<<<Since [Gubler] is not a climatologist, and is seeking to be conciliatory, his comment on the credibility of global warming are not nearly as interesting as his comments on his
main area of expertise, which is infectious diseases.>>>
All the scientists including Gubler would agree that global warning will have consequences for human health.
I see you now want to dismiss Gubler's belief that "We should definitely do what we can [to reverse global warming,..."], as not "interesting," which strikes me as another example of the effect of motivation on perception, but hey.
You think his comments on "public health" are more "interesting."
About that, he says, "but we should also ['also' meaning in addition to reversing global warming] be thinking about directing resources toward public health measures to prevent
the spread of disease--immunization, mosquito control, improved water systems, waste management systems."
Good. I'm for that, too-- reversing global warming and improving public health.
You neglected to reply to my question about how the poor, and those in the third world, will benefit from your plan-- doing nothing, in spite of your guy Gubler's [uninteresting] urging of it, to reverse global warming, and only building up our own protective infrastructure.
What your guy, Gubler, says is this:
The most cost-effective way to mitigate the effect of
climate change on infectious disease is to rebuild our public health infrastructure and implement better
disease-prevention strategies.
So your guy, Gubler, the epidemiologist, believes climate change is occurring, and that it will effect public health, and that we definitely need to mitigate the effect of the climate change.
He simply thinks the main emphasis should be on rebuilding out public health structure. You agree with him, and I, also, am anxious to have our public health structure rebuilt, God knows, and you and I are both willing to be taxed for this purpose.
FT and James Barrett haven't volunteered yet, but maybe they will soon.
What your epidemiologist, Gubler, says, is that we shouldn't be TOO worried about global warming, even though it's happening and must be reversed, because:
"Well, good heavens, people adapt."
And he has spelled out how we should adapt (aside from his recommendation that we reverse global warming, which you choose to dismiss as "conciliatory" and not "interesting." )
But none of those things he spells out, and you and I agree are important, would seem to help the third world. Or any of those who fall through the cracks. (How about the animal world, too? Do the lions and elephants and cows and little birdies get air conditioning and window screens and immunizations, too?)
Gubler is not the only epidemiologist your piece quoted:
<b ... Wilson [another think-good-thoughts epidemiologist] and his colleagues point out that no one knows just how patterns of temperature and rainfall will change in a warmer world, or how these changes will affect the biology of diseases and their vectors.
As I pointed out, your side admits that no one knows how these changes that they agree are coming will affect the biology of diseases or their vectors. NO ONE KNOWS, your side admits. But not to worry. Because, they say,
"... there are variations in public health practices and lifestyles, which can easily outweigh any change in disease biology."
"EASILY," they say! That is just so excellent!
It was so RIGHT of Gubler to say, "Well, good heavens, people adapt."
I guess they are thinking the public health measures will be applied to the rest of the world, too? The whole planet? Animals, too? Plant life? Oh, good. It was feeling risky there for a second.
|
