…Medical Journals Condemn the Poor…
Medical Journals ask for action to prevent climate change caused by greenhouse gases.
The New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, among medical 220 journals, claimed:
The editors said, “Fundamental changes in how our societies and economies are organized and how we live” are needed to prevent temperature rise.
This statement should alert everyone to the fact that these editors want to change America and how our economy works. Like so much we hear today, it is an attack against capitalism.
Equally important is their ignoring of the millions of poor around the world who lack electricity and clean water, and the ability to cook without using dung or wood.
Only fossil fuels can provide the electricity needed in Africa and other developing countries.
Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. Poor countries aren’t in a position to install expensive wind and solar, together with the costly batteries needed to allow 24/7 access to electricity. These countries can’t afford to repeat this investment every 20 years or so, when the operational life of wind is 25 years, solar is 20 years, and batteries is 10 years.
The world bank reported in 2021:
“About 800 million people live without electricity, and hundreds of millions more have unreliable access. About 3 billion people still cook with biomass, such as wood, and with other fuels that cause severe air pollution, with widespread impacts.”
The medical societies are pressing to limit future global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels— a goal arising from the 2015 Paris, UNFCCC COP meeting.
The Paris Climate Agreement unnecessarily condemns millions of poor people around the world to sickness and possible death.
It’s now clear there is no existential threat from CO2.
Hundreds of scientists have established that the most dangerous IPCC scenario (RPC 8.5) has no basis in fact. Many scientists have also shown that temperatures will not rise significantly, even with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The discredited RCP 8.5 scenario has been promoted by the media, and now by the medical societies, to scare people into conforming with dangerous and unnecessary net-zero carbon policies.
The millions, and possibly billions of people, who are being denied access to electricity and clean air by efforts to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, sullies the reputation of all medical societies.
. . .