Gyroscopic Investing

Sure, people have died in storms.

They do this with "gun violence" too. Everything is a public health issue, it turns out.

politicians trying to control people are the health issue.

Desert wrote:

"Framing global warming as a public health issue rather than as an environmental or national security one produces the most emotionally compelling response among people, since it focuses on the immediate implications a warmer climate would have on people's lives," the article says. "This strategy also has the benefit of providing a sense of hope that the problems can be addressed and avoided, if action is taken early enough."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/health/ob ... index.html

Does this look like a blatant new sales angle for climate change to anyone else?  Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.

Yes.  My response:  M O R E    B U L L S H I T

Yeah... it's complete bullsh!t to think that the long-term affects of this...

[img width=500]http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/image/serv ... bl-1&px=-1[/img]

or this...

[img width=500]http://www.globeimages.net/data/media/5 ... yscape.jpg[/img]

or this...

[img width=500]https://gyemgh.files.wordpress.com/2013 ... =300&h=198[/img]

...is contributing to a potential public health issue.

Those snake-oil salesmen must be at it again... and between my long commute in my Tahoe, heating my 4,000 sf house, and going on two vacations every year, I don't know if I can afford snake oil.

Air pollution is clearly a public health issue.  Nobody questions that.

Equating global average temperature to air particulates when it comes to measurable impacts on public health is grossly misleading.  And blaming asthma on global warming is pure bullshit.

Tyler wrote: Air pollution is clearly a public health issue.  Nobody questions that.

Equating global average temperature to air particulates when it comes to measurable impacts on public health is grossly misleading.  And blaming asthma on global warming is pure bullshit.

Please show me in the article where they BLAME asthma on global warming.

Obama said this:

"I think we've always known -- or at least in the 20th century we've understood -- that environment has an impact on public health," the President told CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

"I remember when I first went to college in Los Angeles in 1979, the air was so bad that you couldn't go running outside," Obama said. "You'd have air quality alerts, and people who had respiratory problems or were vulnerable had to stay inside. We took action, and the air's a lot better."

"There are a whole host of public health impacts that are going to hit home, so we've got to do better in protecting vulnerable Americans," Obama continued. "Ultimately, though, all of our families are going to be vulnerable. You can't cordon yourself off from air or climate."

He referred to air quality as a separate but related issue.  He didn't blame asthma on global warming.

Dr. Murthy said:

"It's also personal to me because I've cared for many patients over the years who have suffered from asthma and have seen firsthand how frightening it can be to suddenly be wheezing and fighting for every breath," Murthy said. "Asthma can be very difficult for patients, but also for their families. The impacts of climate change could make the situation worse."

He said climate change COULD make the situation worse. 

It's not ridiculous at all that along with the particulates' effect on public health, we would have other issues associated with climate change.

Under-nutrition already accounts for 3 million deaths each year in the world's poorest regions. Rising temperatures and more variable rainfall patters are expected to reduce crop yields, further compromising food security. Floods are increasing in frequency and intensity, creating breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects. Mosquito-borne diseases, like malaria, are particularly sensitive to heat and humidity. What will happen if rising temperatures accelerate the life cycle of the malaria parasite?"

None of that is "blaming asthma on climate change."

Tyler wrote: Air pollution is clearly a public health issue.  Nobody questions that.

Equating global average temperature to air particulates when it comes to measurable impacts on public health is grossly misleading.  And blaming asthma on global warming is pure bullshit.

Oh.. and people DO question that.  Or at least they did in droves and still do to some degree.  They're called conservatives (generally).

moda0306 wrote:
Dr. Murthy said:

"It's also personal to me because I've cared for many patients over the years who have suffered from asthma and have seen firsthand how frightening it can be to suddenly be wheezing and fighting for every breath," Murthy said. "Asthma can be very difficult for patients, but also for their families. The impacts of climate change could make the situation worse."

He said climate change COULD make the situation worse. 

The article on the health effects of climate change suggests global temperature is correlated to asthma, while providing no evidence other than a sad anecdote about patients grasping for breath.  It's unscientific, grossly misleading hyperbole that distracts from actual measurable causes like smoking and air pollution and does a net disservice to asthma education.  Overreaching like this is precisely what gives warming advocacy a bad name. 

By the way, I was also thinking of this similar article out today where Obama directly references his daughter's asthma in discussing climate change. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... hange-per/

His smoking habit is probably a more significant contributor by a few orders of magnitude.

Well overall I'm not going to hang on every emotional plea a politician makes towards a certain action (republicans do this with "job creating business owners" all the time... or military honor... or by bringing a snowball into congress to prove that global warming isn't happening)... but that last comment by Obama that you linked to was sort of annoying, so I googled links between asthma and global warming..

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/progr ... /index.cfm

Some interesting links in there.  Could be BS... but certainly aren't obviously so.

moda0306 wrote: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/progr ... /index.cfm

Some interesting links in there.  Could be BS... but certainly aren't obviously so.

Seen on that page:

Increase precipitation in some areas leading to an increase in mold spores
[...]
Increase the frequency of droughts, leading to increased dust and particulate matter

So climate change is causing more rain, which increases asthma, and also causing less rain, which also increases asthma. You just can't win, it seems.

PS,

Some areas are getting more rain.  Some are getting more drought.

Your logic is the same as the people here in MN last winter who were bitter ass cold denying global warming... when 2014 was the warmest year on record.

My point is, it's hard to take something seriously when the claim is made that any change in any direction (more rain or less rain in this example) will exacerbate the highlighted problem. Since change is constant, the implication that we should be shooting for stasis in order to minimize the worsening of the issue in question seems naive and foolish.

Pointedstick wrote: My point is, it's hard to take something seriously when the claim is made that any change in any direction (more rain or less rain in this example) will exacerbate the highlighted problem. Since change is constant, the implication that we should be shooting for stasis in order to minimize the worsening of the issue in question seems naive and foolish.

Well the asthma piece is a bit of a stretch, given the catastrophic threats to rising sea levels and other issues.. I'll hand you that.

But if all we're walking away from this with is "there's some political bullshit surrounding the issue of climate change," then that's older than time.  There ARE public health concerns with climate change.  Some very valid ones listed on the site I mentioned.  If we're going to judge political movements by the worst arguments certain people make within the movements, then every single political opinion on the face of the planet should not be, as you say, "taken seriously."  That includes your position on gun control, regulations, and taxes.  There are people making very BAD arguments in favor of the same opinion you hold.  It's hard to take them seriously.  That doesn't mean you aren't correct on some important points, and potentially the entire issue (particularly guns).

Desert wrote: Does this look like a blatant new sales angle for climate change to anyone else?  Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.

Yes, considering a warmer climate is actually a positive, not a negative.  Think of all that icelocked natural resources in Northern Canada!  It's the new Frontier!  Anyway, the whole debate may soon be moot:

[align=center][img width=800]http://i60.tinypic.com/23ljbf7.jpg[/img][/align]

moda0306 wrote:
Those snake-oil salesmen must be at it again... and between my long commute in my Tahoe, heating my 4,000 sf house, and going on two vacations every year, I don't know if I can afford snake oil.

moda,

Don't take it personally, but you are really a lightweight compared to Al Gore. 

... Mountaineer