Being skeptical about H1N1

sliabh

Can anyone recommend some good "one-stop-shop" skeptical articles I can recommend to people worried by the extremists raving abouut H1N1 (i.e. that the "aporkolypse" will devastate humanity, and that the vaccine is worse than the illness?).

I have a pretty good grasp of the facts myself, but I would like some (reputable) sites to point people to for quick doses of reality.

King Mob

sliabh wrote: »

Can anyone recommend some good "one-stop-shop" skeptical articles I can recommend to people worried by the extremists raving abouut H1N1 (i.e. that the "aporkolypse" will devastate humanity, and that the vaccine is worse than the illness?).

I have a pretty good grasp of the facts myself, but I would like some (reputable) sites to point people to for quick doses of reality.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

These are always good for general information on Alternative Medicine stuff and have a few articles on H1N1.

Mahatma coat

Just saw this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread516163/pg1

if you are truly a skeptic you will look at all the information presented before amking a decision.

robindch

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just saw this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread516163/pg1

if you are truly a skeptic you will look at all the information presented before amking a decision.

The same site that suggests it's a good idea for US citizens to prepare for an open war against their elected government, and that creationism is a "scientific fact"?

As you say, take a look at all the info before, er, "amking a decision".

King Mob

Yes, you should look at all the facts.
However Abovetopsecret is completely devoid of facts.

Turtwig

Does anyone frequent this forum?:(
bah humbug.

Newscientist common myths.

Oh and can I just give a special mention to a certain Wolfgang Wodarg and co.? To paraphrase a now well known Climatalogist : "Next time I see him (them) I will be tempted to beat the crap out of him (them).":)

onq

I have not been convinced over the past 12 months by reports of the alleged Swine Flu Pandemic issuing from the various European and World medical bodies arising from information from sources seemingly beholden to Big Pharma.

It came as some surprise however to find this little article tucked away on http://www.globalresearch.ca recently:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16880

Taken together with the below motion put before the European Assembly, this raises a huge question-mark over the several pronouncements by member of the Irish and British medical professions over the past few months.

Are our doctors, like our bankers, rubber stamping toxic products from United States companies?

This time it may be inadequately tested cocktails of drugs containing known toxic substances instead of securitized sub-prime loans, but the practice, amounting to systemic error, of not conducting adequate independent verification and monitoring seem to be the same.

Will we never learn?

ONQ.

---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16911

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC12110.pdf

Doc. 12110

18 December 2009

Faked Pandemics - a threat for health
Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Wodarg and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it

In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide. They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.

The "birds-flu“-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu“-campaign
seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

The member states of the Council of Europe should ask for immediate investigations on the consequences at national as well as European level.

Signed:

WODARG Wolfgang, Germany, SOC
ABURTO BASELGA Fátima, Spain, SOC
AYVA Lokman, Turkey, EPP/CD
CONDE BAJÉN Agustín, Spain, EPP/CD
CZINEGE Imre, Hungary, SOC
FLYNN Paul, United Kingdom, SOC
GROZDANOVA Dzhema, Bulgaria, EPP/CD
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
HUSS Jean, Luxembourg, SOC
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
McCAFFERTY Christine, United Kingdom, SOC
OHLSSON Carina, Sweden, SOC
ÜNAL Mustafa, Turkey, EPP/CD
VOLONTE' Luca, Italy, EPP/CD

---

EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
EDG: European Democratic Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Does anyone frequent this forum?:(
bah humbug.

Newscientist common myths.

Oh and can I just give a special mention to a certain Wolfgang Wodarg and co.? To paraphrase a now well known Climatalogist : "Next time I see him (them) I will be tempted to beat the crap out of him (them).":)

Yes you can, then go to the link you posted and read the waffle on it.

Go to Myth 3: You're safe as long as you're healthy. Only sick, weak people get really ill

Most of the children who have died of swine flu were perfectly healthy beforehand, and many of the adult victims also had no underlying conditions.
Read More...

Then go an "read more"... - but you can't, because this little op-ed piece - as opposed to "scientific article" provides NO INFORMATION to back up the headliner above.

What it does do is let slip this little nugget.

"We have this immunity because of a biological accident: in 1977, an H1N1 flu virus was accidentally released in the Soviet Union and has circulated ever since, alongside the regular H3N2 strains."

Released?

From a zoo perhaps?

There's only one kind of place that "releases" viruses and that's a biological weapons factory.

Have we all just been exposed to an aerosol-spread biological weapon?

Is that why the WHO and powers that be were so worried about it?

Of were they just influenced by shills for Big Pharma?

From the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html

"...last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic."

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

From the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html

"...last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic."

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Skeptical about the dailymail? Of course!!

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Skeptical about the dailymail? Of course!!

First posting comments that attack the man, not his work.

A man who has put his concerns formally in the public domain.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC12110.pdf

Then ridiculing a newspaper that has exposed a paid shill for Big Pharma.

Is that the level of the exchange in this forum?

Unfounded allegations and one-liners?

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Unfounded allegations and one-liners?

ONQ.

Hang on.
Didn't you just accuse Malty T of being paid by a pharma company to discredit someone?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on.
Didn't you just accuse Malty T of being paid by a pharma company to discredit someone?

Speaking of unfounded allegations and one-liners...

No. I didn't.

Unless Malty T is Sir Roy Anderson in disguise.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Speaking of unfounded allegations and one-liners...

No. I didn't.

Unless Malty T is Sir Roy Anderson in disguise.

ONQ.

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Looks like an accusation to me.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Looks like an accusation to me.

Those words with "if" in the middle of them are not a statement so cannot be an accusation.

Those words with "?" at the end form a question - again, not an accusation.

HTH



ONQ.

PS Neither you nor he actually addressed the issues raised.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Those words with "if" in the middle of them are not a statement so cannot be an accusation.

Those words with "?" at the end form a question - again, not an accusation.

HTH

Oh in that case.

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack vaccines.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you a biological terrorist?

onq wrote: »

ONQ.

PS Neither you nor he actually addressed the issues raised.

What issues exactly?
You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?
No thanks.

It's clear you've already made you mind up that the government is evil and out to get us.
No amount of reasoning is going to change your mind.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Oh in that case.

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack vaccines.
At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.
Are you a biological terrorist?

"Attack vaccines".
There's a mental image.

You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?

In that regard I'm learning from you.

It's clear you've already made you mind up that the government is evil and out to get us.

It seems nothing I've posted appears clear to you - I queried the actions of the WHO and the medical councils, not the government.

No amount of reasoning is going to change your mind.

Any time you're going to start reasoning be my guest.

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

"Attack vaccines", from a country one of whose overseas parmaceutical companies brought us the Bhopal disaster?

Ah so you are a bio terrorist?
(you see it's not a accusation cause there's a ? at the end.)

onq wrote: »

Have you been experimented on "King Mob"?

I have taken part in an experiment yes.
I don't see how it's important.

Has you ever been dying of a vaccine preventable disease?

onq wrote: »

In that regard I'm learning from you.

Care to point out where I did any of that?
Cause I can with you.

onq wrote: »

It seems nothing I've posted appears clear to you

Oh it's very clear to me what you've posted.

onq wrote: »

Any time you're going to start reasoning be my guest.

Ok what evidence would prove your belief to be wrong?

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a reatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".
ONQ.

What drugs are being promoted as a treatment?
Who's calling them a vaccine?

I don't there's any credible sources who do.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".

Swine flu first appeared around September/October of 2008, although it remained largely undetected until the outbreak in Mexico in 2009. During this outbreak Tamiflu and Relenza were using as the anti viral drugs of choice worldwide. Resistance to Tamiflu was encountered in South Africa, Denmark and Japan, iirc. Relenza, only deals with influenza in the lungs, swine flu was found to penetrate all the way to the gut. So it goes without saying that antiviral drugs weren't exactly going to be the way to combat widespread infections if a dangerous pandemic were to occur.

Use of Tamiflu or Relenza as prophylactics is a very dangerous route because it practically guarantees that the virus will develop resistance and possibly mutate into something much worse. Use of Tamiflu/Relenza sparingly doesn't guarantee that the virus won't develop resistance but it does lower the chances of such an occurrence significantly. Hence the reason why once the pandemic was declared Tamiflu was no longer used as a prophylactic.

Vaccines are the only practical way to deal with virus's and they're also a lot cheaper than drugs.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Ah so you are a bio terrorist?
(you see it's not a accusation cause there's a ? at the end.)

Monkey see, monkey do.

I have taken part in an experiment yes.

What was the experiment

I don't see how it's important.

Let me be the judge of that - what was it?

Has you ever been dying of a vaccine preventable disease?

A question mark at the end of a sequence of words doesn't make it into a question, or if disbelief is stretched to the breaking point, into a relevant question.

Care to point out where I did any of that?
Cause I can with you.

So far you've either pretended to misunderstand what I said or else genuinely failed to understand - neither position confers credibility.

Oh it's very clear to me what you've posted.

The extent of your questioning suggests otherwise.

Ok what evidence would prove your belief to be wrong?

Irrefutable evidence.

What drugs are being promoted as a treatment?
Who's calling them a vaccine?

More questions instead of answers.

I don't there's any credible sources who do.

Missing "think".

Perhaps that's what you are...

ONQ

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Monkey see, monkey do.

So you were making baseless accusations while giving out to someone for making baseless accusations?

onq wrote: »

What was the experiment

Let me be the judge of that - what was it?

Psychological experiment on pain and pain management.
Never actually checked if it got published.

onq wrote: »

A question mark at the end of a sequence of words doesn't make it into a question, or if disbelief is stretched to the breaking point, into a relevant question.

I was assuming you asked your question in an attempt to appeal to emotion, I was illustrating I can do the same.

onq wrote: »

So far you've either pretended to misunderstand what I said or else genuinely failed to understand - neither position confers credibility.

No I pointed out your were twisting facts etc. you accused me of doing the same?
Can you point out were I did this? Because I can with your post.

onq wrote: »

The extent of your questioning suggests otherwise.

I'll expand.
It's clear you're parroting the usual anti science and anti medicine crap you find anywhere on the internet.
I.e. Twisted facts, out of contexts quotes and bad logic.

onq wrote: »

Irrefutable evidence.

Of...?

onq wrote: »

More questions instead of answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ?
Also it's very unclear what you are asking.

onq wrote: »

Missing "think".

Perhaps that's what you are...

ONQ

Oh well so much for the high road for you.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Swine flu first appeared around September/October of 2008, although it remained largely undetected until the outbreak in Mexico in 2009. During this outbreak Tamiflu and Relenza were using as the anti viral drugs of choice worldwide. Resistance to Tamiflu was encountered in South Africa, Denmark and Japan, iirc. Relenza, only deals with influenza in the lungs, swine flu was found to penetrate all the way to the gut. So it goes without saying that antiviral drugs weren't exactly going to be the way to combat widespread infections if a dangerous pandemic were to occur.

Use of Tamiflu or Relenza as prophylactics is a very dangerous route because it practically guarantees that the virus will develop resistance and possibly mutate into something much worse. Use of Tamiflu/Relenza sparingly doesn't guarantee that the virus won't develop resistance but it does lower the chances of such an occurrence significantly. Hence the reason why once the pandemic was declared Tamiflu was no longer used as a prophylactic.

Vaccines are the only practical way to deal with virus's and they're also a lot cheaper than drugs.

Thank you for making the point.

The money is in the drugs and the drug patents and not the more effective vaccine yet it was quite clear from repeated pronouncements from the WHO and the Irish Medical Council, as well as our own HSE and the Government that Tamiflu was going to be stockpiled at a huge costs to the taxpayer.

When its use was discredited it was then offered for use in conjunction with another product, the combined effect of which had never been adequately and independently tested or the results of tests corroborated.

There is a difficulty with a vaccine in getting the product to market in time and in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Where thsi difficulty cannot be overcome for whatever reasons the temptation of medical organizations is to use whatever treatment is available and most effective, even when it may have considerable side effects and or store up immunity problems for the future.

My argument does not address the effectiveness of Tamiflu or the product it was offered with as a medicine. It may do some good for some people for all I know. My problem was with the principle of mass vaccination using an untested product. It is precisely this lack of rigour in procuring products or services that led to the BTSB scandal.

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

My problem was with the principle of mass vaccination using an untested product.

Untested how?
The vaccine is almost identical to that of the seasonal flu that is released annually. Testing procedure was more than sufficient.
With regard to the stockpiling of tamiflu, well it was the only drug available for combating the flu once symptoms began. In some hospitals they had such shortages of it that they had ground down the pills of into fine powders as a way of administering it via IV.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you were making baseless accusations while giving out to someone for making baseless accusations?

You had copied my earlier remark - I was acknowledging that fact.

Psychological experiment on pain and pain management.
Never actually checked if it got published.

Were you checked after it was finished?

I was assuming you asked your question in an attempt to appeal to emotion, I was illustrating I can do the same.

You assumed that's what I was doing - I ask questions to elicit information.

No I pointed out your were twisting facts etc. you accused me of doing the same?
Can you point out were I did this? Because I can with your post.

You're tying yourself in knots with this - at least Malty-T is back and on-topic.

I'll expand.
It's clear you're parroting the usual anti science and anti medicine crap you find anywhere on the internet.
I.e. Twisted facts, out of contexts quotes and bad logic.

You assumed that's what I was doing - you were wrong before and now.

<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ?
Also it's very unclear what you are asking.
<snip>

You're unclear about what I'm asking.
You've made several incorrect assumptions.
I'm glad to see you've finally admitted your position.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

You had copied my earlier remark - I was acknowledging that fact.

So was your remark an accusation or not?

onq wrote: »

Were you checked after it was finished?

Why does it matter?

onq wrote: »

You assumed that's what I was doing - I ask questions to elicit information.

onq wrote: »

You're tying yourself in knots with this - at least Malty-T is back and on-topic.

So then you can't back up that statement and you're going dodge the question.
Fair enough.

onq wrote: »

You assumed that's what I was doing - you were wrong before and now.

Nope that is what you are doing. Same nonsense from the anti vax sites

onq wrote: »

You're unclear about what I'm asking.
You've made several incorrect assumptions.
I'm glad to see you've finally admitted your position.

ONQ.

No I was unclear about what you were asking because no one was claiming other treatments for H1N1 were claiming they were the vaccine.
But silly me for asking you to clarify something.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Untested how?
The vaccine is almost identical to that of the seasonal flu that is released annually. Testing procedure was more than sufficient.
With regard to the stockpiling of tamiflu, well it was the only drug available for combating the flu once symptoms began. In some hospitals they had such shortages of it that they had ground down the pills of into fine powders as a way of administering it via IV.

Malty_T others differ.

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/atlantic-monthly-on-flu-vaccines-the-main-points/

The calculations of the death rate alone cannot be verified except statistically making some very vague assumptions in the face of a huge lack of hard evidence identifying which virus was responsible.

Where the identification is claimed to be accurate, underlying conditions have been involved.
Without a detailed post mortem I fail to see how you can ascribe a death to one or the other.

Using vague statistics as the basis for judgement on using vaccinations calls leaves you on political ground, well away from scientific rigour.

ONQ.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So was your remark an accusation or not?

My original reponse to your unfounded allegation made my position clear

Why does it matter?

Prolonged exposure to pain is known to have several debilitating side effects including loss of concentration, memory lapses and the like.

So then you can't back up that statement and you're going dodge the question.
Fair enough.

At the moment you're floundering in a sea of obsolete assumptions.
All you had to do was read a simple post and make some sense out of it.

Nope that is what you are doing. Same nonsense from the anti vax sites

Continually making unfounded assumptions and pigeon-holing posters dosn't confer credibility. Malty_T is at least engaging with the topic.

No I was unclear about what you were asking because no one was claiming other treatments for H1N1 were claiming they were the vaccine.
But silly me for asking you to clarify something.

Silly you for failing to spot a rhetorical question - remember this?

"Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine"."

<shakes head>

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

It came as some surprise however to find this little article tucked away on http://www.globalresearch.ca recently:

onq wrote: »

Then go an "read more"... - but you can't, because this little op-ed piece - as opposed to "scientific article" provides NO INFORMATION to back up the headliner above. [....] From the Daily Mail:

You're unlikely to win many converts to your cause if you rubbish the New Scientist as unscientific, then link to lurid stories from the gutter press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

All the more so if you refer in glowing terms to a website which claims that global-warming is a concoction of the media and that Haitians should "forcefully oppose the presence" of the US troops there to help out with relief.

A bit of balance in your views would go a long way in winning you some, or even any, support.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

My original reponse to your unfounded allegation made my position clear

Oh that wasn't an accusation cause it had a question at the end.

onq wrote: »

Prolonged exposure to pain is known to have several debilitating side effects including loss of concentration, memory lapses and the like.

Ah very mature indeed.

onq wrote: »

At the moment you're floundering in a sea of obsolete assumptions.
All you had to do was read a simple post and make some sense out of it.

So that's a no you can't back up your claim, that I was twisting facts etc. And a yes you are dodging the question.

onq wrote: »

Continually making unfounded assumptions and pigeon-holing posters dosn't confer credibility. Malty_T is at least engaging with the topic, not trying to win a pissing contest while facing into the wind.

And accusing me of being a shill for big pharma isn't pigeon holing?
An I've yet to see anything that would convince me my assumptions are wrong.

onq wrote: »

Silly you for failing to spot a rhetorical question - remember this?

"Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine"."

<shakes head>

ONQ.

And I fail to see what the point is in that case.
No one is claiming that.

onq

robindch wrote: »

You're unlikely to win many converts to your cause if you rubbish the New Scientist as unscientific, then link to lurid stories from the gutter press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

You've judged the article on the basis of which magazine its published in as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility. Have you bothered to read it and seen its lack of hard information for yourself?

All the more so if you refer in glowing terms to a website which claims that global-warming is a concoction of the media and that Haitians should "forcefully oppose the presence" of the US troops there to help out with relief.

You've just judged another article on the basis of which website its published on as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility.
At the risk of being distracted off topic [by a mod?!] I'll simply note that http://www.globalresearch.ca contains a wide variety of opinion, not all of it in agreement. Re Global Warming, the British advisor to the Government was recently exposed as a shill and we've just had the coldest Christmas/New Year period on record. Whether the presence of the US military in Haiti will significantly aid the relief work already being undertaken by doctors from Cuba and Medicines sans Frontiers remains to be seen. Unless the US planes are bringing the American Red Cross, I'd be doubtful.

A bit of balance in your views would go a long way in winning you some, or even any, support.

Making assumptions based on publishers while not apparently assessing the contents of the articles referred to isn't a credible means of approaching a subject.

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

we've just had the coldest Christmas/New Year period on record..

Totally offtopic, but you do realise that this year happens to be the 2nd warmest on record since records began even though the sun and El nino are both on the nadir of their cycles that to me is Global Warming, no two ways about it.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Totally offtopic, but you do realise that this year happens to be the 2nd warmest on record since records began even though the sun and El nino are both on the nadir of their cycles that to me is Global Warming, no two ways about it.

Since I was responding to an off topic comment by another poster, robindch a moderator, in post #27 above perhaps you should direct your comments to him.

Please don't direct your comments to me as I merely responded to it and I've already mentioned it in post #29.

Feel free to start a new thread on Global warming but please post your sources.
Mine are here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
To place this in a Geological Timescale view of temperature:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

"...2nd warmest on record since records began..."?
I don't see that in the data.

I agree with your el nino comments, but solar activity?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

And to take this up a level:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
I admit nothing is defintive in any of the references, but that's the point.
A trend has been hyped into a fact by the media and other vested interests.
I suspect this and H1N1 are distractions to keep other things off the front page.

For the record:
I have no problems preparing for a pandemic.
I have no problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gases per se.
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a no-brainer for any advanced economy.
However, panicking people using claims that are subject to interpretation lacks credibility.

Unless the biggest producers of CO2 and the destroyers of rainforest sign up its all a wasted effort.
We'll have the usual standoff between America and China with the Brazilians and others continuing to destroy the rainforest.
Once the tipping point is reached one of the planet's main cooling and distribution drivers will be gone.
Brazil will become like the Sahara Desert and we may see some real global warming.

Accepting for a moment that the temperature changes we've seen are down to human activity, it'll be human inactivity that may wipe us out.
We have no protocols in place for any of the known recurring ELEs [extinction level events] and the powers-that-be-are distracting us with this reduce Global Warming imperative.
Our planet's magnetic poles reversing, one cometary strike, one supervolcano eruption, one intense gamma burst locally, one massive magma flow - that's all it'll take.

Viewed against this, preparing for pandemics or global warming is so much piffle distracting us from developing planetary and environmental defenses to deal with serious threats to our existence as a species.
ELEs are known to have occurred in the past and are forecast to re-occur with some certainty.
The current lack of progress in developing forecasting mechanisms, atmospheric cleansing strategies, solar power relay devices - you name it we've done very little - stands as an indictment of our species petty squabbling and short-sightedness.

The level of organization needed to address ELEs would take human endeavour to a new realtime globalized level and provide reliable mechanisms for such things as the means to modulate global termperatures and as well as delivery of vaccine and drugs to massive human populations.

[I knew I'd drag this back on topic in the end - have a little faith ]

Mods, please feel free to move this/ start a new thread.

ONQ.