US needs nearly $200 million more on climate-related health research

Sep 27, 2009 Full story: www.eurekalert.org 11

A recent commentary suggests that the U.S. should spend roughly $197 million more than it currently does (each year) to research the impact of climate change on public health.

The commentary authors concluded that federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, must establish large intramural and extramural programs with funding of more than $200 million annually to adequately address the problem. The authors recommended that a standing committee within the National Academies of Sciences oversee the programs and prioritize spending.

Full Story
Earthling

Muro De Alcoy, Spain

#1 Sep 28, 2009
What a joke, spend another, "$197 million more than it currently does," annually, to discover what impact a 1ºF global temperature rise over the last 100 years has had on public health????

Talk about throwing good taxpayer's money down the drain, to follow the billions already wasted on climate research.
Whatever next, spending money where it's actually needed?
Highly unlikely.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#2 Sep 28, 2009
This is less than a dollar per person. Just ONE disease epidemic ( i.e. H1N1 ) can costs about $10*100 million or a billion dollars.

Public health is a VERY big part of government spending. Don't be confused by Earthling. He is congenitally innumerate on these matters.

When you need to spend money on vaccination or health care for disease, you need a LOT of good information. Burying your head in the sand is NOT cost effective.

P.S. this is the 'opinion' of one scientists. Nothing more and nothing less. Making a lot about it is silly.
Earthling

Muro De Alcoy, Spain

#3 Sep 28, 2009
LessFact doesn't stop to consider all the other dollars wrenched from the grasp of taxpayers, only the one in question.
P.S. this is the 'opinion' of one scientists.
He thinks I have problems, when he makes one scientist plural.
lol

Public health is of the utmost importance, but it's ludicrous to think that more multi millions are being spent to find out how or if a 1ºF temperature rise may or may not have affected the population.

Even if it's only $1 per person, surely it could be spent on something worthwhile instead?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#4 Sep 30, 2009
Earthling wrote:
LessFact doesn't stop to consider all the other dollars wrenched from the grasp of taxpayers,
Ah, yes the 'anarchist' view of government. Much better to have your money stolen without return by the aristocracy or 'industrialists'. Heck even pirates might find the lack of government a 'socially benign' state to do their business in. Works for Somalia..
Earthling wrote:
Public health is of the utmost importance, but it's ludicrous to think that more multi millions are being spent to find out how or if a 1ºF temperature rise may or may not have affected the population.
Your assumption that AGW will not cause change in epidemiology is totally out of line. I can point to examples of lime disease and west nile in non-traditional Canadian areas or of the introduction of malaria in the Southern U.S. from it's prior limits of Mexico.

And knowledge is money for these issues. A dollar in research gerally stops tens of dollars of wasted money for the appropriate action. Smart is in, didn't you hear or were you still trying to get your horse hooked up to your buggy?
Earthling

Muro De Alcoy, Spain

#5 Sep 30, 2009
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Your assumption that AGW will not cause change in epidemiology is totally out of line.
I didn't say it, "will not" cause change, I said that a 1ºF global temperature rise over a 100 year time period cannot be to blame for anything and everything it has thus far be blamed for.
Even you must realise that, with your scientific background and vast knowledge base?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I can point to examples of lime disease and west nile in non-traditional Canadian areas or of the introduction of malaria in the Southern U.S. from it's prior limits of Mexico.
"Point" to whatever you like, a 1ºF global temperature rise over a 100 year time period cannot be held to blame for everything bad that happens.
Even you must realise that, with your scientific background and vast knowledge base?

Have you alarmists all been smoking too much weed, hypnotized or just brainwashed?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#6 Sep 30, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that a 1ºF global temperature rise over a 100 year time period cannot be to blame for anything
Well, I pointed out three things it COULD be blamed for so that makes you look a little dim.
Earthling wrote:

and everything it has thus far be blamed for.
Without the $200 M of additional research, HOW DO YOU KNOW??

So far, you have displayed ignorance on a MASSIVE scale while disparaging any attempt to LEARN anything as 'a waste of money'.

As a clueless fuddy duddy, your opinion on ANY research is a foregone conclusion.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#7 Sep 30, 2009
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Well, I pointed out three things it COULD be blamed for
There's a list of over 600 things, "it COULD be blamed for," not one of them proven, just like your three examples.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#8 Oct 1, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>There's a list of over 600 things, "it COULD be blamed for," not one of them proven, just like your three examples.
My three examples show clear links between climate changes driven by AGW and changes in disease patterns. Your point is that you haven't read any science and don't care?

And you don't WANT any money for research because they might come up with numbers you can't ignore?

Too fracking bad, dude.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#9 Oct 1, 2009
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
My three examples show clear links between climate changes driven by AGW and changes in disease patterns.
They show nothing of the sort, mainly because you haven't provided any, "clear links" to anything
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Your point is that you haven't read any science and don't care?
That's an assumption on your part, therefore inadmissible.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
And you don't WANT any money for research because they might come up with numbers you can't ignore?
Yet another assumption on your part, but you're right, you're right, I don't want any money for research, I'm not a researcher.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#10 Oct 1, 2009
Earthling wrote:
Yet another assumption on your part, but you're right, you're right, I don't want any money for research, I'm not a researcher.
That isnt' an assumption. From your posts you are not even vaguely informed on science, so there was NO confusing you with anyone with even a high school science education, much less a researcher.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#11 Oct 1, 2009
If being, "informed on science" makes you so clever, why do you behave so stupidly?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Epidemiology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Research Project 12 hr adinar13 1
CDC to board ship from Africa with sick crew Sep 17 Marine Phoenix 1
Canadian laboratory team evacuated from Ebola z... Aug 30 motley crews 2
Canadian team evacuated from Ebola zone home Aug 30 TellItLikeItIs 1
SD Health Department urges measles vaccinations May '14 ITS A FRIGGIN PAN... 2
Five Things About Cancer We Didn't Know A Decad... (Jan '10) Mar '14 teginder81 6
Sample size calculation in an experimental study (Aug '12) Feb '14 Roger D 2
•••

Epidemiology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••