• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Global warming: the final verdict

Snowy Owl

Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
Global warming: the final verdict

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html[/FONT]


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 21, 2007

The Observer [/FONT]


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week. [/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically.

Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.

The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries.

'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.

Climate concerns are likely to dominate international politics next month.

President Bush is to make the issue a part of his state of the union address on Wednesday while the IPCC report's final version is set for release on 2 February in a set of global news conferences.

Although the final wording of the report is still being worked on, the draft indicates that scientists now have their clearest idea so far about future climate changes, as well as about recent events.

It points out that:
? 12 of the past 13 years were the warmest since records began;
? ocean temperatures have risen at least three kilometres beneath the surface;
? glaciers, snow cover and permafrost have decreased in both hemispheres;
? sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year;
? cold days, nights and frost have become rarer while hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent.

And the cause is clear, say the authors: 'It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,' says the report.

To date, these changes have caused global temperatures to rise by 0.6C. The most likely outcome of continuing rises in greenhouses gases will be to make the planet a further 3C hotter by 2100, although the report acknowledges that rises of 4.5C to 5C could be experienced. Ice-cap melting, rises in sea levels, flooding, cyclones and storms will be an inevitable consequence.

Past assessments by the IPCC have suggested such scenarios are 'likely' to occur this century. Its latest report, based on sophisticated computer models and more detailed observations of snow cover loss, sea level rises and the spread of deserts, is far more robust and confident. Now the panel writes of changes as 'extremely likely' and 'almost certain'.

And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short.

There is some comfort, however. The panel believes the Gulf Stream will go on bathing Britain with its warm waters for the next 100 years. Some researchers have said it could be disrupted by cold waters pouring off Greenland's melting ice sheets, plunging western Europe into a mini Ice Age, as depicted in the disaster film The Day After Tomorrow.

The report reflects climate scientists' growing fears that Earth is nearing the stage when carbon dioxide rises will bring irreversible change to the planet. 'We are seeing vast sections of Antarctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate,' said climate expert Chris Rapley, in a phone call to The Observer from the Antarctic Peninsula last week. 'That means we can expect to see sea levels rise at about a metre a century from now on - and that will have devastating consequences.'
However, there is still hope, said Peter Cox of Exeter University. 'We are like alcoholics who have got as far as admitting there is a problem. It is a start. Now we have got to start drying out - which means reducing our carbon output.'
<!-- Start article trailblock widget -->
<!-- start arttrail trail module -->[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Interactive guides
Global warming
The slowdown of the Gulf Stream

Special reports
Special report: climate change
Special report: G8

Useful links
IPCC
UN framework convention on climate change

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

These doubters should visit the arctic.

Extensive scientific testing and following the scientific method may not be apparent in papers, but when the evidence is staring you in the face, there can be no doubt about global warming. :D

.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

I'm not taking sides on the cause, but no matter it is, we better figure out how to deal with it. I doubt it will hurt us to clean up the environment.

One of nature's rules is that any species that cannot adapt to change will not survive......a lesson humans should learn.

That's one reason I admire migratory birds....they are masters of survival. They are on a very tight schedule during summer......no room for mistakes.

Everytime I hear a Sandhill crane flying overhead, I remind myself they have survived for 10 million years......of ice ages, global cooling, global warming, and INFLUENZA!!!!

When the arctic suffers from global warming the birds don't sit and debate the causes......they adapt....very fast. Good role models for a human pandemic response.:D


.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

When the arctic suffers from global warming the birds don't sit and debate the causes......they adapt....very fast. Good role models for a human pandemic response.:D


.

Agreed! :applause::tiphat:
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Tim Ball
From SourceWatch

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station. [6]
snip
Among his unorthodox views, published as recently as last month in the Calgary Sun:

* Global temperatures have declined since 1998 in direct contradiction to computer models on which the Kyoto Accord is based (incorrect).
* Ice-core records show that temperature rises before CO2 rises, not because of it (misleading).
* Evidence is mounting that pre-industrial levels of CO2 may have been much higher than the 280 parts per million assumed by environmentalists to have existed at that time (again, misleading).
* New research shows that changes in the energy output of the sun account for most of the recent warming and cooling of our planet (wrong).
* The primary evidence of human influence on climate, the famous 'hockey stick' temperature-trends graph of climatologist Michael Mann, has been debunked as manipulated and wrong (not so).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Nigel Calder, seems to have good credentials and I am interested in reading more of his work.
I am not sure one way or the other who is right, I only know that it would be disasterous to get it wrong so I am all for erring on the side of caution till it is figured out one way or the other. Mojo
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

For some - it's all about Money. This is true in regards to climate change, avian flu, pesticide development, the tobacco industry...and the war in Iraq.

As such, each of these crises are a magnifying glass that are examining us, moreso than we are examining them.

-------------

Tim Ball
From SourceWatch

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station. [6]
snip
Among his unorthodox views, published as recently as last month in the Calgary Sun:

* Global temperatures have declined since 1998 in direct contradiction to computer models on which the Kyoto Accord is based (incorrect).
* Ice-core records show that temperature rises before CO2 rises, not because of it (misleading).
* Evidence is mounting that pre-industrial levels of CO2 may have been much higher than the 280 parts per million assumed by environmentalists to have existed at that time (again, misleading).
* New research shows that changes in the energy output of the sun account for most of the recent warming and cooling of our planet (wrong).
* The primary evidence of human influence on climate, the famous 'hockey stick' temperature-trends graph of climatologist Michael Mann, has been debunked as manipulated and wrong (not so).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Nigel Calder, seems to have good credentials and I am interested in reading more of his work.
I am not sure one way or the other who is right, I only know that it would be disasterous to get it wrong so I am all for erring on the side of caution till it is figured out one way or the other. Mojo
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

The oceans are rising, a pandemic is coming. When these events will occur is not exactly known. Arguing about the cause is not worthwhile. It is more important to prepare, plan, and adjust our behavior for these events to avoid devasting effects.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

The conference of Paris nailed it, Global is happening and faster than we supposed. Human are overwhelmingly the cause. The debate among scientific is over. Some scientific paid by oil companies, but vew accept the job still doubt it.

But up here, facts speak for htemselves, the white bear is in the path of extension, the North West passage in the artic sea is now open, the permafrost is unfreezing.

The temperature in the far north has risen more than 10 degrees, melting millions of square miles of ice and their bacterias.

I am surprise to still see negationist statement, the scientific has agree and recognise it by now, the next one to convince are the ones that do not want to realise Kyoto objectives that now must be risen in fact.

Even China and India had recognise it.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Opps, I am sorry for our UK readers, at Paris conference it was agree that censorship concerning the global warming cause by humans (specially oil and industry) was lift.

As I said it was lift for 193 countries, except UK it seems.

Even here in Canada, we have a righ wing evangelist Prime Minister that wrote in 2002, that global warming was a socialist conspiracy created to remove money from rich country, he was shamefully confronted in the Parlement, he really looked stupid but had to change the Environmental minister that made stupid statement in Kenya at the climate conference few months ago.

China & India had no choice to recognise it they see the Himalayan melting, the floods consequent of it but mostly the sudden rise in mosquitoes population.

We should move one Himalayan mountain to UK or a piece of the artic to UK so they witness it melting they might then cease their censorship.

BTW, the extraction of oil from sands in Alberta, from 1 million barrils a day to 5 millions has now been post poned.

Pope John-Paul 2 excuse a former pope that said that the earth was the center of the system, many rabbis excuse themselves about being stubborny convinced about the statement that humans only exists since 5thousand and few hundreds years.

There will always exist people stating that the earth is flat and the round thing is a conspiracy.

Sincerely hope that censorship is lift in UK.
 
The 4th Assessment Rpt of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The 4th Assessment Rpt of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases
in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of
methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture."​

 
More data.....

More data.....

"At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been
observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones10. {3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.2}
? Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic
temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945. {3.2}
? Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per
decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with
those reported in the TAR. {4.4}
? Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s in the Arctic (by up
to 3?C). The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with a decrease in spring of up to 15%. {4.7}
? Long-term trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation amount over many large regions11.
Significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern
Europe and northern and central Asia. Drying has been observed in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern
Africa and parts of southern Asia. Precipitation is highly variable spatially and temporally, and data are
limited in some regions. Long-term trends have not been observed for the other large regions assessed11.
{3.3, 3.9}
? Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude
waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. {5.2}
? Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. {3.5}
? More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the
tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have
contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased
snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. {3.3}
? The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and
observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}
? Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years. Cold days, cold
nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more
frequent (see Table SPM-2). {3.8}
? There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since
about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of
increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.
Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations
in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend
in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {3.8}"​

 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

I'm very interested in Global warming, but I haven't had the time to learn about it. I have some questions, they're probably stupid ones, but maybe someone would be kind enough to help me learn.

Why are some glaciers still growing, wouldn't global warming cause all glaciers to recede?

What's this about the poles moving, could that be to global climates changes?

What do you think of the theory about the elliptical orbit of the earth causing periodic climate variations?

What about El Nino and La Nina?

I heard the last few minutes of a news report and they were saying that global warming is causing a disruption in the gulf stream. Anyone familiar with the science behind that statement?

Any comments would be appreciated.

MHSC
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

I'm very interested in Global warming, but I haven't had the time to learn about it. I have some questions, they're probably stupid ones, but maybe someone would be kind enough to help me learn.

Why are some glaciers still growing, wouldn't global warming cause all glaciers to recede?

What's this about the poles moving, could that be to global climates changes?

What do you think of the theory about the elliptical orbit of the earth causing periodic climate variations?

What about El Nino and La Nina?

I heard the last few minutes of a news report and they were saying that global warming is causing a disruption in the gulf stream. Anyone familiar with the science behind that statement?

Any comments would be appreciated.

MHSC

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth here....from the land of many glaciers.

Glaciers grow after years of heavy snowfall and they can vary considerably from year to year. In Alaska, we have some that are growing and some that are rapidly receding, but overall most are receding. On Mt. McKinley (20,320 ft. high) the climbers now have been killed by falling rocks as they climb the ice fields, because the ice that had always stayed frozen and acted like glue is now thawed in the summer, allowing the mountainside to crumble.

I know of 2 causes for moving poles. One is Chandler's wobble - a 256,000 year cycle whereby the tilted axis completes a circle. That wouldn't cause a true pole shift, but rather an apparent change of axis.

The second is their periodic shift of magnetism, as evidenced by the polarity of iron contained in basalts coming from the shield volcanoes in the oceans. There is a mirror pattern to the magnetism that is carried by the tectonic plates and can be traced throughout the historical record by testing these rocks. I don't know if there is any pattern to that shift.

Next two items I'm not well informed on.

Regarding warming effects on the Gulf Stream, I'd suggest you view the DVD - "An Inconvenient Truth" - it has a marvelous graphic showing the impact of warming, glacial melt waters, etc. on the giant conveyor belt of heat circulation in the oceans. The idea of a prior inundation of fresh water from glacial melt in North America causing the conveyor to slow/stop as the cause of the "Little Ice Age" in the 1300s in interesting.

The DVD also explains part of the impact of global waming on disease......also good graphics.

Hope this helps a little.

.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Last summer I was invited to do some research from an over sea collegues concerning the unusual heat wave of 1915-1916.

I certainly invite our members to try to identify this Heat wave in other countries, and to report it in a new thread that we could call the heat wave of 1915-1916.

SO, in my research this heat wave did indeed happen in North America, the results of crops was the main consequence of this wave.

It is in this research that I have found that the pandemic of 1918 started in fact in the fall of 1917 in New York once we see the obituairies.

Rf to
Epidemiological evidence of an early wave of the 1918 influenza pandemic in New York
Snowy Owl

This heat wave
This heat wave was not a trend like the one we have witness since cars where use, nor was it intense and evidently global as what the one we now witnessing in the last ten years.

I certainly would know if, like us here in Qu?bec anybody has corroborated infos that express this unusual heating up.

Now, what seems to be of Medical interest are facts like we do now witnessing.

The melting of the Nimalayans eternal snow mountains, is creating huge floods, whom create an upsurge in the quantity and a more long time living of mosquitoes.

Understanding this effect on the insect world, I am trying to juxtapose medical datas and temperature datas and thus raising the real question.

What are the effect on cells a rising of temperature.

Celtic Cross made a post quite awhile ago about the effect of volcanos on the bacterias in water, I wonder if we could not find any study as objective as Celtic Cross one but this time, bacteria and viruse in relation on high temperature ???
Fluid transfers and reactivities
Celtic Cross


Any information on this would be helpfull

Would a Cold room reduce the replication of a viruses for the patient and HCW ??

Thanks again to all

Snowy Owl
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Global warming spurs disease outbreaks

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...I-1-20070225-19140500-bc-us-globalwarming.xml

CORDOVA, Alaska, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Environmentalists, citing the appearance of a rare bacterium in Alaskan waters, are linking climate change to disease proliferation.

The Los Angeles Times recently talked to Jim Aguiar, an oysterman who works off Alaska's Prince William Sound. Aguiar told of his recent dealings with Vibrio parahaemolyticu, a rare and dangerous microbe that usually infects seafood in much warmer waters, such as the Gulf of Mexico. When ingested, it causes diarrhea, cramping and vomiting.

Scientists in Alaska are not only blaming the bacterium for a recent outbreak, but say the warmer temperatures allowed the microbe to travel to an area that in the past has been much too cold for it to survive.

All over the world, experts are citing global climate change as the culprit for various outbreaks of illnesses such as malaria. The Times said tropical diseases are spreading rapidly to places that have previously been unhampered.

A report from the World Health Organization estimated that in 2000, close to 154,000 deaths worldwide could be attributed to disease brought into proliferation by global climate change.​
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Stark climate change warning <!-- END HEADLINE -->
<!-- BEGIN STORY BODY -->By Jeff Mason1 hour, 44 minutes ago



Climate experts issued their starkest warning yet about the impact of global warming, ranging from hunger in Africa to a fast thaw in the Himalayas, in a report on Friday that increased pressure on governments to act.
More than 100 nations in the U.N. climate panel agreed a final text after all-night talks during which some scientists accused governments of watering down conclusions that climate change was already under way and damaging nature.
"Conflict is a hard word, tension is a better word," Gary Yohe, one of the lead authors, said of the mood at the talks.
The report said warming, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, would cause desertification, droughts and rising seas and would hit hard in the tropics, from sub-Saharan Africa to Pacific islands.
"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"This does become a global responsibility in my view."
The IPCC, which groups 2,500 scientists and is the world authority on climate change, said all regions of the planet would suffer from a sharp warming.
Its findings are approved unanimously by governments and will guide policy on issues such as extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the main U.N. plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012.
CUT, ADAPT
Friday's study said climate change could cause hunger for millions with a sharp fall in crop yields in Africa. It could also rapidly thaw Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers from India to China and bring heatwaves for Europe and North America.
"This further underlines both how urgent it is to reach global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how important it is for us all to adapt to the climate change that is already under way," said European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
"The urgency of this report...should be matched with an equally urgent response by governments," said Hans Verolme of the WWF conservation group.
Scientists said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia raised most objections overnight and sought to tone down the findings, including those about the likely pace of extinctions.
Other participants said the United States, which pulled out of Kyoto in 2001 and denounced it as too costly, also opposed a suggested text that parts of North America could suffer "severe economic damage" from climate change.
China, the second largest source of greenhouse gases after the United States, insisted on cutting a reference to "very high confidence" that climate change was already affecting "many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans."
But delegates sharpened other sections, including adding a warning that some African nations might have to spend 5 to 10 percent of gross domestic product on adapting to climate change.
Overall, the report was the strongest U.N. assessment yet of the threat of climate change, predicting water shortages that could affect billions of people and a rise in ocean levels that could go on for centuries.

Its review of the regional impact of change built on an IPCC report in February saying that human greenhouse gas emissions were more than 90 percent sure to have stoked recent warming. That report also forecast that temperatures could rise by 1.8 to 4.0 Celsius (3.2 to 7.2 F) this century.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070406/ts_nm/globalwarming_dc_16

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link to the IPCC site: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

My mission at FT is to reduce morbidity and mortality and the accompanying suffering.

In the search for truth, politics should be set aside as we take a critical look at the science. There is conflicting evidence and theories as to the cause of climate change. The cause should affect our response to mitigating the effects. To do nothing is unacceptable, IMO. To do the wrong thing and cause additional suffering through economic loss (especially to developing countries) and/or to miss the real cause of climate change by bowing to prevailing political pressure is also unacceptable.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Snowy Owl, Florida 1

Apologies as a new member for getting involved in what may not be my business (especially without seeing all of the messages), but you appear to be in danger of undermining the foundations on which you are building this forum. This thread does not appear to fall within the FT mission statement and it appears to contrevene article 19 of the convention of human rights.

"Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

I understand that this forum is set up to reach as many people as possible, regardless of the regime, but to censor comment to allow readership under oppressed regimes, is to enforce the same censorship as those regimes and hence to become like those regimes.

If comments from across the spectrum are not acceptable, then we run the risk of being manipulated into believing untruths because they are the only acceptable trains of thought. Like the earth being round or the earth orbiting the sun, these were once unacceptable views and the latter Heresy. The conspiratorial paranoia that certain individuals voiced hundreds of years ago changed the world. It's a shame that more people didn't take heed of the conspiratorial paranoia in 1930/40s Germany. Millions of people might not have been exterminated if those views had been listened to and heeded.

Please if comments are not acceptable to regimes through out the world, then censor those comments from the view of those nations. Please do not censor them from those of us who live in quasi-freedom.

Now lets get on with tracking disease:magnify:

Molimo


Molimo

1) We are not a country. We are a non-government organization (NGO).

2) We will edit paranoia.


S.
 
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

Global warming is partially caused by man-made and animal generated emissions. There is no debate any longer. This conclusion is supported by years of data. I made a post earlier that was misinterpreted and now I am making my position clear.

Reducing carbon emissions will reduce morbidity and mortality.



The Lancet 1997; 350:1341-1349
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10209-4
Articles
Short-term improvements in public health from global-climate policies on fossil-fuel combustion: an interim report<A class=ja50-ce-article-footnote id=back-article-footnote-1 href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697102094/abstractprinter#article-footnote-1">

Devra Lee Davis , Working Group on Public Health and Fossil-Fuel Combustion
Investigator listed at end of paper

Summary

Background Most public-health assessments of climate-control policies have focused on long-term impacts of global change. Our interdisciplinary working group assesses likely short-term impacts on public health.

Methods We combined models of energy consumption, carbon emissions, and associated atmospheric particulate-matter (PM) concentration under two different forecasts: business-as-usual (BAU); and a hypothetical climate-policy scenario, where developed and developing countries undertake significant reductions in carbon emissions.

Findings
We predict that by 2020, 700 000 avoidable deaths (90% CI 385000–1034000) will occur annually as a result of additional PM exposure under the BAU forecasts when compared with the climate-policy scenario.

From 2000 to 2020, the cumulative impact on public health related to the difference in PM exposure could total 8 million deaths globally (90% CI 4.4–11.9 million).

In the USA alone, the avoidable number of annual deaths from PM exposure in 2020 (without climate-change-control policy) would equal in magnitude deaths associated with human immunodeficiency diseases or all liver diseases in 1995.


Interpretation
The mortality estimates are indicative of the magnitude of the likely health benefits of the climate-policy scenario examined and are not precise predictions of avoidable death. While characterised by considerable uncertainty, the short-term public-health impacts of reduced PM exposures associated with greenhouse-gas reductions are likely to be substantial even under the most conservative set of assumptions.

Dr Devra Lee Davis, World Resources Institute, 1709 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA

more following......
 
Last edited:
Re: Global warming: the final verdict

The Lancet 2006; 367:2101-2109
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68933-2
Lecture, Harben Lecture

Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation Prof A Haines MD a , RS Kovats MSc a, D Campbell-Lendrum DPhil b and C Corvalan PhD b

Summary

It is now widely accepted that climate change is occurring as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere arising from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Climate change may affect health through a range of pathways—eg, as a result of increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, reduction in cold-related deaths, increased floods and droughts, changes in the distribution of vector-borne diseases, and effects on the risk of disasters and malnutrition. The overall balance of effects on health is likely to be negative and populations in low-income countries are likely to be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects. The experience of the 2003 heat wave in Europe shows that high-income countries might also be adversely affected. Adaptation to climate change requires public-health strategies and improved surveillance. Mitigation of climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing the use of a number of renewable energy technologies should improve health in the near term by reducing exposure to air pollution.



Affiliations

a. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
b. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

Correspondence to: Prof A Haines, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top