, a “World Climate Declaration” made public in August by the nonprofit scientific Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) endorsed by 1,609 informed scientists and professionals — including two Nobel Laureates, John Clauser (USA) and Ivar Giaever (Norway/USA) — clearly says otherwise.
Among many objections to crisis claims and consequences, CLINTEL notes that climate models are not remotely plausible as policy tools: They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases while ignoring the enriching and vital vegetation benefits of CO2, which is essential to all life.
Even Gavin Schmidt, who succeeded climate activist James Hansen as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), admitted to the renowned journal Science in 2021 that “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this admission that the models can’t be trusted as a policy instrument. … You end up with numbers for even the near‐term that are insanely scary — and wrong.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarified the organization’s true agenda in November 2010 when he advised that: “… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth …”
The late Stephen Schneider, a lead author on three overheated IPCC reports who had previously warned of global cooling, told Discover magazine in 1989 that capturing the public’s imagination about climate risks entails “getting loads of media coverage.”
“So,” he said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have,” whereby “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
The next time you hear someone from the government with any such an agenda telling you to trust the science, don’t confuse ideological and/or political motives with legitimate and necessary trust in the scientific method … a rational process of observation, measurement, evidence, logic, debate, and iterative revision of concepts and theories where uncertainties are stated.
No, we can’t always count on scientists being right, but we should demand objectivity, rigor, and honesty.
Our lives, families, and nation’s future depend on this.
At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), climate change was declared a public health crisis. AMA Board Member Ilse R. Levin, DO, MPH, stated that “the scientific evidence is clear — our patients are already facing adverse health effects associated with climate change, from heat-related injuries, vector-borne diseases, and air pollution from wildfires to worsening seasonal allergies and storm-related illness and injuries.” …
“How Can Physicians Be Prepared To Discuss Climate Change With Patients?…By recognizing the effects of extreme weather caused by climate change, physicians can be better prepared to address symptoms and appropriately diagnose patients. An effective method for discussing the effects of climate change is to emphasize the health consequences of the weather event. By starting a discussion about how a particular symptom is caused by climate change, physicians can appeal to the patient’s main interest…
Physicians can broach the topic of climate change and health by using brief educational messages with their patients. … An effective method for discussing the effects of climate change is to emphasize the health consequences of the weather event. By starting a discussion about how a particular symptom is caused by climate change, physicians can appeal to the patient’s main interest. For example, if a patient presents with asthma and difficulty breathing, physicians can start the conversation by mentioning that the difficulty breathing is likely a result of high air pollution caused by climate change…
Physicians can also encourage eco-friendly transportation, such as the use of bike paths and public transportation, instead of commuting by car.”
At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), climate change was declared a public health crisis. AMA Board Member Ilse R. Levin, DO, MPH, stated that “the scientific evidence is clear — our patients are already facing adverse health effects associated with climate change, from heat-related injuries, vector-borne diseases, and air pollution from wildfires to worsening seasonal allergies and storm-related illness and injuries. Taking action now won’t reverse all of the harm done, but it will help prevent further damage to our planet and our patients’ health and well-being.”3
Climate change affects human health in widespread and complex ways. Physicians therefore need to be prepared to handle the health-related effects of climate change.
The first step toward helping patients is to become educated on how climate change can affect health. The health effects of climate change are expansive and multifaceted. Numerous online continuing medical education (CME) courses on the health effects of climate change are available for physicians.20-22 These courses provide background information on the types of events caused by climate change, as well as the health risks to patients and treatment options for physicians.
Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) provides information on climate change and how it affects human health, and this information can serve as a useful tool for physicians.23The WHO also organizes a Global Conference on Health and Climate Change every 2 years; this symposium supports engagement, education, and policy change.24
How Can Physicians Be Prepared To Discuss Climate Change With Patients?
By recognizing the effects of extreme weather caused by climate change, physicians can be better prepared to address symptoms and appropriately diagnose patients.
Physicians should also be aware of the mental health changes that can occur due to extreme weather events resulting from climate change, as well as the mental health changes that could be expected within their geographic region. Physicians should be prepared to talk to their patients about mental health and be aware of the resources available to them — including referring patients to mental health providers, when necessary.
Physicians can broach the topic of climate change and health by using brief educational messages with their patients. … An effective method for discussing the effects of climate change is to emphasize the health consequences of the weather event. By starting a discussion about how a particular symptom is caused by climate change, physicians can appeal to the patient’s main interest. For example, if a patient presents with asthma and difficulty breathing, physicians can start the conversation by mentioning that the difficulty breathing is likely a result of high air pollution caused by climate change. …
Physicians can also encourage eco-friendly transportation, such as the use of bike paths and public transportation, instead of commuting by car.
At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), climate change was declared a public health crisis. AMA Board Member Ilse R. Levin, DO, MPH, stated that “the scientific evidence is clear — our patients are already facing adverse health effects associated with climate change, from heat-related injuries, vector-borne diseases, and air pollution from wildfires to worsening seasonal allergies and storm-related illness and injuries.” …
“How Can Physicians Be Prepared To Discuss Climate Change With Patients?…By recognizing the effects of extreme weather caused by climate change, physicians can be better prepared to address symptoms and appropriately diagnose patients. An effective method for discussing the effects of climate change is to emphasize the health consequences of the weather event. By starting a discussion about how a particular symptom is caused by climate change, physicians can appeal to the patient’s main interest…
Physicians can broach the topic of climate change and health by using brief educational messages with their patients. … An effective method for discussing the effects of climate change is to emphasize the health consequences of the weather event. By starting a discussion about how a particular symptom is caused by climate change, physicians can appeal to the patient’s main interest. For example, if a patient presents with asthma and difficulty breathing, physicians can start the conversation by mentioning that the difficulty breathing is likely a result of high air pollution caused by climate change…
Physicians can also encourage eco-friendly transportation, such as the use of bike paths and public transportation, instead of commuting by car.”
In answer to the provocative question posed in an article of Issues and Insights, “Are We Finally Heading Toward ESG Sanity?”, Sweden and Shell Oil have recently initiated actions they deem beneficial for the health and well-being of the world’s eight billion residents.
The few wealthy countries transitioning to occasional electricity generation from breezes and sunshine has proven to be ultra-expensive for Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, all of the EU, and the USA. Those few wealthy countries represent about one billion of the world’s population.
That leaves over seven billion people living in nations that could not care less about emissions, including all nations with high birth rates and all nations that have a large percentage of people without reliable electricity.
The ruling class in wealthy countries is not cognizant that the planet populated from 1 to 8 billion, over the last 200 years. During that time, we learned through human ingenuity that crude oil is virtually useless, unless it’s manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our daily lives that did not exist before the 1900s, and the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 aircraft moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.
Of the three fossil fuels:
Coal is used for coal-fired power plants, and in furnaces to make steel.
Natural Gas is used for natural gas power plants, and for making fertilizers to help feed the world.
Crude oil is a fossil fuel that is useless until it can be manufactured at refineries into usable oil derivatives that make most of the products in the world, and the fuels for the various transportation infrastructures, militaries, and space programs.
Recognizing that ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind, would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, and could be the greatest threat to the world’s eight billion population.
Like Sweden, Shell is doubling down, away from wind turbines and solar panels, and into fossil fuels. Shell said it would expand its booming liquified natural gas businesswhilefocusing other investments on “low carbon” technologies, including biofuels, hydrogen, electric vehicle charging, and carbon capture and storage.
At the recent Indy 500 race, Shell was proud to power INDYCARS with 100 percent renewable fuel. With the debut of the new fuel developed by Shell, the NTT INDYCAR SERIES became the first United States-based motorsports series to power racing with 100 percent renewable race fuel that enables at least 60 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction compared to fossil-based gasoline. Working together with INDYCAR engine suppliers Chevrolet and Honda, the Shell 100 percent Renewable Race Fuel can meet the demands of a race weekend without any changes in performance.
Despite the urgency propelled by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Bank, and the Biden administration, both Sweden’s Parliament and Shell are demonstrating that stability and efficiency must come before ideology.
Today, there is an extremely dangerous precedent being set by bank boardroom decisions that can set energy policies with their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scorecard system before investing in energy infrastructure. Those boardroom decisions are allowing the investment community to collude to reshape economies and lifestyles so that they are in line with the social and political cause preferences of banks and other financial institutions.
Unstable and inefficient technologies, particularly wind and solar power, have been endorsed and implemented with the noble goal of achieving, using exotic minerals and metals, one hundred percent renewable electricity from intermittent breezes and sunshine.
The sourcing of raw materials is an important consideration for renewable alternative electricity companies. Due to the limited worldwide supply of critical components used in many renewable goods and processes, such as rare earth minerals and those used in electrical components, mineral resources disclosures around this topic can create transparency in supply chain management by covering the management of risks associated with the use of critical materials, and more specifically, the environmental risks associated with their supply chain. Furthermore, human rights considerations around the production of sourced materials can be identified for disclosure. Such factors can cover materials sourced from workforces where forced labor or unsafe or harsh working conditions are employed.
The 2022 Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, provides transparency to the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement. Subsidies to purchase EVs are financial incentives encouraging further exploitation of yellow, brown, and black skin residents in developing countries.
An easy observation in our society is that everything that needs electricity, starting with the basic light bulb, is made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, including all electronics, all medical supplies, and all communications.
Ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind, is immoral and evil, as extreme shortages will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.
In economic terms, the wealthier countries’ climate hysteria is imposing severe negative externalities on developing countries. Ethically, the West’s climate obsession is immorally condemning present generations of impoverished peoples and nations to continued perjury and early deaths in the years ahead. Make no mistake, and this ruse exists to enrich people in developed countries further while they simultaneously exploit those in developing countries.
Congratulations to Sweden and Shell for doing what’s best for the health and well-being of the world’s eight billion residents.
Author
Ronald SteinRonald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
