I understand that even today more people die of the cold than from the heat. If it is true that "cold weather in the 1500's killed more people than heat does today," when the world population was only 1/12th what it is now, then that simply amplifies the greater threat of cold weather.

The same article also makes the point that flooding is a greater threat in cold climates than in warm.

I do not need to look up the primary research. That's what peer reviewers do,

I think I am Gene, though I may be mistaken. I am reasonably certain that I am not anonymous.

Dear Anonymous --

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. In my defense, there are lots of people posting on this blog anonymously, and I have no way of knowing which comments are yours. Certainly, many many people, here and elsewhere, are citing Gore's film in much stronger terms than I cite the Hudson Institute report.

We have a thread on the Gore film, so it seems reasonable that we also have one on the Hudson Institute report. As for the purpose of this post, we are often told that the scientific community has reached "consensus" on the issue of human-produced global warming. At various times I have heard that there is little disagreement, disagreement only from a handful of fringe characters, disagreement only about some minor details. Gore himself has used a fairly strong version of the "there is no dissent" argument. This report gives the lie to such pronouncements. Yes, the papers here may be in the minority. Yes, they may eventually be proven wrong. But clearly, they deserve consideration -- especially when some of the proposed responses to global warming threaten to be catastrophic in their own right.

As for malaria, it is simply not true that it is a tropical disease. It was once prevalent in the United States -- some of the worst outbreaks were right here in cold, swampy Michigan. It used to be common in Siberia! What happened is that wealthy northern countries embarked on public health campaigns and eradicated the mosquito that carries the disease.

Science is not decided by majority vote.

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, not only argues that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, but that the very notion of scientific consensus is dangerous, for reasons very similar to the ones you offer:

Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to [understand the science]. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists.... Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam.

Infectious disease is the world's greatest killer. It thrives in poorer countries -- which today happen to be concentrated in the tropics. (Your wealthy tropical countries tend to have lower incidence of these diseases; your poorer temperate countries tend to have higher incidence.)

Journalist Mark Steyn cites a scientist who predicts one million people will die this century from droughts, hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters brought about by global warming. Meanwhile, over 2 million people die of diarrhea each year, mostly in poor, tropical countries. Steyn notes:

If you clobber the global economy [to fight global warming] and slow down Third World development, they'll continue to die — 2.2 to 5 million per year, or a minimum of 204 million by the year 2100.

So, the choice is ours:

A) a thriving global economy that contributes to climate change; kills about 10,000 people a year; but saves a million or more each year by raising them out of poverty so they can afford sanitation and health care;

or

B) a crippled economy; which will have no effect on global warming (perhaps slow it down, but no one expects reducing carbon emissions to lead to cooling); may save 10,000 lives a year by avoiding various natural disasters; but will condemn million more each year to die.

You overstate my position -- or perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. Let me try again.

No, accepting that humans cause global warming does not mean the economy will immediately be crippled. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the economy will be crippled. However, a lot of people are arguing that accepting that humans cause global warming means the economy should be crippled. And this is what I object to.

It is estimated that fully implementing the Kyoto accord would cost trillions of dollars, would have no measurable impact on global temperatures, and, by severely hampering industry, would indeed cripple the world economy, leading to poverty, disease, and a host of other serious problems.

I am 100% in favor of increasing efficiency. I am 100% in favor of decreasing emissions. But I am 200% opposed to doing these things in such a way as to have disastrous effects on the people of the world.

This is all separate from the question of whether or not one should accept that humans are causing global warming, based on current evidence.

Yes, and the other day someone was saying how we need to pay attention to what the NSA says about global warming because its members had produced all these fabulous medical advances.

Professor Lindzen is not just any physicist, but Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. However, I did not quote him in support of any disease-related issues.

We agree: infectious diarrhea kills more than 2 million people a year, mostly in the tropics. Why? I argue it is because these countries are poor, and cannot afford Western-style health care and sanitation. If their economies are allowed to develop, they will reduce the number of these deaths. However, some of the more extreme responses to global warming (e.g. Kyoto) call for severe reductions in the world economy which would condemn these people to continue to die.