THE AMA JOINS THE WARMISM SCAM

I guess the American Medical Association is determined to drive its membership down to some point even lower than the 17% of practicing physicians remaining in the group. Its latest self-destructive tactic is to join the global warming hysterics:

In a Thursday conference call with reporters, the heads of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) joined with a pediatrician and a scientist to lay out what they say is a major public health issue: climate change caused by global warming.

Actually, according to one of the most high-profile climate change experts, Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, temperatures haven’t risen statistically since 1995. Nontheless the AMA President yammers on:

Climate instability threatens our health and life-supporting system, and the risk to our health and well-being will continue to mount unless we all do our part to stabilize the climate and protect the nation’s health,” said Wilson

And he wants the AMA to take action. Wilson wants physicians to advocate for policies that will battle the projected rise in climate-related illnesses. To combat climate change, Wilson says physicians must get in gear now (even without evidence):

Climate instability threatens our health and life-supporting system, and the risk to our health and well-being will continue to mount unless we all do our part to stabilize the climate and protect the nation’s health,” said Wilson

The AMA has obviously became just another political action committee, another group of crisis hustlers. I can’t believe any physician is willing to pay dues to be a member of such a fraudulent organization.

Comments 3

  1. nyp wrote:

    You have both misquoted and misinterpreted Dr. Jones’ statement. He did not say that global temperatures had not “risen statistically since 1995.” Rather he said (as a careful scientist) that the rise in global temperature since 1995 is not statistically significant because the period of measurement is too small and the amount of variability is too great.
    “BC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

    As he makes clear in the interview, when one extends the trend lines the statistical significance becomes clear. And the fact that, on an absolute basis, global temperatures have increased in a nearly linear manner from 1995 to the present is pretty much unquestioned in the scientific community.

    Posted 07 Mar 2011 at 12:43 am
  2. Rich wrote:

    That fact that the data don’t reach the level of significance for which the study was designed means that, literally, the chance that the trend occurred randomly is too high to draw any conclusions from the presence of the trend.

    Are you suggesting, nyp, that we dismiss the statistics and scientific method? Should we conclude that since the data don’t meet a level of significance (said level being established before the study was undertaken) that we can extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend and claim that the extension, which hasn’t happened yet, IS significant because it is drawn over a longer period of time (into the future)?

    There are a host of drugs and treatments that are as yet unavailable (unapproved for use in the US) because the studies failed to show significance at this level, but did show a “trend.” Are you willing to take any of them? Would you similarly dismiss the statistics in that case?

    I am not suggesting we ignore the apparent trend. Trends in such studies are useful indicators that perhaps more study is needed. But to make national or global policy decisions on them is frightening. Either we use statistics appropriately or we don’t use them at all. Physicians, especially, should know better.

    Posted 07 Mar 2011 at 3:47 pm
  3. nyp wrote:

    First, I’m not a physician.
    Second, nothing in my post said that one should
    “extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend” from a sample that does not meet the test of statistical significance, especially where there are as many variables as there are with global climate. However, according to the pretty-near universal consensus of qualified climatologists, if one extends the data points backwards in time (not forwards, as you suggest) there is a clear warming trend and this trend is statistically significant. For example, if one looks at data from the 1980s onwards, and certainly from the 1950s onwards, the evidence of global temperture increases meets all tests of statistical significance. That is what Dr. Jones said in his interview. It is precisely the opposite of what the blog post suggested.

    Posted 07 Mar 2011 at 6:20 pm

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1

  1. From Global Warming Debunked, AMA Hardest Hit | The Lonely Conservative on 04 Jul 2011 at 8:25 pm

    [...] as heat waves, said Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the APHA.David Catron, who blogs at Healthcare BS, commented at the time that:The American Medical Association is determined to drive its membership [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *