Which Doctors or Witch Doctors? AMA needs to remove its head from its own backside

Ideology and medicine shouldn’t mix. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has taken on the role of a tribal witch doctor. It is more worrying that the very people we are supposed to put our faith in on the operating table have such ridiculously unfounded views in a field that is off their patch. Moreover, its assessment is flatly wrong.

Have they got hard evidence to back the claims? Not even the cheerleaders among alarmists back their claims. Yet watch the media fall into line with this utter garbage.

Here are some of the AMA’s reasons below.

“Climate change will cause higher mortality and morbidity from heat stress.”

– The reality is that more people die from cold weather events than hot. According to a 2014 study by the CDC, approximately 1,300 deaths per year from 2006 to 2010 were coded as resulting from extreme cold exposure, and 670 deaths per year from extreme heat. FAIL.

“Climate change will cause injury and mortality from increasingly severe weather events.”

The ‘Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas induced climate change report of 2000 notes, that,

“A causal and unequivocal link between mean surface temperature increase and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase has not yet been established. The most probable cause of the mean surface temperature increase is considered to be a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources. Significant uncertainty still exists relating the total (direct plus indirect) radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols (e.g. sulfate, black carbon, dust etc.). Recent studies suggest that the negative total radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols may offset the positive forcing by the greenhouse gases. Precipitation trends in different regions of the world do not present conclusive evidence about the intensification of the hydrologic cycle of the atmospheric-ocean system. There is still uncertainty relating trends in storm (tropical as well as extratropical) frequency in different parts of the world. Available climate data do not show any increasing trend in extreme weather events (e.g. extreme precipitation, extreme drought thunderstorms, winter blizzards) in any part of the world.FAIL

“Climate change will cause increases in the transmission of vector-borne diseases.”

A 2016 NIH report titled,  ‘Climate change effects on airborne pathogenic bioaerosol concentrations: a scenario analysis‘ noted,

The single receptor results showed that modelled concentrations were modified (on average decreased) several percentage points on average as a result of climate change. In general, the variables wind speed and global radiation were of most importance, by influencing atmospheric particle dilution. An increase in global radiation (and temperature) enhances vertical atmospheric mixing and thus results in lower surface concentrations. An increase in wind speed enhances horizontal spread, and thus, the concentration at a receptor point at the plume axis (as in our study) decreases. From our spatial analysis, we concluded that distribution of the area at risk, however, changed: in some areas, the seasonal-averaged concentrations decreased (up to 20 %)

…Given the fact that most human infections occurred in spring, the 2009 concentrations were not exceptional...”

We concluded that for four out of five scenarios the concentrations generally decrease as a result of increased global radiation, temperature and increased wind speeds, whereas for one scenario the concentrations generally increase. Nevertheless, the differences between and especially within seasons are large. Since coincidence of emission and specific meteorological conditions largely determines the actual exposure, additional investigations are required to further quantify the change in predicted concentrations of airborne pathogenic bioaerosolsby taking into account pathogen inactivation and more detailed probability functions on precipitation, snow and large-scale circulation.” FAIL

“Climate change will cause food insecurity resulting from declines in agricultural outputs.”

The IPCC Synthesis Report (i.e. summary) states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.”  This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says:  “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period” (Agoumi, 2003).

Agoumi study wasn’t a peer-reviewed document.

It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continued with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006)…not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.” 

The same goes for chocolate…

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future. The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades. FAIL

“Climate change will cause a higher incidence of mental ill-health.”

By opening its mouth the AMA would seemingly be assisting the business fortunes of psychologists. Perhaps the AMA should check into its own facilities.

Honestly, we must conclude that climate alarmism is in the final throes. With all these local councils declaring climate emergencies and now the AMA joining the RBA and APRA on climate activism, we should start to discount their opinions on their core subjects. Utterly pathetic.

Perhaps the AMA should demand that all of our hospitals are run off renewables with no baseload back up power. Gotta practice what it preaches!