Global warming a major health risk: scientists

[Makoman1]

(http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Al9wngElCllpfjCaglp8HFsR.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBidHQ xYjh2BHNlYwN5bnN0b3J5/SIG=10rm1k7vf/**http%3a//news.yahoo.com/)

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/reuters120.gif
Global warming a major health risk: scientists

Thu Feb 9, 10:30 AM ET



Global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, scientists said on Thursday.

And it is likely to get worse.

In a review published in The Lancet medical journal, the scientists said there was now a near-unanimous scientific consensus that rising levels of greenhouse gases would cause global warming and other climate changes.

"The advent of changes in global climate signals that we are now living beyond the Earth's capacity to absorb a major waste product," said Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and his colleagues, referring to greenhouse gases.

The scientists' review of dozens of scientific papers over the last five years said health risks were likely to get worse over time as climate change and other environmental and social changes deepened.

"The resultant risks to health ... are anticipated to compound over time as climate change along with other large scale environmental and social changes continues," they wrote.

The review said climate change would bring changes in temperature, sea levels, rainfall, humidity and winds.

This would lead to an increase in death rates from heatwaves, infectious diseases, allergies, cholera as well as starvation due to failing crops.

They said climate change may already have led to lower production of food in some regions due to changes in temperature, rainfall, soil moisture, pests and diseases.

"In food insecure populations this alteration may already be contributing to malnutrition," it said.

The scientists said sea levels had risen in recent decades, and people had already started moving from some low-lying Pacific islands. Such population movements often increased nutritional and physical problems and disease, they said.

"The number of people adversely affected by El Nino-related weather events over three decades, worldwide, appears to have increased greatly," it said, referring to the weather pattern caused by warming of the Pacific Ocean off South America.

The review called for research to identify groups vulnerable to climate change and said health concerns should be included in international policy debates about global warming.

"Recognition of widespread health risks should widen these debates beyond the already important considerations of economic disruption," they said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/hl_nm/climate_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AoIQcgdKYKCaiykb7_8mymAR.3QA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[HonkyFin]

The more things change , the more they stay the same.
The "Global Warming " debate is always a good one.
The biggest problem with the G. W . theory(global warming, not the prezodent) is NOT wether or not it is occurring, but wether or not it is a natural cycle for this planet.
People dont seem to realize that all of this "Data" that scientists have is very new compared to the age of this big rock we are riding on.
Even if a scientist had data that goes back 20,000 years , he still has only a small, small fraction of info that will give him what he needs to make a Hypothisis.
My math is weak ,,but someone find what the percentage is ,,, A Planet that is , as most scientists agree, 4.6 billion years old and having 20,000 yrs of Data,,,would be about 2 percent of data ??,, or is that .2 percent ??

Either way we dont have enough info to say we are doing this or not.
Our climate today is not near as violent as it was in Prehistoric times.
Scientists have data on "Super Storms" that would dwarf anything we get by todays standards.
The Oceans have receeded and swelled inland hundreds of times in the past 50 million years ,,as far inland as Dallas Texas and as far offshore as 200 miles.
Part of this is evident by the prehistoric sand dunes that are found on the King ranch near Baffin Bay. Far , far away from the current bay shore.
If you have ever wondered why Baffin Bay is so deep when every thing around it is shallow, It is due to Glacial Retreat and then weather related erosion.
Baffin Bays Geology and History is pretty cool and I would recommend to anyone to research it.
The prehistoric Serpulid worm tubes alone is incredible.
One more point ,,This Planet is just starting to come out of the last Ice Age. As the Earths timeline goes ,, mans existance is a Nano-Second on Mother Earths wristwatch so for us to be so bold as to say we are the problem is pretty much a roll of the dice.

Peace.

[centexfisher]

This is an interesting article thugh, in that the scientists cite a near concensus that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gasses-in other words, is not part of the currrent naturally occurring warming cycle. I think the 'consensus" is a bit of a stretch, but it points to the need for us not to simply pooh-pooh the concept of global warming.

I agree that the jury is still out, but that it is far more dangerous to ignore the possibility that global warming is man made than it is to start taking pro active steps to curb the effects of green house gasses on our environment. The arguments against taking pro active steps to curb the rise of greenhouse gasses is basically that it cost too much, so the argument becomes money vs. our grand children's lives. I'm a simple man: family first.

[gatorbait]

The End Is Near!

[FishinChick©]

LOL! I swear, some things never change. If I could predict lotto numbers this well, I would be rich by next weekend!

The End Is Near!

[speckle-catcher]

would you share with me FC? LOL

[Snagged]

.

[Super Dave]

" so the argument becomes money vs. our grand children's lives. I'm a simple man: family first."

The argument is not that simple. It's massive amounts of money plus life changes for our society, a huge disadvantage for our lifestyle vs that of other countries, unknown chance of success vs vast money, an equal or larger number of scientists with the belief that man has little to no effect on greenhouse gasses compared to mother nature, all of the foregoing having a much larger potential impact on your grandchildren than current actions. We are already doing more than most other industrialized nations and there has to be a limit somewhere.

[centexfisher]

there has to be a limit somewhere.Agreed-but the current limit is unacceptable, in my view. I do not propose that we should incorporate every aspect of changes that have been proposed. I support making some moves in that direction. Enforcement of the Clean Air Act is a good place to start. Ignoring the very real possibility that global warming is being caused by man's greenhouse gas emissions is just not an acceptable approach. Other than hard headedness and special interests (money), there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to reach a compromise move away from flat denial and doing nothing to accepting the possibility and making some moves to slow the emissions of these gasses. The worst thing that would happen is we get a little healthier air to breathe and we lower our national healthcare costs by lowering the negative effects bad air has on the human body.

It really does come to future quality of lives vs. money today.

[Farmer Jim]

Like Centex, I would disagree with a lot in this particular article, but not with the idea that man is creating greenhouse gases that are contributing to the global warming process. To say that global warming is primarily being caused by greenhouse gasses and is not part of a naturally occurring cycle is, IMHO, junk science. While there is indeed measurable data to show that we are in a warming cycle, there is no empirical data to show that emissions are contributing 100%, or 50%, or 1% to that cycle. It is even impossible to say if this warming cycle is just beginning, in its middle or about over.

By the same token, I think it is to deny the obvious and defy logic to argue that man's emission of green house efect gasses is playing no role whatsoever. To me, the question becomes what superlative one is talking about. How do we parlay risks against cost. Too often, whether it is scientific circles or on this board, the arguement centers around how much man is contributing to the problem and, regardless of the junk science BS, that is something that no one can say for sure. The real issue should be what SD brought up.

Now, with that said, I agree with Centex completely on enforcing current clean air standards. The constant granting of waivers, extending of grandfather clauses, and other concessions to special interests and money needs to stop. Forget, global warming, it simply is ridiculous that people are forced to breath dangerous air when the technology exists to improve it without any catastrophic economic impact on either the pollutors or society. And I really don't care if we are spending more or less than the rest of the world on clean air. We also spend more on tickets to football games than the rest of the world. Both pieces of information deserve the same ho-hum as far as I am concerned.