Skip to content

Doctors Will Save Us From Global Warming!

November 28, 2014
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood


h/t Dave Ward  



I’m sorry Mrs, but I can’t save you – you’re suffering from global warming!




More money is being wasted on climate change nonsense at the UEA, this time by the Medical School.


Doctors need to be prepared to deal with new challenges posed by climate change – according to researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

The impact of flooding and heatwaves, new infections such as dengue fever, and changes in atmospheric pollution that exacerbate respiratory conditions, are set to put increasing strain on healthcare systems.
A project to train medical students to respond to the health effects of climate change – and reduce carbon emissions – has been praised in The Lancet today.
The NHS is the largest public sector emitter of carbon, and its Carbon Reduction Strategy sets stringent goals for an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.
The Sustainable Healthcare Education network, led by UEA’s
Norwich Medical School, involves academics, doctors and medical students from around the UK. Its aim is to introduce teaching about sustainable healthcare into the medical curriculum so that graduates are prepared to contribute to coming changes in the NHS.
Today’s Lancet report highlights the project’s key achievement to date – the creation of a set of curriculum additions.
The new topics would see medical students learn about how the environment and human health interact and understand how climate change could influence human health in future.
Students would also need to demonstrate the skills needed to improve the environmental sustainability of the health sector – from recycling to reducing waste and better prescribing practices, all of which leave a heavy carbon footprint.
Lead researcher, Stefi Barna, from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said: “Climate change is primarily a health issue. Doctors need to lead on adapting to, and preventing, the health threats it poses as part of their duty to protect and promote the health of the public.
“We need to overhaul the health care system for the 21st century to respond to many pressures, and this is one of them. As well as responding to new health risks, such as increased flooding, heatstroke and new diseases, we need to look at how the healthcare system itself contributes to climate change – and reduce its emissions.
“We are working with the NHS to make significant reductions to its carbon footprint and improve patient outcomes at the same time. We are preparing tomorrow’s doctors to lead the health system through a time of rapid environmental change.
“Our research outlines the key concepts that doctors need to understand about how to identify, adapt to and prevent the health effects of climate change.


New challenges? Where on earth do they get this guff?



1) Floods

Have we never had floods before?



The Christmas flood of 1717 was the result of a northwesterly storm, which hit the coast area of the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia on Christmas night of 1717. In total, approximately 14,000 people drowned.



The Norwich Flood of 1912



The 1968 Floods in Surrey – “The Worst for 100 Years”


Meanwhile, experts tell us that there is no evidence that climate change is making floods worse, either globally or in the UK.


2) Heatwaves

There have been no heatwaves in recent years to match the summer of 1976 in the UK.

The last really hot summer was in 2006. Since then no days have reached 30C on the CET series.





3) Dengue Fever

The spread and geographical coverage of the mosquitos responsible for dengue has nothing to do with climate change. Indeed, it was even discovered in Philadelphia in 1780.

In South America, for instance, it has returned to 1930 levels, after nearly being eradicated in the 1970’s.




The experts, who understand these matters, say that the reasons for the dramatic resurgence of dengue are many and complex, but the main factors are:


a) Global population growth

b) Uncontrolled urbanisation, leading to substandard housing, crowding, and lack of proper water and sewer systems, all of which have created ideal conditions for increased transmission of mosquito-borne diseases in tropical urban centers.

c) The lack of effective mosquito control in areas where dengue is endemic, in contrast to earlier periods when larvae were targeted.

d) Increased air travel

e) Decay in public health infrastructures.

f) Ecological disruption during and after World War II

g) The discontinuation of the eradication programme in the Americas in the early 1970’s.


CLUE – Reducing hospitals’ carbon footprints won’t stop dengue fever!


4) Atmospheric pollution that exacerbates respiratory conditions

I must admit, this one’s got me beat! The UK has made huge advances in reducing real air pollution over the last 60 years, and is continuing to do so.


They should be grateful they did not have to live through the London smogs, culminating in the Great Smog of 1952 ( that my mum told me I nearly died in as a baby!)


The Met Office give this summary.






The one thing we do know about respiratory problems is that they are greatly eased by having warm, well ventilated homes, rather than the sort of cold, damp homes we used to live in. In other words, the sort of homes that rely on cheap, plentiful energy.




Would it not be a good idea if, instead of playing silly little games trying to save that planet, our doctors concentrated on what we are paying them to do, and addressed the very real problems affecting the health of our nation.


Apparently, Stefi Barna, who is lead researcher for this nonsense, is a Lecturer in Global Public Health at the UEA, whatever that is.Perhaps it is time she got a real job.

  1. November 28, 2014 9:09 pm

    Well put Paul. When I see tripe like this from UEA my mind always flicks back to Monty Python’s village idiot skit. Monty mentions which university trains the idiots. I reckon Monty was prescient … and very funny.

  2. November 28, 2014 9:21 pm

    In other news:-

    Lecturers at UEA Norwich Medical School, alerted to the challenges presented by climate change, demanded more research into climate change. They professed it was ‘mere coincidence’ that such research could be carried out by their CRU colleagues on the adjacent campus.

    Both UEA departments thanked lecturers at UEA School of Creative Writing for their assistance in preparing the mutually-supportive press releases.

  3. November 28, 2014 9:33 pm

    Dengue fever=?
    is that like yellow fever? or Malaria?
    I have no idea.
    As I said, expect more moisture around below [30] degrees latitude in a global period, such as has arrived (now)

    Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

  4. November 28, 2014 10:05 pm

    The University of East Anglia must be an interesting place……

    “part of their duty to protect and promote the health of the public.” Is this really what the job of doctors in the UK is? Here in the US, until the recent progessive takeover of the news media and daytime TV, the job was to treat sick people. It was not to prevent or protect people. That was the job of the person themselves. I would not that even medicine is being dragged into the “helpless, hopeless sheep” mentality where no one can survive without support groups, government aid etc. Medicine was supposed to help—not permanently enslave the population. I don’t think we should actually call these people “doctors”. Maybe sickness nannies?

  5. November 29, 2014 8:26 am

    I wondered if the new wood burning power facilities such as Drax and increased use of wood burning domestic stoves was actually increasing particulate pollution in the UK?

  6. November 29, 2014 10:08 am

    Witch doctors.

  7. November 29, 2014 4:32 pm

    never heard of dengrey fever
    You trust everything you read on the internet?

  8. Chuck L permalink
    November 29, 2014 9:21 pm

    The University of East Anglia is beyond embarrassing but I guess they need to keep those AGW Euros, Pounds, and Dollars flowing in. Got to ride the Global Warming Gravy train to the bitter end of the line

  9. Andy DC permalink
    November 30, 2014 12:39 am

    Obviously, more self serving drivel from the usual suspects.

  10. December 1, 2014 11:00 am

    It is probably important for the doctors to be prepared to face new challenges and to cure different health problems that may arise from different climatic changes, but that will deffinitely not save us from global warming. Governments should give more money for scientific research and for sustainable policies that will reduce the level of CO2 emissions and the global warming. From what I’ve read, it seems that it will request a big investment if we want to change something: “To minimise the danger of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by carbon dioxide emissions, international institutions require an investment of about 10 times the material cost of the entire World War II within the next few decades.”. More of that analysis on I recommend you to read that post, it’s interesting and well documented.

    • December 1, 2014 2:38 pm

      Governments have already given Billions for research and abatement. For nothing, so far. According to the government, it’s still getting hotter and only more money will save us (or the world may be doomed Dec. 4 if some of the predictions are correct). Nothing will save us from climate change because it isn’t caused by us.

      The post is different than anything I’ve read to date. A quick reading shows mostly correlation and no way to link causality, but if I have time, I’ll read through. However, it is extremely unlikely that any single event or addition to the atmosphere (be it a war or CO2) can actually cause massive, rapid climate change. Generally, that is limited to catastrophic events such as asteroid strikes and a large number of volcanic eruptions in close sequence). There are some similiar changes in history that have no known cause (climate changed drastically in 50 to 100 years, but even then it’s unlikely there is one single cause).

  11. December 2, 2014 8:46 am

    I wonder „a quick reading“ and some are back to lamenting, instead to see what happened to temperatures in Europe after only few months of the war started (see this impressive graphic: ) or to consider how an English meteorologist wondered about a sudden climatic shift in/since winter 1939/40: “The present century has been marked by such a widespread tendency towards mild winters that the ‘old-fashioned winters’, of which one had heard so much, seemed to have gone forever. The sudden arrival at the end of 1939 of what was to be the beginning of a series of cold winters was therefore all the more surprising. Never since the winters of 1878/79, 1879/80 and 1880/81 have there been three in succession so severe as those of 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42.” Extract from: ; Ref: A.J. Drummond at the Kew Observatory, 1943.

    • December 2, 2014 2:54 pm

      The graphs mean nothing taken out of context. One would need to know if this change happened in the past or since then, if there were factors other than WW2 that could account for the change, etc. Weather/climate is never stable. It can certainly go from a very warm January to a very cold February in virtually any winter, if conditions are right. One would have to have a huge amount of evidence that this was the only time this shift occured, nothing was out of the ordinary happened with other climate factors and a reasonable explanation for why war could cause climate change. The answer to the last statement may be in the document, when I have time to read it. I am not lamenting, I am being scientific about my approach. Taking everything at face value and asking no questions is not science. If you’re preaching a new religion, please so state and I’ll see if it’s worth having faith in. Until then, I regard your posting as “science” and will evaluate it as such.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: