Search
Close this search box.
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Climate lockdowns?! Climate is ‘greatest threat’ to global public health, say 230 medical journals: Declare COVID-19 ‘response be ‘template’ for climate response

Climate change is ‘greatest threat’ to global public health, say 200 medical journals: Declare COVID-19 ‘response’ could be ‘template’ for climate response:  “The medical groups said that the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic could be a template for the level and degree of emergency response necessary for climate change.” – COVID-19 is not the biggest threat facing humanity. Global warming packs the “greatest threat” to public health, argues an unprecedented joint statement out Tuesday from more than 200 U.S. and international medical journals. The medically-trained editorial staffs of such leading publications as The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine and others insist that global leaders must do more or be faced with a global crisis for health, especially for vulnerable age groups and developing nations, “that will be impossible to reverse.” … The first is a China-hosted gathering in October to discuss how the world can better value and protect natural capital — in fact, it’s what some observers are calling a potential “natural new deal.”
#
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/05/health/climate-health-journals-warning-intl/index.html

More than 230 journals warn 1.5°C of global warming could be ‘catastrophic’ for health

By Angela Dewan, CNN

(CNN) Human health is already being harmed by the climate crisis, and the impacts could become catastrophic and irreversible unless governments do much more to address global warming, the editors of more than 230 medical journals said in a joint editorial Monday.

The editorial points to established links between the climate crisis and a slew of adverse health impacts over the past 20 years: Among them are an increase in heat deaths, dehydration and kidney function loss, skin cancer, tropical infections, mental health issues, pregnancy complications, allergies, and heart and lung disease, and deaths associated with them.
“Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world, a state of affairs health professionals have been bringing attention to for decades,” the editorial reads.
It warned that an increase of global average temperatures of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and the loss of biodiversity risked “catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.” Governments around the world are laying out plans to try to contain global warming to 1.5°C to stave off worsening impacts of climate change, a target that the editorial said did not go far enough to protect public health. Warming is already at around 1.2°C.
“Despite the world’s necessary preoccupation with Covid-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions,” the authors wrote, calling on governments to respond to the climate crisis with the same spirit of “unprecedented funding” dedicated to the pandemic.
The UK-based BMJ, one of the journals that published the report, said that “never before” had so many health publications come together to make the same statement, “reflecting the severity of the climate change emergency now facing the world.”
…
“We, as editors of health journals, call for governments and other leaders to act, marking 2021 as the year that the world finally changes course.”

#

Spiked Mag: Climate alarmism is the real threat to public health: ‘Slowing down economic development is far more dangerous than global warming’ – Tim Black is a spiked columnist: To be published ahead of COP26 by the likes of the British Medical Journal, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, the already press-released editorial is brimful with pompous hyperbole. …

Still, there is something especially grotesque about framing climate change as a health emergency. Almost all the advances in medicine, diet and general welfare that we enjoy today rest on economic, material development – in short, on growth. The energy powering our hospitals, the technology at work in water-sanitation plants, the agricultural revolution that fuelled the expansion of food production – all this and so much more means that we now live longer, healthier lives than ever before. Yet it is precisely this industrial and economic development that the climate alarmists in the White House and editing health journals want to curtail. …

It’s scary, portentous stuff. But this rather desperate presentation of climate change as a public-health emergency is hardly a surprise. Policies and measures to tackle everything from knife crime to racism are now often framed in terms of public health. It has become the catch-all justification for policymakers – a source of authority and legitimacy for technocrats. And this tendency to justify just about anything in terms of protecting citizens’ health has been supercharged by the response to the pandemic, where all sorts of measures, from school closures to bans on protests, have been imposed in the name of health and safety. …

But even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has admitted that a far greater threat to health is a lack of economic development. Because a lack of economic development means the measures to tackle droughts or flooding are not implemented. It means the vaccines against malaria or dengue fever are not developed or purchased. It means the production and distribution of food remains stunted in many places. In short, a lack of economic development means that people’s health suffers.

Steve Milloy statement on medical journal climate editorial: The editorial claims that no increase in temperature is ‘safe.’ This is, of course, falsified by the reality that since industrialization, human population has boomed from about 1 billion to 7.8 billion. Global population has grown 75% since NASA’s James Hansen started fretting global warming in 1980. COVID aside, the global population is living longer, and leading healthier and wealthier lives. … It’s important to remember that the editorial’s discussion of the temperature target of 1.5C and “climate “tipping points” is without any basis in science. The 2009 Climategate email scandal revealed that temperature targets, like 2C and 1.5C, were “plucked out of thin air” and so are totally arbitrary. And there is no such thing as a climate “tipping point.”

Related Links:

Propaganda Alert: Over 200 Health Journals Whine for ‘Urgent Action’ on ‘Climate Crisis’

The Collapse of Climate-Related Deaths: Climate deaths have ‘fallen over 90% since 1920’

Global Warming Is Actually Sparing Lives …Cold Kills 17 Times More Than Heat, According To Lancet!

Cold kills 20 times more people than Heat

Biden advisor claims climate is ‘the most significant public health challenge of our time’ – But data shows ‘climate-related deaths’ dropped 99% since 1920 – Cold kills much more than heat

WH Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy: Climate Change Is “The Most Significant Public Health Challenge Of Our Time”

But climate reality disagrees: After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate-related deaths’ approach zero – Dropped by over 99% since 1920

Climate activists are setting the stage for this:Calls to add ‘climate change’ to death certificates – New study demands ‘climate change’ be added as ‘pre-existing condition’

Of course, presenting science to counter a claim does not work if that science is declared ‘racist’: ‘The data is racist!’ Rhode Island professor denounces ‘science, statistics, and technology’ as ‘inherently racist’
#

Climate Staticistian Bjorn Lomborg calls Gina McCarthy’s claims “silly”: “Heart disease kills 33% and cancer 26% of all Americans. Heat kills 0.3% and declining. Cold 6.4% and increasing. Heat deaths have declined precipitously in the US since 1960s, much of it because of widespread availability of air conditioning.
Across world, heat deaths typically (& surprisingly) small compared to cold deaths. Here [is] India: Each year, 584,300 die from moderate cold. 47,800 die from extreme cold. Yet, almost all stories on India’s extreme weather is extreme heat (25,100/yr). Moreover, most heat deaths are rather easy to tackle (which is why they are declining), bc only affect people for a few days. Cold deaths much worse, because they require months of good heating (why they increase).
What about extreme weather deaths? “These are almost nil, because societies know how to reduce deaths dramatically. Air pollution is a big deal, but almost orthogonal to climate — cutting air pollution is much cheaper (scrubbers) than cutting CO₂ (replace with renewables).”

Harvard School of Public Health links Climate & COVID: ‘The root causes of climate change also increase the risk of pandemics’ – ‘We also need to take climate action to prevent the next pandemic’

Fauci goes full pseudoscience: COVID-19 is due to ‘extreme backlashes from nature’ – Urges ‘creative harmony with nature’ to solve

Fauci in new paper: “Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence…”

#

Former NYT reporter Alex Berenson responds: “But, see, if #COVID-19 turns out to be a testing-driven lil-bit-worse-than-a-bad-flu year, what then? Maybe we WON’T need to redesign all of human existence because some 79-year-old bureaucrat wants us to?”

“Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci, a division-level bureaucrat whose day job includes the word ‘allergy,’ think his brief now includes redesigning all of human society? And how monstrous must his ego have become for him to be willing to say so publicly?” Berenson asked.

Book reveals UN’s goal of ‘2 degree’ limit of ‘global warming’ has no scientific basis – ‘Pulled out of thin air’

Book Excerpt: In 2007, Jones emailed, “The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

“Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. explained in 2017 that the 2-degree goal “is an arbitrary round number that was politically convenient. So it became a sort of scientific truth. However, it has little scientific basis but is a hard political reality.”

Flashback Climategate emails: Phil Jones says critical 2-degree C limit was ‘plucked out of thin air’

Via: https://junkscience.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, to a European Peoples Party officials who is trying to eliminate skepticism from the EPP’s position paper on climate, Phil Jones describes the origin of the 2o limit:

“The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe – especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice!”

Share:

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook-f Twitter Youtube

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.