And Then There’s Phys.Org

A story headlined “Experts Assess the Impact of Climate Change on Public Health” should probably not start their article with so many flat-out wrong statements:

“Climate change is already having a noticeable impact on the environment and global health. Around the world extreme weather events, increased temperatures, drought, and rising sea levels are all adversely affecting our ability to grow food, access clean water, and work safely outdoors.”

1. Climate change is having an impact on the global average temperature, the level of Arctic ice, the number of ice-free days on lakes in the Northern Hemisphere, migratory patterns of some species and the geographic area of some plants. If that constitutes the whole of the environment, then I guess so. But the remarkable truth is that the 1C of temperature rise that we have witnessed has had almost no effect on the environment. Unless you count global greening–vegetative cover for the  planet has increased as much as 11%.

vegetative cover.png

2. Extreme weather events have not increased. Neither the number nor intensity of storms is up. Drought has declined over the past  century. Rising sea levels amount to 6.25 centimeters this century, or 2.5 inches–last century’s total was 5 inches.


3. Our ability to grow food has not been constrained by climate change. We are growing more food and using less land to do it.


4. The number of people without access to clean water is dropping steadily. Our major problem is dirty air, not dirty water.


They continue, “As global temperature increases, rich countries’ economies continue to prosper, but the economic growth of is seriously impaired,”

5. No, rich countries’ economies are mostly basket cases while the economic growth of poor countries is robust.


Not to be deterred by their unbroken streak of error, they continue: “The adverse health effects of climate change will be broad and will tax public health resources globally. Vector-borne diseases, foodborne and waterborne illnesses, malnutrition, respiratory and allergic disorders, heat-related disorders, collective violence, and mental health problems will all likely increase due to climate change. Already vulnerable populations including the poor, minority groups, women, children, and older people will face the greatest challenges brought on by climate-caused illness. Malaria, Rift Valley fever, tick-borne encephalitis, and West Nile virus disease are spreading due to climate change.”

6. Again, no. More countries are becoming malaria-free and other scourges are disappearing as well. There is an outbreak of Zika–but it’s traveling in cargo ships by chance, not migrating to more welcome climes.

Disease trend

The title of this post comes as a sly reference to a climate weblog known as ‘And Then There’s Physics.’ I’m quite sure the proprietor would approve of the Phys.Org article and struggle to understand this response.

Scientists can, and some have tried, to make a reasonable and solid case for each of these impacts to be troublesome and more in the future. But to say it is happening now insults reality. It also makes it less likely that we will be able to mobilize our resources to preventing this scary scenario from ever coming to pass.

7, 8, 9 and 10. There was a wolf, you know.

10 responses to “And Then There’s Phys.Org

  1. People say they can not understand how Donald Trump gets away with saying the outrageously false things that he does…

  2. Apparently some reseacher has been saying that in the future climate will kill 1600 brits a year – which I think it excellent news given that climate and early winter deaths now kill 37,000 Brits a year.

    And that is how you can tell whether someone is a climate extremist – they never ever mention of 1million Brits who have died from early winter deaths since Hansen turned up the heating in the Senate … and instead they’ll claim one or two people from one or two natural disasters somehow warrant 100s of billions of our money going to stop REDUCING winter deaths.

  3. What is amazing is that this faux study is simply a typical climate imperialist bit of propaganda. It’s not unusual fare in the world of the climate true believers.

  4. “And Then There’s Phys.Org”
    – Yes the thing is it’s about exploitation/manipulation via DECEPTION TITLES.
    #1 And Then There’s is about Green Dogma rather than Physics
    #2 New Scientist isn’t an actual science authority, rather it’s a vehicle for selling advertising around a few sciencyy stories
    #3 is about selling advertising ..It’ not like it’s a Physics society or something.
    ..So you shouldn’t have sourced your article from there.
    ..It’s 2016 We shouldn’t be so naive.

  5. ….ooops…. that was for stewgreen. What an amazing cartoon!

  6. manicbeancounter

    Well put Thomas. Those who promote climate catastrophe have little sense of proportion, along with failing to compare the models to the real data.
    Back in the 1980s one of my economics lecturers claimed that if all the available land was in Africa was farmed to the then current technological limits the whole world could be fed. That was when there were frequent famines. In the 1970s when the Soviet Union had frequent crop failures it was claimed that 1% of the land arable land produced 30% of the food. That 1% was the small plots that the farm workers could cultivate for their own use and to sell in the local markets.
    The shortage of food is an economic problem. We have long past the time when unusual or extreme weather will lead to high levels of shortage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s