Cold weather breaks records, legs.

Its summer here in the antipodes, and while I soak up ultra violet that may or may not be good for me, our colonial British overlords* are in the grip of one of the coldest winters for almost thirty years.

At least one hospital has seen a sudden rash of cold weather related trauma presentations to its ED, King's College Hospital isn't sure if all its outpatients services will be running or even if all its staff will turn up, and one young doctor wound up freezing her tits off using skis to get to work:



Not to worry, though. The NHS (aka "Captain Obvious") has helpfully noted on their web site that:

One of the best ways of keeping yourself well during winter is to stay warm.

Interestingly, they then go on to note that:

Every winter in the UK, 25–30,000 deaths are linked to the cold weather. Currently, more than three million households in the UK are in fuel poverty. This is when a household spends more than 10% of its income to keep warm.

Huh. Thats wierd, just two years ago the Department of Health commissioned a report that predicted:

more summer deaths are expected, fewer people will die in Britain as a result of cold winter weather, as the world warms up because of rising carbon emissions from human activity.

and that:

more than 3,000 people could die in an intense summer hot spell...
...The report, an update of a 2002 study, was re-issued on the same day London's mayor said owners of the most polluting cars will have to pay 25 pounds a day to drive them in the city centre in a measure to cut down on carbon emissions.

25 pounds is alot of money. I don't want to stir up trouble (heh), but I'd be a bit cranky about that if it was my hard-earned that was contributing to a net loss of around 22, 000 - 27, 000 lives by preventing some life saving global warming.


* Possibly one of the last true colonies they have left, although we're still a bit put out by the whole Breaker Morant, Gallipoli thing. Every school I went to as a child (and all government buildings) had a picture of Her Maj, the Queen, and for one memorable period in the late 1970's, early '80's a particularly corrupt state premier made all of the school kiddies line up and sing God Save the Queen instead of Advance Australia Fair. (And No, Waltzing Matilda is NOT the national anthem of Australia, although we do seem to have unofficially jettisoned the second verse of the real national anthem. I think it was the line about "for those who've come from across the seas we've boundless lands to share". Apparently it was sending all the wrong messages to illegal immigrants.)
The Queen also appears to own the local prison near here, which has H.M. in front of the name. Odd, unless you consider our convict past.

Turns out we DON'T have the looniest doctors...

In an earlier post I was concerned that our medical loonies are possibly scarier than other countries medical loonies, but it turns out I could be wrong. Phew, the relief! Our homegrown "Doctors for the Environment" who are normally the font of all things ethically questionable are at least a fringe dwelling crew mostly comprised of undergraduate medical students.
However in the UK, it looks like this non-sensical alarmism goes right to the top, and holy crap - they're organised! They also think that GPs and nurses should be educating their patients on how to prevent climate change.

The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, thinks that:

offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.

Because it's just so easy to get patients to stop smoking and eat better.

Other problems with this could be:

1. The evidence base being slightly lacking. Don't we practice Evidence Based Medicine or something these days? I should know, what with all those degrees in non-evidence based hippy goodness behind me. I know shoddy research when I see it, however I'm worried that your average alarmist doctor wouldn't know a confounding factor if it sat on their face and wiggled.

2. Advocating for people to "eat local" is just, well, dumb. What are you going to eat if you live in central London? Pidgeons?

3. Do you have any idea how long it would take to actually do this? GP's start charging for a long consultation after 5 minutes, and any longer than 10 and you'll have to come back next week. Im sure the NHS woud be stoked with having to pay for all of this.

4. If you had a spare 5 minutes with a patient and you had a choice between teaching them to offset their carbon emissions next time they drive to the shops or maybe educating them about optimal control of their diabetes, I would probably err on the side of getting their blood sugar down before their legs drop off. But I'm wierd like that.

Just one more, then I'll go cold turkey...

I lasted a fast five minute, didn't I? Its the amazing the length that medical students will go to to procrastinate during exams. Some people alphabetise their sock drawers or get a sudden urge to perm their eyelashes. Me, I find myself getting caught up in unskilled internet sleuthing.

Wattsupwiththat just posted a story that the Hadley Climate Research Unit has apparently been hacked, with the release of hundreds of files and emails. Keen for a bit of rubber-necking, I wandered on over to the CRU's website for a look-see. Thats when I noticed the interesting looking "Climate Change Myths" link:



Always keen for a bit of a laugh, I clicked away and got taken to a UK Met Office page that no longer existed:

"Thats wierd", said I. Maybe they moved it? Yet I couldnt seem to find anything about climate change myths on their site. So I put the URL into the wayback machine to see what could possibly be there that they would want to take down? (Heres the page if anyone is as desperate to waste time as I am.)

Could it be the bit Professor John Mitchell OBE, Chief Scientist at the met, says:

The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend.

Or maybe its this bit:

The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence.

This from the people who have difficulty predicting what the weather will be like tomorrow.
Or maybe its all the pretty pictures they used?

Oh dear. They certainly seem to like their bottom lines, don't they. I've got a bottom line of my own I'd like to show them:

Yet another reason to be glad you're not English...

Well, technically we are, sort of, but that's not the point. This is:

The NHS has pledged to become one of England's leading sustainable and low carbon organisations and to meet the Government's target of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

Oh, yay. Apparently the thinking went something like this: Since the NHS is the biggest single public sector carbon emitter in the UK, and since "climate change is arguably the biggest threat to health in the medium and long term", and theres some wierd thing called the Climate Change Act in the UK, they figured they had to somehow not just stabilize their emissions, but go backwards.

To those who aren't etomologically inclined, one of the definitions of backwards is:

"...retarded in physical, material, or intellectual development ." 'Nuff said, really.

According to Dr David Pencheon, Director of the NHS Sustainable Development Unit:

"Everyone who works for the NHS should be thinking about reducing their carbon footprint as part of their day job."

Wow, and here was me thinking that working in healthcare was about, oh, I don't know, saving lives or something. (Or at least in my case, trying not to kill people accidentally). The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe, that's alot of scut-monkeys. Maybe they can start to power hospitals by chucking some of those numerous staff onto treadmills?

Methinks I will talk more on this issue, later...

Think of the little children...

As a climate denier, I find it hard to find time between my usual skeptic activities of reputedly drowning live puppies and raping your grandma. However, when I do get a free moment, I am also a parent.

A 2007 survey of 600 Australian children between the ages of 10-14 years old discovered that:

"...44% are nervous about the future impact of climate change."

I wonder how those kiddies would poll now, after such advertising campaigns as the recent UK Government climate change ad? This advert told a heartwarming, cautionary tale about a cute cartoon puppy who drowns because the little kid's parents are bastards and don't want to pay extra on their energy bills. Although arguably not as disturbing as kiddy classics like "Blue Beard" and "Little Red Riding Hood" (which features cross-dressing, violence and an underage love interest), its still not really prime-time viewing.

The advertising campaign has attracted 350 complaints so far (and counting), and is being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

According to an article in The Times:

Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.

The same article mentions that a study by The Department of Energy and Climate Change found that:

When asked how they would react if they knew climate change were going to have a serious effect on their children’s lives, 74 per cent said that they would be willing to change their lifestyle. Fifteen per cent said that they would not make any changes.

Ulterior motives, much.