There seems to be a new fashion to compare the consequences of
smoking with consequences of climate change-1. Whilst the increase in
mortality in smokers can not be challenged-2, we do not have any figures
for mortality or morbidity directly(not by proxy) due to climate change-3
(this should not be mistaken for air pollution).
Just compare Doll’s paper with the health section in the latest IPCC
report. The former is a concise exercise in clarity and irrefutable
evidence, the latter is a verbose and confusing account full of
assumptions and predictions with hardly any relevant statistics. AR4 does
not explain why the horrors of malaria, heat waves and dengue fever do not
apply for example to Florida.
Do Griffiths et al assume that doctors and their patients live in a
different world? They just rehash what we have heard many times before,
including the usual misconceptions i.e. buy “local” food (perhaps from a
heated greenhouse)-4. They somehow seem to suggest that carbon (carbon
dioxide) is the most poisonous substance known to man. Let me quote from
their article:” a low carbon diet is a healthy diet.” As the lowest
proportion of carbon is in fats we are left with either nuts or butter.
But nuts are not “local”. So we are left with butter. Cows supply the main
ingredient. We have a problem.
1. BMJ 2008;336:1507 (28 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.39617.642720.59
Ten practical actions for doctors to combat climate change
Jenny Griffiths, Alison Hill, Jackie Spiby, Mike Gill, Robin Stott
2. BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE, (Published 22 June 2004)
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British
doctors
Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham, Isabelle Sutherland
3. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),Section 8 – Human Health pp 391 –
432
Oxford University Press 2007, also available on line
4. Fruit and Vegetables & UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Tare Garnett Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey 2006
Rapid Response:
Ten Commandments
There seems to be a new fashion to compare the consequences of smoking with consequences of climate change-1. Whilst the increase in mortality in smokers can not be challenged-2, we do not have any figures for mortality or morbidity directly(not by proxy) due to climate change-3 (this should not be mistaken for air pollution).
Just compare Doll’s paper with the health section in the latest IPCC report. The former is a concise exercise in clarity and irrefutable evidence, the latter is a verbose and confusing account full of assumptions and predictions with hardly any relevant statistics. AR4 does not explain why the horrors of malaria, heat waves and dengue fever do not apply for example to Florida.
Do Griffiths et al assume that doctors and their patients live in a different world? They just rehash what we have heard many times before, including the usual misconceptions i.e. buy “local” food (perhaps from a heated greenhouse)-4. They somehow seem to suggest that carbon (carbon dioxide) is the most poisonous substance known to man. Let me quote from their article:” a low carbon diet is a healthy diet.” As the lowest proportion of carbon is in fats we are left with either nuts or butter. But nuts are not “local”. So we are left with butter. Cows supply the main ingredient. We have a problem.
1. BMJ 2008;336:1507 (28 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.39617.642720.59
Ten practical actions for doctors to combat climate change
Jenny Griffiths, Alison Hill, Jackie Spiby, Mike Gill, Robin Stott
2. BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE, (Published 22 June 2004) Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors
Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham, Isabelle Sutherland
3. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),Section 8 – Human Health pp 391 – 432 Oxford University Press 2007, also available on line
4. Fruit and Vegetables & UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Tare Garnett Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey 2006
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests