The whole ‘global warming’ frenzy gets more surreal by the day. It appears that, in the wake of Climategate, the pro-GW people are more and more desperate to sell GW “fixes” that no one wants to buy.
Take this headline:
The article states ‘climate change’ “rai[ses] rates of cancer and of respiratory and neurological diseases.” It cites as the authority the IPCC’s 2007 report. You can read how accurate that report was (“this is deception pure and simple”) in the opinion of a distinguished scientist, Richard Tol, published just yesterday, here.
Since I don’t automatically buy into anything the IPCC asserts, I decided to test their theory. ‘Global warming’ (increasing temperatures) raises cancer rates is the hypothesis. I decided to test this hypothesis by going to the National Cancer Institute so I could create a map of all types of cancer and see if cancer mortalities were less in northern states and higher in southern states. That way, one could simulate the change in global warming-driven cancer risk by relocating from, say, Alaska to Hawaii (i.e., moving from a cooler to warmer climate).
Here is the map I created. Deeper browns = more cancer deaths. Deeper greens = fewer deaths.
There seems to be little correlation between average state temperatures and cancer mortality. Note that Hawaii has one of the lowest rates, Maine one of the higher rates, Florida one of the lower rates, and Alaska in between. The fact that Utah and Nevada (similar average temperatures) are so radically different lends credence to my “eyeball” observation that there is little, if any, correlation between temperatures and cancer.
So, moving from Alaska (cooler climate) to Hawaii (warmer climate) decreases one’s risk of dying from cancer, the opposite of the hypothesis.
I also got a chuckle out of the headlined article calling carbon dioxide (a gas essential for life on earth) a “pollutant.”