ReportWire

Tag: global warming

  • Zombie Viruses: Fascinating and a Little Frightening

    Zombie Viruses: Fascinating and a Little Frightening

    [ad_1]

    March 10, 2023 – Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

    A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label due to rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

    The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact. 

    The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

    The second question: What does it mean?

    No Humans Were Harmed in This Study

    The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

    The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero. 

    “There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

    Based on Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

    “From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

    That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says. 

    Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s The Thing) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.

    But What If …

    So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

    “There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

    That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – either for good or ill.

    “‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says  Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

    And not all organisms are harmful. 

    “There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.” 

    Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to impact us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Liston says.

    For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understand how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

    If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

    “The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Climate Scientists Announce Earth Doing Pretty Good Today So You Can Take Afternoon Off And Have Fun

    Climate Scientists Announce Earth Doing Pretty Good Today So You Can Take Afternoon Off And Have Fun

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK—Noting that there would be no reason to be concerned for the future of the planet again until tomorrow morning at the earliest, climate scientists at Columbia University announced Thursday that Earth was doing pretty good today, so everyone could take the afternoon off and have fun. “If anything, Earth could use a little extra carbon today,” said researcher Theodore Kneece, who encouraged climate change activists to take a break from their efforts for the remainder of the day, noting that the planet was doing surprisingly “A-okay” “Throw your soda cans in the trash. Buy a Keurig. Book a private jet. Trust me, the Earth will be fine—for today, that is. Let me be clear, we’ll still be facing a mass extinction in the near future, but today? Hit the beach!” At press time, Kneece added that activists might as well take a climate cheat day tomorrow, too.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Menus With ‘Climate Change Impact’ Info Sway Diners’ Choices

    Menus With ‘Climate Change Impact’ Info Sway Diners’ Choices

    [ad_1]

    By Alan Mozes 

    HealthDay Reporter

    THURSDAY, Dec. 29, 2022 (HealthDay News) — Adding climate-impact labeling to fast-food menus can have a big effect on whether or not consumers go “green” when eating out, new research suggests.

    The finding is based on an online survey that asked consumers to order virtual meals after randomly looking over menus that either had some form of climate labeling or none at all.

    The result: Compared with those who chose from a regular, non-labeled menu, 23.5% more who ordered from a menu that flagged the least green choices ended up making a “sustainable” meal choice. (That’s another way of saying, for example, that they steered clear of red meat — a food whose production has a big climate impact.)

    Similarly, about 10% more of respondents made more sustainable choices when reviewing menus that indicated the greenest meals available.

    “Sustainability or climate change menu labels are relatively new, and have not yet been implemented in fast-food restaurants,” said lead author Julia Wolfson, an associate professor of human nutrition at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “However, other kinds of labels, such as calorie labels, have been in restaurants for some time now.”

    Other studies have shown that such labels do affect food ordering decisions.

    With that in mind, her team wanted to see if climate labels might be equally effective. And — if so — “whether positively or negatively framed labels were more effective at nudging consumer behavior towards more sustainable choices,” Wolfson said.

    More than 5,000 adults 18 and older participated in the online survey in March and April of this year. About two-thirds were white, 12% were Black and 17% were Hispanic.

    They were told to imagine that they were at a restaurant ordering dinner, after reviewing a fast-food menu containing 14 choices.

    Menu items included beef burgers, beef-substitute burgers, chicken and fish sandwiches, chicken nuggets, and various salads.

    Each participant was randomly assigned to view only one of three menus, on which every food option was clearly identified by a photo that could be clicked when placing an order.

    One menu featured standard (climate neutral) QR codes below each meal photo. The second featured red labels stating “high climate impact” under meals that included beef. A third menu featured green labels stating “low climate impact” under those meals that did not include beef.

    “We found that both the high and low climate impact menu labels were effective at encouraging more sustainable food selections compared to the control,” Wolfson said. “But the most effective label was the one indicating high climate impact on beef items.”

    Researchers also found that when people made more sustainable choices, they also perceived them as healthier. That suggests climate-friendly fast-food labeling could be a win not just for the environment but also for waistlines.

    Still, none of the encouraging results were derived from ordering choices made in actual restaurants.

    “More research is needed to understand the most effective and feasible label designs, and how such labels would affect food choices in real world settings such as fast-food restaurants, other restaurants, grocery stores, and cafeterias,” Wolfson said.

    Two outside experts greeted the survey findings with skepticism.

    Connie Diekman — a St. Louis-based food and nutrition consultant and former president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics — said it remains to be seen just how effective such labels might be in actual practice.

    “This study was an online survey, so people were not in the restaurant making food choices,” Diekman said. “The question mark on impact is will people do this when in the restaurant?”

    In her experience as a dietitian, people dining out are often focused on the occasion and not on the nutritional impact of their food choices.

    “I would wonder if the same [would] occur here,” Diekman said, adding that human behavior does not always align with research studies.

    Lona Sandon is program director for the Department of Clinical Nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. She wondered who would decide which foods get labeled “green” or not.

    “I predict that there will be a high degree of scientific disagreement on this,” she noted.

    Regardless, Sandon doubted that such labels would significantly influence people to make greener food choices outside a restaurant setting, limiting the overall environmental impact of any restaurant labeling effort.

    “In theory, this sounds like a nice idea,” she said. “In reality, I think it will be a bit of a mess. Restaurants will have difficulty following regulations, and regulators will have difficulty coming up with a way to define a climate-friendly food item.”

    Sandon said a more effective strategy would be to consider the food system as a whole when it comes to sustainability and climate friendliness and not simply focus on an individual food item on a menu.

    The findings were published Dec. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

    More information

    There’s more about food labeling at Food Print.

     

    SOURCE: Julia Wolfson, PhD, MPP, associate professor, human nutrition, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore; Connie Diekman, RD, MEd, food and nutrition consultant, St. Louis, former president, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; Lona Sandon, PhD, MEd, RDN, LD, program director, and assistant professor, clinical nutrition, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; JAMA Network Open, Dec. 27, 2022

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • David Malpass’s Proper Admission That He’s Not a Scientist Isn’t Enough for the Science-Reverent

    David Malpass’s Proper Admission That He’s Not a Scientist Isn’t Enough for the Science-Reverent

    [ad_1]

    In 2008 Nigel Lawson published An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. The Tory radical who served as Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer was promptly attacked for having the temerity to write about the theory of global warming absent scientific credentials.

    Lawson thankfully didn’t cower amid the arrows directed his way. Instead, Lawson responded that he would cease talking about global warming as soon as other non-scientists like Al Gore, Tony Blair, and other self-serious hysterics did the same. Brilliant!

    As readers surely know, the Al Gores of the world never took Lawson up on his offer. The non-scientist in Gore continues to express alarm about “global warming,” and he continues to attack those who disagree with him.

    Indeed, Gore recently went after David Malpass, president of the World Bank. Gore described Malpass as a “climate denier,” only for the World Bank head to be asked his views on whether or not human progress is the cause of a warming planet. Malpass’s response was, “I’m not a scientist.”

    Please think about Malpass’s response, along with the vitriol directed at Lawson fourteen years ago. For writing a book about so-called “global warming” without scientific credentials, Lawson was demonized.

    In which case, Malpass’s response to the question was seemingly the correct one for the warming nail-biters in our midst. Not a scientist, Malpass would leave the question of warming to the scientists. Gore et al should have been thrilled, except that Malpass’s response actually brought on more frothing at the mouth from warming’s religionists.

    Applied to Lawson, it’s all a reminder that warmists really don’t care about one’s scientific credentials so long as the individual being asked about a warming planet is answering the questions the right way. Translated, you can be a dog-catcher and comment about global warming so long as you conclude that human progress born of fossil fuel consumption is the cause.

    It’s all a reminder of how very surface is the embrace of “science” by warmists. Call “science” their shield. In contending that “97% of scientists believe” life defined by much greater health and exponentially greater living standards has a “warming” downside, the warmists in their delusional minds feel as though they have immunity from reasonable discussion. They’re twice incorrect.

    For one, arguably the surest sign you’re in the presence of “scientists” is if they’re arguing. In which case this laughable notion that scientists near monolithically believe as warming mouth breathers do near totally ignores just how much scientists debate everything. The previous truth further reminds us that it’s not science without the doubt.

    From there, we just have to be reasonable. We have to stop and think about what life was like before the discovery that planet earth had immense and seemingly endless amounts of oil, coal and surely other commodities that provide us with power. Life before uses were discovered for the earth’s plenty was nothing short of brutal.

    As Alex Epstein reminds us in Fossil Future, death from extreme cold was the annual norm, and actually much greater than deaths that resulted from extreme heat. There was also the problem of highly limited drinking water that was actually potable. After which, much of life was defined by an endless pursuit of food in quantities never sufficient to feed us. An “extra mouth to feed” used to be a very real worry, versus today when eating is taken for granted.

    How did we get here? Fossil fuels, plain and simple. That’s the case because the fuels powered the various machines that freed us humans to increasingly specialize our work. Thanks to the mechanization of so much that was formerly done by human hands, the human beings that populate the world were more and more able to fulfill their specialized potential. In other words, a local and eventually global division of labor revealed itself on the way to staggering abundance that those who lived in a pre-fossil fuel past could never imagine.

    In the words of Epstein, “climate mastery” born of incredibly sophisticated global symmetry meant that people had the means to heat their surroundings when it was bitterly cold, and cool their surroundings when it was brutally hot. Clean water was plentiful such that the world’s population could – yes – greatly reduce consumption of liquids with alcohol in it. And then houses and buildings could be built in rapid fashion that would similarly protect us from an “environment” that wasn’t always kind.

    Crucial about these advances that were and are a direct consequence of machines, the ever-widening global division of labor that I write about in my new book The Money Confusion has given the world both the means to care about planet earth along with the specialized time to pursue the energy of the future. Will tomorrow’s energy replace oil and coal? It’s impossible to say. But what can be said with certainty is that without an advanced society that’s a direct consequence of fossil-fuel consumption, we would never have the means to pursue oil’s replacement; assuming there is one.

    Back to Malpass, it’s not just that his knuckle-dragging critics want it both ways in criticizing his true admission that he’s not a scientist. That’s just politics. What’s really sad is that global warming fanatics can’t see that the very human progress they disdain (and that they couldn’t live happily without) is what sets the stage for even better care of the planet they claim to want to save. And it doesn’t take a scientist to understand what the warmists do not.

    [ad_2]

    John Tamny, Contributor

    Source link

  • Author Suzanne Jones’s New Book ‘From the Flood’ is a Poignant New Memoir Marking the 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Agnes

    Author Suzanne Jones’s New Book ‘From the Flood’ is a Poignant New Memoir Marking the 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Agnes

    [ad_1]

    Press Release


    Jun 21, 2022

    Trauma recovery specialist Suzanne Jones (There Is Nothing To Fix) shines in this first-rate memoir chronicling a life defined by a hurricane 50 years ago. Pre-flood, Jones was a typical 1970s kid — but after Hurricane Agnes roars through Wilkes-Barre, PA, on June 23, 1972, Jones’s entire life changed. 

    Jones, now 57, says she wanted to mark the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Agnes by writing of her childhood experiences through what was then the worst natural disaster in American history. “There are many books and documentaries about this historic flood, but I wanted to write about the impact of a natural disaster on one family that loses everything. It took years for us to piece our lives back together.”

    Jones was compelled to pen her story after she realized her experiences of the flood and the following years of displacement were drastically different from her parents’. Jones states, “As a trauma specialist, I can now look back and see that as kids, we had everything we needed to thrive – community, play, and the opportunity to use our experiences in our games of imagination. Ironically, the best years of my childhood were the worst years for my parents.”

    With sparkling prose and a fine eye for detail, Jones easily pulls readers into her engaging narrative, choosing to share much of her ordeal through a lens of childhood wonder and naiveté, and recounting her experiences with a child’s frankness. With descriptions that alternate between laugh-out-loud funny and heart-breakingly sad, From the Flood offers lessons of resilience that are as relevant today as they were half a century ago.

    “This book feels not only like a gift to my parents, but a lesson to parents everywhere that children can thrive through traumatic events if we allow them to be kids.”

    “As a person who has worked with children and families who have survived both acute and chronic trauma, I gained more perspective from this wise and beautiful seven-year-old than I learned from many experts in the field.” —Steve Gross, Chief Playmaker, Life Is Good Kids Foundation

    From the Flood: A Memoir by Suzanne Jones                      

    Media Contact: sue@suzanneejones.com – 617-899-9474

    Website: http://www.suejonesempowerment.com

    Publication date: June 7, 2022                                               

    6×9″ Paperback, $15.99 

    978-1734083521

    315 pages

    Source: Suzanne Jones, author

    [ad_2]

    Source link