JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year: UN says Stop That Now

In a surprise, mammals with a body temperature of 37 degrees Celsius do better in warmer weather

Who knew that global warming has saved 166,000 lives a year every year since 2000? Burn coal, save the world! Some countries are just not doing enough to help. Does your nation have a Net-100 Plan for 2050 to double CO2 emissions? It’s never too late to start. Countries that leave coal deposits undeveloped are not part of the solution.

Mortality Heat Waves, Lancet, Cold snaps. 2021

Click to enlarge

Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think

Bjorn Lomborg, Wall Street Journal

… climate change has saved more lives from temperature-related deaths than it has taken. Heat deaths make up about 1% of global fatalities a year—almost 600,000 deaths—but cold kills eight times as many people, totaling 4.5 million deaths annually. As temperatures have risen since 2000, heat deaths have increased 0.21%, while cold deaths have dropped 0.51%. Today about 116,000 more people die from heat each year, but 283,000 fewer die from cold. Global warming now prevents more than 166,000 temperature-related fatalities annually.

Headlines predictably said “Heat Deaths Up 50%” since the year 2000. But Lomborg points out that most all of that rise was due to there being more old people:

Global warming does cause more heat deaths, but the editors’ statistic is deceptive. They say global heat deaths have gone up by 54% among old people in the past 20 years, but they fail to mention that the number of old people has risen by almost as much. Demographics drove most of the rise, not climate change.

The population of people over 65  increased from 423 m in the year 2000 to 729 million in 2020.  So the older demographic is 70% larger in the last twenty years.

From the paper — 5 million people die of heat or cold each year:

We found that there were 5,083,173 deaths per year associated with non-optimal temperatures, accounting for 9·43% of global deaths and equating to 74 temperature-related excess deaths per  100000 residents. Most excess deaths were linked to cold temperatures (8·52%), whereas fewer were linked to hot temperatures (0·91%).

Previous studies showed that the thing that saved people from heat death in the 20th Century wasairconditioners .

If we want to save the poor in Africa from dying of heat waves, the best thing we can do is help them get air conditioning and the cheap electricity to run it.

★   ★   ★

Facebook use fake Fact-checkers to block this information

Bjorn Lomborg wrote this up in the New York Post in August. Some self appointed group called Climate Feedback, did some fact checking on things that Lomborg didn’t say, and found those imaginary things were “unsupported”. Facebook then used that to slap a “False Information” label on Lomborgs message saying “Checked by independent fact-checkers”.

Lomborg explains Climate Feedback actually make up the quote they attribute to him. By mis-paraphrasing him and putting two different sentences together, they invent an error that they can “fact check”.

Climate Depot posted this summary: 

May be an image of text

The top and bottom halves of the “Claim” are part quote and part fabrication.

Who fact checks the fact-checkers? Certainly not Facebook, not the government and not the media. Facebook gets legal protection from the government but none of the responsibility or accountability that go with that. Big Government gives Facebook a free gift, and Facebook returns the favour. It’s a protection racket.

It’s lies for the climate now. Tell the world, teach the children.

 

REFERENCES

Alan Barreca, Karen Clay, Olivier Deschenes, Michael Greenstone, and Joseph S. Shapiro  (2016) Adapting to Climate Change: The Remarkable Decline in the US Temperature-Mortality Relationship over the Twentieth CenturyJournal of Political Economy 124:1, 105-159 [Berkley PDF]

Qi Zhao et al (2021) Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study, The Lancet, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00081-4

9.9 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

187 comments to Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year: UN says Stop That Now

  • #
    Glen+Livingston

    In my opinion Bjorn conceeds too many points to the climate alarmists for my taste during some of his other analysts. But in general as in this case, he attempts to be an honest broker in terms of analyzing information with the best data available.

    390

    • #

      Quite. He’s good when he sticks to economic arguments and work like this. But he gives up the science battle and sides with the machine.

      For some reason he thinks the same government committee that gets the economics so completely screwed up, somehow gets “the science” right.

      It’s a weak “feed the crocodile” tactic that doesn’t buy him any protection at all.

      670

      • #
        Damo

        However, he demonstrates that the current mainstream approach to climate change is wrong on the economic argument alone! The thing about modern Western climate change policy is it relies on a whole chain of “facts”. Any one of which is untrue or partially untrue then mainstream policy is demonstrated as futile, worthless, unhelpful and costly.

        Lomborg wins the economic argument. There are plenty of others that win the scientific arguments. And Jo’s blog is a brilliant record of them all.

        460

      • #
        Binny Pegler

        For some reason he thinks the same government committee that gets the economics so completely screwed up, somehow gets “the science” right.

        Very common actually. We get pissed at the medias completely wrong reporting of something we have knowledge of. But tend to accept reporting (from the same people) of something we don’t have knowledge of.

        260

      • #
        Neville

        Jo part of me agrees with your opinion , but Lomborg is arguing at the coal face and I think that makes him concede too much.
        He is still the most honest broker we have and his latest book tells us clearly that there is a False Alarm.
        “False Alarm”
        “How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” That’s a very clear and honest assessment in my opinion.

        And he has had to appear before Congress etc and take part in debates over the years and tries to block endless claims that he is a denier. He appeared with Nigel Lawson of the GWPF in a Canadian debate and he became so annoyed by the stupid GREENS leader that he became very upset.

        So even Bjorn can get upset , although I must admit that’s the only time I’ve seen him nearly lose his cool. Anyway that’s my 2 bobs worth and yes I certainly THINK that the Climate changes and has done so for thousands and millions of years. We are very lucky today, just look at the last few hundred years and compare the 20th and 21st centuries. You wouldn’t want to live at any other time in human history.

        210

    • #
      el+gordo

      Bjorn is a luke warmer and has dropped the ball on science, in the same vain as Judith Curry and many others who should know better.

      151

    • #
      Jim Veenbaas

      IMO the Lomborg approach is the best way to go. You will never win the argument that climate science is garbage. The media, activists and governments have clearly shown they aren’t interested in analyzing the science. Clearly. The only way to defeat them is not to argue the science, but argue that their solutions don’t make sense, even if they think the science is true.

      111

      • #

        Forgive me Jim. If we concede on the science debate we give up on science itself. If we don’t expose how pointless this is from the start, how corrupt peer review is, and how useless government funded academics are, it will never end and they will keep abusing science in scare after scare.

        It started with science, and it needs to end with science.

        Lomborg doesn’t have to say anything about science. He doesn’t have to call his biggest allies “Deniers”, which he did ten years ago. Feeding the crocodile didn’t stop one attack on him. All he has to say is “assuming the IPCC are correct” blah economically blah. That would be fine.

        All of CAGW has been obviously stupid economically, and scientifically for at least 20 years. On both issues there was no rational reason to pump in the money. Before we can win either topic we need to start with the public debate. Until we stop namecalling and denigration as the entire philosophical foundation for CAGW we can’t even have a debate…

        210

      • #
        Simon

        Correct, you will never win the argument that climate science is garbage. The underpinnings of the greenhouse effect has been understood for over 120 years (see below).

        024

        • #
          el+gordo

          Come on Simon, its only a theoretical construct. Natural variables rule.

          150

        • #
          R.B.

          No it hasn’t. What started with Arrhenius needed big tweaks to be plausible. If consensus was meaningful, the Callender effect would never have been republished and consensus that it was drivel would still be the case today.

          In 1938, Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, and correlated these measurements with old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.[3] He concluded that over the previous fifty years the global land temperatures had increased, and proposed that this increase could be explained as an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide.[6] These estimates have now been shown to be remarkably accurate,[2] especially as they were performed without the aid of a computer

          From Wikipedia. This despite the IPCC claims that only since 1950 could emissions have increased global temperatures, the spread of CO2 measurements before Keeling were all over the place, the latest GISS LOTI has the temperature trend from 1880 to 1938 at a whopping 0.4°C per millennium!

          It shows how much this is propaganda rather than an academic pursuit.

          120

          • #
            Serp

            Do a search on “angstrom repudiated arrhenius” and be enlightened; and try to keep your nose out of wikipedia, google and whatnot lest you be even further deceived about reality.

            20

            • #
              Graeme#4

              It’s interesting that Arrhenius, in his 1896 paper, didn’t explicitly suggest that the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming.

              20

  • #
    RobB

    Any company that produces its own phones, own social networking software, and permits free speech, stands to make a fortune.

    110

    • #

      And be subject to a hostile takeover whereupon all the data and phones will belong to Google.

      Sigh.

      But if anyone knows how to get around the monopoly I’m all ears.

      100

      • #
        Brad

        IMHO, Trump knows…
        He also knows that the globalist CO2 religion is false, and will cancel all government funded programs in the US when he returns. I can only wonder what all those grifters and their poor brainwashed acolytes will do for a living when it happens.

        00

      • #
        Deano

        Such a business would be subjected to ‘cancel culture’. Even an industrial giant like Germany’s Siemens – that makes just about every electrical device you can imagine, has to rely on a multitude of suppliers themselves. If for some reason Siemens were to be blacklisted they could be quickly brought to a grinding halt by boycotts from their suppliers.
        I can see why globalization was pushed so enthusiastically by the certain quarters.

        10

  • #
    Mikky

    Hypothesis: 20th-century Global Warming at mid-latitudes (where most people live) has resulted primarily in fewer rubbish (i.e. very cold) days and nights, and a modest increase in heatwave temperatures. This works for Iceland and the UK.

    120

  • #
    Simon

    Temperatures will continue to rise until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero. Runaway greenhouse gas warming has been responsible for at least two mass extinction events. Look up the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum sometime.

    364

    • #
      clarence.t

      Except temperatures have stopped rising and we are heading into ma cooling period.

      La Nina will be more prevalent over El Nino, AMO is starting to head downwards.

      And as we all know, CO2 follows temperature, it doesn’t cause temperature rise.

      Even if there is a little bit more warming, we are still very much at a cool period of the current interglacial. Only a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years.

      Plenty of evidence that the planet was at at least a few degrees warmer for nearly all the history of human civilisation.

      They even call it the Holocene Optimum.

      CO2 emissions have absolutely no bearing on temperatures.

      If you think they do, then please produce some scientific evidence to back up that baseless assertion

      551

      • #
        Simon

        1300 pages of evidence referencing several hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers.
        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

        050

        • #
          GlenM

          Very long on wind those reports. Model this, model that and presto! 150,000 deaths due to faulty assumptions lacking solid base.

          310

        • #

          preselected peer reviewed paper followiing the agenda, not conforming paper are excluded for reasons in advance. So, what will you tell us ?

          230

        • #
          clarence.t

          You need to point to one specific paper that proves warming by atmospheric CO2

          Its your story, you come up with the actual proof.

          Not models,

          Not assumptions.

          Not mantra.

          Btw, the IPCC reports don’t actually have any proof of CO2 warming in them.

          390

          • #
            Simon

            OK, if you want to go back to first principles:
            On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
            Svante Arrhenius
            Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
            Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
            https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

            037

            • #
              bobn

              Arrhenius had a theory – he proved nothing. He also advocating electrocuting children to stimulate their brains. He didnt prove that theory worked either. Arrhenius was wrong about most things, including CO2 in the atmosphere.

              310

              • #
                Simon

                Unfortunately 120 years of subsequent research disagrees with your opinion.

                120

              • #
                el+gordo

                Simon in the real world AGW is about to be falsified, the second hiatus is clearly visible with El Nino absent.

                I draw your attention to cyclic climate change, extremes in weather, too hot in Darwin and too cold in Hobart, caused by blocking high pressure. This is a sign of global cooling.

                50

              • #
                clarence.t

                “120 years of subsequent research …… ”

                Still haven’t produced any scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

                30

            • #

              Arrhenius’ paper was pulled to pieces by Kurt Angstrom. Note this extract from Monthly Weather Review June 1901
              “The remainder of Angstrom’s paper is devoted to a destructive
              criticism of the theories put forth by the Swedish
              chemist, S. Arrhenius, in which the total absorption of CO2, ie
              quite inadmissibly inferred from data which include the combined
              absorption of CO2, and the vapor of water.”
              Arrhenius was poor at mathematics. He later wrote another paper (1904?) in which he made another (lower) guess but a chap named Wood (I think 1909) disproved the whole theory radiation warming of the atmosphere.
              If you point to some old papers at least read them and all the other papers having opposing views like those from Fourier who talked about convection.

              140

              • #
                R.B.

                From Woods paper This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection,

                He didn’t show that there was no GHE. He showed that the effect would be described better as raising the effective radiating surface. If the Earth were a real blackbody, adding a completely black atmosphere that raised the effective surface 10 km, with that surface the original temperature, then the adiabatic lapse rate would suggest a new surface temperature thats 98 K hotter. Convection is not adiabatic because of GHG, and in real life, that gradient is about 6.4 K per km.

                The issue with such a GHE is that once CO2 concentrations raise the effective top of the atmosphere for those frequencies above the tropopause, adding more does nothing more. And that is not allowed to be correct. Instead we get modelling where it adds 10 times as much heat so the oceans need to suck up 90%, as stated above.

                50

            • #
              R.B.

              There are huge faults with this paper that even Arrhenius himself admitted to later. I don’t understand why a very old flawed paper means a theory is irrefutable.

              61

              • #
                GlenM

                That is the problem with science; its durability versus its falsification in time. Science largely is nor resolute or permanent. We still have problems with the models in real time. Observe the IOD atm – cooler West Indian and warmer East yet the winds at the surface are still blowing towards Africa and no effect on the Australian continent. Comments about AAO interaction.

                20

            • #
              clarence.t

              Arrhenius made suppositions and guesses, he didn’t actually “prove” anything.

              Thanks for confirming that you weren’t able to find any actual scientific evidence in the IPCC reports.

              30

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Simon, in Arrhenius’ paper that you have quoted, he never explicitly suggested that fossil fuels cause global warming.

              20

        • #
          RightOverLabour

          The IPCC has about 3000 scientists associated with it. About 137 are climatologists or meteorologists. The rest are from a host of other disciplines, mostly economists and social scientists. And they mostly ignore the findings of the climatologists rewording conclusions to suit the narrative. Don’t quote anything from the IPCC to support a warming narrative. It is the epitome of pseudoscience.

          310

        • #
          Ronin

          Beautifully cherry picked. !

          80

        • #
          wal1957

          “Peer Reviewed” has lost a lot of credibility.
          Ideology now rules.
          “The Science” should always be questioned, how else do we get to the truth?

          130

        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          Simon >”1300 pages of evidence referencing several hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers.”

          Just one monumental problem – the IPCC’s ocean heat attribution (and their attendant scientific fraud whether by ineptitude or intent i.e. civil or criminal).

          The observed atmospheric energy rise (ZetaJoules) is a negligible 1% of total. 93% is ocean, the other 6% land lakes rivers and ice.

          So the IPCC MUST claim ocean heat rise or their theory is stone cold dead. Reason being: their TOA theory paradigm generates humungous amounts of excess energy (ZJs) which they have to sink somewhere to reconcile theory to observations (see AR6 WG1 graph).

          The only large enough heat-sink available to them is the ocean, which they claim by invoking ‘surface forcing’ even though they had explicitly abandoned surface forcing in favour of TOA forcing (actually upper troposphere) in AR4.

          Their ocean heat attribution statement is simply speculation – “…expected mechanism…”, Latin root of “expect” is “spec”.

          They have no physical evidence for their OH attribution whatsoever.

          Their assumption that a minuscule change in downwelling IR-C infrared radiation (DLR) from GHGs (0.2 W.m2/decade CO2 observed) heats the ocean beyond what solar IR-A/B does in the tropics is laughable. Surface Solar Radiation change (SSR) due to cloudiness dimming/brightening is orders of magnitude greater than GHG change. The IPCC even reports this in the Observations: Atmosphere chapters.

          Continues in following comment.

          50

          • #
            Richard+C+(NZ)

            A few reasons why the IPCC’s Ocean Heat attribution is bogus.

            1/ No empirical evidence i.e. no observations of their assumed “air-sea fluxes” of GHG DLW radiation heating the ocean.

            2/ Their speculated “air-sea fluxes” i.e. a net DLR – OLR = DLR do NOT appear in their surface energy budgets e.g. ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ Stephens et al (2012). Net LW is OLR i.e. a cooling flux at surface – NOT heating.

            3/ IR-C is NOT a radiative water heating agent, solar IR-A/B is. Maximum IR-C penetration is 100 microns (thickness of human hair), effective penetration is 10 microns. Solar IR-A/B effective penetration in the tropics is about 1m (observed oceanography). And see ‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’.

            Note the IPCC does NOT defer to this body of literature from which came laser eye surgery. In other words, medical laser physics researched radiation-matter interaction in respect to water before developing technology applications – the IPCC studiously avoids what must be trivia in their eyes and chooses not to defer to that research, preferring to speculate instead.

            4/ The electrical analogy to 3/ is that IR-C is an “apparent” power source – NOT a “real” power source. Measured DLR fluctuates around 400 W.m2 day and night in Darwin but that apparent power source is not harnessed like solar is because it does no work i.e. it is NOT real power and definitely NOT a water and ocean heating agent.

            5/ The Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes the IPCC’s “air-sea” energy TRANSFER – Heat does not of itself move from a cold object [lower mid-trop] to a hot object [surface]. Or, in the case of earth’s surface, as Abdussamatov puts it – “Heat rises up, not down”.

            50

            • #
              Richard+C+(NZ)

              >”Measured DLR fluctuates around 400 W.m2 day and night in Darwin”

              To clarify, CO2 is the lessor DLR component, water vapour is dominant:

              ‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’
              Wang & Liang (2009)

              [29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to Ld, and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], this will contribute to an increase of Ld by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade [CO2 component – edit]. Therefore, the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.

              # # #

              Berkeley Labs found by in-situ surface measurement a change in CO2 Ld of 0.2 W m-2 per decade at Oklahoma and Alaska sites i.e. 0.1 less than the IPCC’s CO2 forcing expression dF = 5.35ln(C/Co) which approximates the RTM above.

              So, much ado about measuring an ineffective, but assumed effective, surface heating agent.

              00

          • #
            Richard+C+(NZ)

            >”So the IPCC MUST claim ocean heat rise or their theory is stone cold dead. Reason being: their TOA theory paradigm generates humungous amounts of excess energy (ZJs) which they have to sink somewhere to reconcile theory to observations (see AR6 WG1 graph).”

            Just checked, turns out AR6 no longer graphs their theory-observations reconciliation (wonder why).

            AR5 was only 1970 to 2011 so there’s been no update since then, that’s this graph:

            TFE.4, Figure 1
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/technical-summary/figts_tfe-4-1/

            That graph has been changed radically since the original appeared. It previously showed observed energy dissipation to space on the right hand side (b) along with storage and aerosols i.e. theory (a) vs actual observed data (b).

            Energy dissipation to space in (b) is now “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature” for three different climate sensitivity (CS) scenarios.

            They say in respect to the graph – ” The energy budget would be closed for a particular value of α [CS] if the corresponding line coincided with the total energy inflow”.

            So you have to pick your preferred CS scenario to close the budget – this is circular reasoning and totally bogus.

            Still obvious is 1) the humungous excess theoretical GHG energy the IPCC’s TOA theory paradigm generates in (a), and 2) they cannot reconcile theory (a) and observations (b) without ocean heat rise being attributed to GHG heating.

            20

            • #
              Richard+C+(NZ)

              Also obvious is the massive uncertainty ranges depicted by shading in TFE.4, Figure 1.

              By 2011 the uncertainty range for Total Energy in (a) is 800 ZetaJoules after 41 years. That’s 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules uncertainty on the theory side.

              Probably explains why they no longer publish this graph in updated form.

              20

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                The uncertainty range of Total Energy (800 ZJ) is the same as the central estimate of Total Energy (800 ZJ).

                But hey, this is climate “science”.

                10

      • #
        Richard+C+(NZ)

        Clarence >”CO2 emissions have absolutely no bearing on temperatures”.

        Human CO2 emissions have negligible bearing on atmospheric CO2 levels too apparently:

        ‘Covid-19 lockdown effect on global carbon dioxide levels: A needle in a haystack’

        The human factor is completely overwhelmed by natural emisions.

        10

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      Curse those PETM coal burners and SUV drivers.

      Also, if you have “looked up” the PTEM, why not provide this magic link that so convinced you to say something so stupid?

      190

    • #
      Lance

      Yeah. Sure. Look up the Late Ordovician Period.

      It was an Ice Age lasting 500,000 years while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today — 4400 ppm.

      Must be that CAGW producing an ice age during a CO2 concentration 11 to 16 times pre Industrial era CO2 levels ~ 450 million years ago.

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/shock-news-there-was-an-ice-age-during-the-ordovician-with-co2-1500-of-current-values/

      https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046

      261

    • #
      clarence.t

      PETM had “significant warming of 6-8 C of ocean surface waters at a range of latitudes”

      Current ocean warming is measured in fractions of a degree

      Not only that, but its a warming from the coldest its been in over thousands of years.

      https://i.postimg.cc/y6PJqFff/OHC-in-perspective-2.jpg

      See that little red squiggle, that’s the current warming.. and no, its not caused by man.

      170

    • #
      James Murphy

      Pre-PETM CO2 levels seem to range wildly from roughly 300 to 1000ppm. PETM CO2 max levels range from 800-3200ppm. volume of CO2 (equivalent) released also varies wildly. The combinations of “greenhouse gas” sources also vary wildly.

      No doubt there was a global event, but the error bars are massive when it comes to atmospheric concentrations.

      150

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘Look up the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum sometime.’

      It looks like methane.

      ‘The Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) was a time of rapid global warming in both marine and continental realms that has been attributed to a massive methane (CH4) release from marine gas hydrate reservoirs.’

      50

    • #
      RightOverLabour

      In which universe Simon? Definitely not this one. Go and read some basic science and climatology before demonstrating that you have knowledge of neither.

      130

    • #
      RightOverLabour

      The Eamian warm period destroys the CO2 forcing narrative. CO2 was around 260ppm rising to about 290ppm at the peak of the Eamian. And it was significantly warmer during that period. From memory 6° at the poles and 2° in the tropics. Oh and CO2 followed warming, as it always does.

      150

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The Eemian (there are other names) was definitely warmer. Sea levels were 6 to 7 metres higher yet Greenland and Antarctic ice caps survived.
        From fossils we know that there were lions, giraffes and elephants in the Thames Valley, and more convincingly hippos who depend on warm water and regular rain bringing lots of green grass. O/T but there were rhinoceroses in Yorkshire then.

        And back about 5-8,000 years ago there were the same animals, along with lots of bovines grazing the Sahara when the CO2 level was less than today’s figure (see Tassili frescoes).

        As for the PETM I suppose the various claims can be cherry picked to support the claim that it was due to CO2 (as Simon says) or methane or solar activity or rebound from the asteroid impact ice age that ended the dinosaurs.

        80

        • #
          bobn

          And of course the Thames Valley was created by a glacier driving through. Showing how it has gone from hot to cold to hot and cold several times quite naturally since England naturally was forced up from under the sea. Nothing new or unusual is happening. Its all happened before.

          60

      • #
        el+gordo

        According NOAA the Eemian was warmer but the warmth wasn’t universal, which deserves a closer look.

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/penultimate-interglacial-period

        00

    • #
      el+gordo

      Simon its best if we focus on the here and now, Pat Michaels critiques Judah Cohen on the cause of a cold air outbreak.

      https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/14/dubious-climate-science-about-the-texas-cold-disaster/#more-27871

      20

    • #
      Bozotheclown

      Simon says: Runaway greenhouse gas warming has been….

      Do you have something to support any “runaway” currently going on?

      More smoke, mirrors, fake, lies. Even warming faithful scientists do not believe in “runaway” anything.

      20

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Don’t Panic!

    Josh and ScoMo are gonna cool the planet just using Australia’s economy …

    Josh Frydenberg prepares ground for Scott Morrison to commit to 2050 climate target

    https://theconversation.com/josh-frydenberg-prepares-ground-for-scott-morrison-to-commit-to-2050-climate-target-168610

    For their next trick, the Dodgy Brothers are gonna pull a unicorn from a hat.

    170

    • #
      el+gordo

      The acting PM won’t be bullied on the science.

      ‘Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce has assured his colleagues they will have the final say on any federal government decision to support a net zero emissions target as momentum builds within the Coalition towards adopting a 2050 commitment.

      ‘While several Nationals MPs remain steadfastly against the federal government lifting its climate targets, phasing out coal or promising a firm deadline for net zero, former cabinet ministers Michael McCormack and Darren Chester have urged their colleagues to ensure they help negotiate any deal rather than simply vetoing it.’ (SMH)

      33

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Josh and ScoMo are gonna cool the planet just using Australia’s economy

      What economy – Australia is broke after Lockdowns and throwing money at the problems

      “No MPs, Federal/State/Local Government salaries were sacrificed during Covid”(Hey we Have been on permanent holiday being paid – try ringing a Federal/State/Local Govt dept and find anyone there)

      60

      • #
        OldOzzie

        It’s Easier to ‘Print’ Money than to Make Refrigerators

        Evergrande it ain’t.

        What we are wondering today is what’s ahead for the US economy — inflation or deflation? Maybe the Evergrande story will give us a clue.

        To fully understand the Evergrande story, you almost have to understand the whole story of how, in 1971, the US switched to a ‘flexible’ dollar that it could print at will…

        and how the switch created a boom in China…and a bust in US manufacturing (it’s easier to ‘print’ money than to make refrigerators).

        In an honest economy, pre-1971, the US had to repatriate its dollars by offering equivalent quantities of goods and services to the Chinese…

        …or risk having to settle up in gold.

        60

    • #
      James Reid

      Don’t you get the joke?? Scott and Josh are setting the climate worriers up for a massive tumble. “We will meet of exceed our targets by 2050”. Sotto voce -> by building nuclear power plants… but don’t tell anyone yet!

      50

  • #
    Lance

    “Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather, and it’s not the extreme low or high temperatures that cause the most deaths……The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.”

    “This report backs up a U.S. study last year from the National Center for Health Statistics, which found that cold kills more than twice as many Americans as heat.”

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/22/data-reveals-many-many-more-people-die-of-cold-than-heat/

    Also see: It is Cold that Kills

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/30/benny-peiser-2005-it-is-cold-that-kills/

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    This is a perfect example how the fact checkers are biased, which makes them liars as well given their whole role is to check the facts.

    180

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      So global warming is real now? That is the reason why those 166,000 survive after all.

      128

      • #
        el+gordo

        Global warming is real, but its a natural occurrence. Its been well documented here and elsewhere that cold kills more people than heat.

        211

        • #
          David Maddison

          Global warming and cooling happens all the time and warming is always a good thing but I’m not sure we are currently warming because of extensive fraudulent corruption of the global temperature database as regularly documented by Tony Heller.

          Some good warming times when civilisation thrived were:

          The Minoan Warm Period
          The Egyptian Warm Periods.
          Roman Warming.
          Sui-Tang Warming
          The Medieval Warm Period

          No doubt the Left will soon write these out of history.

          200

      • #
        a+happy+little+debunker

        FFS, the world’s Temps have been warming since the early 1800’s.
        We are now nearly as warm as the 1200’s – the Medieval Warm Period.

        Nobody denies this – but this is not wholly attributable to man made global warming.

        Even a cursory glance shows man made warming over the last 40 years accounts for only about 23% of recorded warming in that 40 year period – a mere fraction a percent of the total warming over the 200 years.

        Far, far, far from a catastrophe – merely a footnote of inconsequence.

        190

      • #
        PeterS

        PF, you do well as a “fact checker”. You hardly ever tell the truth.

        120

      • #
        bobn

        Wake up Peter. No-one here says climate doesnt change. Its always changed and changed naturally for billions of years before mankind existed. Its the weird religious cult that says man causes climate change that people dismiss as hocuspocus. According to the Global warming alarmists man changes the climate and thus climate didnt change before homo sapiens arrived 50k yrs ago. Of course AGW climate alarmists dismiss past ice ages as a myth and believe the earth is flat, and melbourne is the centre of the universe. Ho hum – no-one is claiming mankind is intelligent anymore.

        90

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Fitz fitz fitz

        bot bot bot

        20

    • #
      James Murphy

      Do you really believe their job is to actually check facts?

      140

      • #
        PeterS

        Of course not. Their job as most of us already know is to conspire to tell lies. They have been caught out a number of times telling lies. That is a fact in itself but of course we won’t find that on their list of “fact checks”.

        80

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hmmm…the globalists appear to be right into death …

    “All that hate me love death”
    ( Prov 8:36 )

    81

    • #
      el+gordo

      There is no conspiracy, only mass delusion.

      ‘If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to. If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve.’ Lao Tzu

      54

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Hmmm…..although it does sounds like the credo of a suicide bomber…..

        60

      • #
        David Maddison

        If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve.’ Lao Tzu

        Only applies if you love death more than you love life.

        61

      • #
        PeterS

        el gordo, actually there is both and anyone with half a brain knows it. Not to believe in a conspiracy is like not believing there was a conspiracy by the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour. The evidence is clear the MSM and social media platforms are part of a conspiracy to change the West by first destroying it then rebuilding a new one. The mere fact that real news is so often blocked by them using various means, such as shadow banning amounts to a full scale conspiracy in any language. Go back to sleep.

        80

        • #
          OldOzzie

          They Intend to Destroy America

          If you’re thinking that Biden’s policies are destroying America, you’re right. And the worst part is that this is exactly what Democrats want.

          Richard Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven were both Columbia University professors and long-time members of the Democrat Socialist Party. They were the authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy (paraphrased from Cloward–Piven strategy – Wikipedia):

          Overload the American public welfare system and create a crisis that will bankrupt the nation, leaving no choice but to adopt a socialist/communist system of government.

          90

          • #
            PeterS

            I would only add that the jury is still out as to whether we end up being under a communist regime or a fascist regime. As I stated several times before, there are two cabals fighting for world domination, and the difference between them is academic as the only real difference is the colour and style of their uniforms. The other big difference is big business is far more likely to thrive under a fascist regime than under a communist one, although it’s not as clear cut. Apart from those two differences, pretty much the other differences are meaningless as the end result is still the same.

            60

            • #
              el+gordo

              I’m fully awake now. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is not communism, our biggest trading partner is a fascist dictatorship.

              There is a social revolution brewing in China, its called ‘lying flat’. I support them whole heartedly.

              10

              • #
                PeterS

                I agree that China is a sort of chameleon. It started out as pure communism but eventually has allowed a certain element of its own citizens to become like rich corrupt capitalists, which is what happens under a fascist regime. The crossover though is not complete and may never be. Only time will tell. I still consider it a communist focused nation. If it ever becomes full blown fascist we will know. Don’t forget they did for a while fight the nationalists who could have ended up as fascists if they had won.

                20

  • #
    clarence.t

    The really big concern is how many lives will be lost from cold over the next few northern winters as electricity poverty and unavailability start to become more prevalent.

    Many people only exist in this climates because of their ability to use carbon based fuels to create a warmer environment for themselves.

    220

    • #
      PeterS

      Also mass starvation will ensure if we get too much cold. I have no doubt that far more lives could be lost through that than those lost through COVID-19 virus. Yet I don’t see our governments doing anything to “vaccinate” our economies to be immune from such an outcome. Instead they are doing the exact opposite by continuing with their ridiculous emission reduction policies while at the same time ignoring the only real solution to obtain the net zero emissions they so desperately want to achieve, namely nuclear. If one has to rate where our governments currently sit on the scale of terrorism, they would have to be rated very high.

      110

    • #
      RickWill

      Less sunlight during boreal winters for the last 400 years. It has only just started. The process will continue for the next 12,000 years. But boreal summers are getting more sunlight.

      The reverse is happening in the Southern Hemisphere. Just 400 years into a 12,000 year trend. Then a pause before glaciation around the North Atlantic lowers sea level to the point it reached when the first Australians island hopped and walked over land bridges that are now submerged.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    What Global Warming? Really? A 1.5C change in 150 years in an ‘average’ across the planet. That is almost the definition of constant temperature.

    No one could even feel such a change. How is it lethal? Even at the extremes, 40C becomes 41.5C and that is more dangerous? And how is -40C to -38.5C anything but good.

    And this tiny change kills 166,000 people a year? At an average life span of say 70 years and 7 billion people, 100 million people die every year. So 0.016% are alleged to have died from a deadly 0.1C increase? How?

    If anything needs fact checking, it’s Global Warming and rapid sea rise, man made or not.

    And as far as I can see across the world news in the last five years, the world is rapidly cooling.

    As for the oceans, they are so deep and have so much stored heat their temperature has nothing to do with the air temperature. Surface temperature is determined entirely by ocean oscillations and solar intensity. Nothing to do with the tiny, thin atmosphere. It is the oceans which determine air temperature, not the other way around. And it is ocean temperature which determine CO2 concentrations, not the other way around.

    Although NASA now claim in nutty fashion that the oceans have stolen the predicted heating, but that’s the NASA PR group.

    You might consider the interesting correlation that ocean surface temperatures have reached a record in 2020 and so has CO2 concentration. Surely there is another conclusion you could draw about CO2 and ocean temperature? But no one does. Henry’s Law has been banned. Besides, the PR people who write the press releases for NASA and the IPCC have never heard of Henry’s Law.

    It’s all fake. For all intents and purposes, world temperature has not changed noticeably in 150 years. In fact the only way we can detect a small change is with ice formation, but floating ice is just a surface effect and does not change sea levels.

    231

    • #
      clarence.t

      “And this tiny change kills 166,000 people a year?” ? ??

      Doesn’t the post say it “saves” 166,000 people a year.

      All those people in cold places, get that little bit less cold.

      The “climate”-death connection is well and truly weighted toward the cold end.

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        I was confused as to which was truth and which was the lie. In fact attributing any deaths to heat alone is debatable. Cold is more definable but I cannot see how +/- 1C is a life or death situation anywhere in the world.

        90

    • #
      clarence.t

      “And as far as I can see across the world news in the last five years, the world is rapidly cooling. “

      So far, that is mainly just the large 2015, 2016 El Nino/Big Blob warm surge dissipating.

      It had big effects around the world.. spike in Arctic temperatures.. now all gone..

      https://i.postimg.cc/85Gt0HqZ/UAH-Nopol-2021.png

      Big dip in Antarctic sea ice, now back to normal, and on a longer term increasing trend.

      Its what happens from now that will be interesting. !

      140

      • #
        TdeF

        And all warming events are connected to ocean currents, as expected. Despite the histrionics of NASA about the upper atmosphere, temperature on earth is controlled by the massive heat sink called the ocean. None of it is frozen under the water, so it is all above 0C. And its heat capacity is 1400x that of the air, so it does not do this -50C to +50C stuff. And of course the 3 dimensional swirling ocean currents control all climates. There are the occasional currents in the air too, particularly the change of season Chinooks in the US which herald summer and the Sirocco and Mistral from Africa. But the real drivers of average temperature are the oceans which hardly vary.

        And if they do warm on the surface, atmospheric CO2 goes up. That’s bleeding obvious. 98% of all CO2 is dissolved under pressure in the oceans which are on average 3.4km deep.

        120

    • #
      Zigmaster

      The thumbs down on your post was an accident due to my fat fingers. Was meant to be the opposite.in fact your comments exactly reflect my sentiment . Not even weather specialists can tell the difference between 25 degrees and 26.5 degrees and at the extremes it is even more opaque. In reality on a daily basis global temperatures vary by perhaps 50-60 degrees and people adapt to that by dealing with their environment whether that’s eskimos in the northern hemisphere or Bedouins in the Sahara.And if it is truly unliveable you’re not glued to the ground , you can migrate.
      The whole premise of climate alarmism is so dumb it’s amazing that it has so many devotees. I sometimes think I’ve woken up in some alternative universe where people have suddenly lost the ability to think and act rationally.

      160

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, if you want a steady decrease of 1C, you can move to the other side of the hill. Or grow a tree. Or migrate slightly towards the equator, like so many in North American, Europe and Australia. If heat is the problem, turn on the airconditioner, unless it is wind or solar driven.

        110

    • #
      OldOzzie

      TdeF – again I will use the beginning of 1968 in Melbourne as to how hot is was in the past

      Select Days over 30C

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        I remember this too well. At the time I thought it criminal to send children to school in Melbourne in the first two weeks of February when it was often over 100F. And I remember a year around 1990 when only three days in January were under 30C. Last year, only three days were under 30C. The world is cooling. In fact last summer in Melbourne did not happen at all. It was really a different world, the Climate had Changed, frozen. And the BOM tells us that last year was the hottest evah?

        80

    • #
      RickWill

      A 1.5C change in 150 years in an ‘average’ across the planet. That is almost the definition of constant temperature.

      How could anyone make such a claim and keep a straight face. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that the global surface temperature has increased by 1.5C in the last 150 years. For heavens sake, Amundsen did not get to the South Pole till 1911. Who was down in Antarctica measuring temperature 150 years ago; there were no satellites or even aeroplanes back then. Australia’s BoM only claim the the last 100 years provides a useful record for the Australian land mass. And that has incredibly sparse measuring sites.

      Such statements are worthy of the description of what comes out of a bull’s backside.

      30

  • #
    Geoffrey+Williams

    To be honest 166,000 doesn’t seem a lot to me . .
    GeoffW

    100

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    Failed climate modeller, and now failed Covert* modeller, so-called ‘Professor’ Shaun Hendy of Auckland [Green] University, yesterday proclaimed via Kindy Cindy’s ‘Pulpit Of Truth’ that “seven thousand New Zealnders will die” even with 80% of the population, above the age of 16, shot.

    Early last year, the ‘expert’ so-called Professor proclaimed “eighty thousand”, that’s 80,000, NZ lives would be lost to the Covert*. So far the official tally is 27 and the majority of those were dear old folks with many illnesses from the one home in Christchurch in early 2020.

    Model-schmoddle! Yet the MIC (Medical Indoctrination Cowpats) keep trawling this **** out onto the airwaves to scare the remaining Resistance into submission. FAILED.

    190

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Humans are not sessile

    015

    • #
      David Maddison

      What is your point?

      80

    • #
      Ronin

      If the globe is getting hotter, why are so many people moving to Queensland and Florida.

      140

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Forty years ago I moved to Queensland, to the aptly named Sunshine Coast, to escape the cold, wet, miserable NZ of the (coolish) 1970s. Half the people I met there were ‘climate refugees’ from Victoria who had also fled north to get some warmth. As far as I know, not one of them died from the extra heat; we all thrived, worked hard, and ENJOYED life.

        As for Peter’s comment, I’m sure Simon knows what he was on about, or not.

        100

      • #
        RickWill

        Queensland is easy – they are serious about keeping Covid out.

        Florida appear to be on the home run, with their Covid infection rate now firmly below 1. Daily cases now 1/3rd the peak of the delta wave.
        https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states&highlight=Florida&show=highlight-only&y=both&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right#states

        01

      • #
        Tel

        Because air conditioning has become better (quieter, more efficient) and more affordable.

        This trend will probably reverse as electricity prices go up, but even though we complain about high electricity prices … the average family still only spends a small fraction of their budget on electricity. It will no doubt get much worse as the “regulators” keep insisting on getting involved.

        The remaining problem with modern air conditioning is the massive fire hazard caused by using lighter fluid (isobutane) now that CFCs have been pointlessly outlawed. Any leak is a potential explosion risk … but your domestic fridge is no better, and they use exactly the same stuff in your car. How safety safety!

        10

  • #
    • #
      RickWill

      Southern Hemisphere has been getting less sunshine for the past 400 years and the trend is accelerating for the next 6,000 years then decelerate to a minimum 12,000 years from now.

      Top of Atmosphere sunlight during October 2021 in Sydney will be 2.4W/sq.m lower than it was in 1600 when Southern Hemisphere was near its peak at the start of the current precession cycle. The Southern Ocean is down even more than that. It is expected that there would be temperature measurements indicative of the reducing sunshine.

      20

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That’s confirmed by the sea levels being the lowest in the last seven thousand years. Ice only accumulates when it’s cold.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Noam Chomsky (1998):

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    81

    • #
      C.+Paul+Barreira

      Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742–1799):

      Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities for re-establishing our former ignorance?

      50

    • #
      Serp

      Sounds like he’s recycling the “repressive tolerance” Marcusian shtick.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    In regards to the second part of the article about “Fact Checkers”, Fact Checkers of the Left are generally liars.

    I am an administrator on a number of Farcebook groups and they constantly claim any criticism of the vaccine is false, even when it comes from peer reviewed literature and even when it quotes eminent scientists and medical doctors.

    Similar for anything to do with alternative antivirals like HCQ or IVM.

    And the same for any truthful claims about the anthropogenic global warming fraud.

    In many or even most cases, if a statement attracts the attention of Fact Checkers claiming it is false, its a fair indication its true.

    Evil has the characteristic of claiming the opposite of what is good or true as the correct path. The “Fact Checkers” of the Left are no different.

    Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who say of the evil that it is good and of the good that it is evil; who present darkness as light and light as darkness, who present bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter.”

    150

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The title of this post is catchy and, at the same time, a form of surrender to those pushing the “CO2 Must Be Controlled” meme.

    Submission to the “CO2 is bad” idea means that we
    can be pushed into a corner and kept there so that we cannot revolt against the introduction of Renewables.

    The whole point of the global warming exercise is to enable a small group of Elites to exert control over the people outside the bounds of accepted democratic process, and importantly, to plunder massive wealth through the useless “Renewables”.

    This is done under assumed truth.

    It is stated that human origin CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for an increase in Earth’s temperature.

    It is also stated that Renewables give electricity that has a lower CO2 burden than coal fired power per unit of Electricity production.

    Both of these assumed truths are deliberate deceit and are in fact the opposite of reality.

    Why is this situation allowed to go unchallenged.

    130

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Sometimes in the past I have been exposed to the same sort of generalised approach to the science used by Bjorn L,
      https://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/thursday-open-thread-2/#comment-2279524

      On that occasion I used sarc, and feel regretful.

      For sure, the low level of CO2 in the atmosphere is and can be a very important part of the life cycle of living organisms on the Planet.

      There’s a reason for that: the incredible turnover rate of CO2 in that cycle where large amounts of CO2 are taken from the atmosphere each day and turned into plant life which then is either stored or eaten.

      By contrast, the CO2 in rising or moving winds is fixed and so this “little bit” of gas is thermodynamically irrelevant in the scheme of things. It is controlled by the atmosphere around it.

      CO2 is thermodynamically irrelevant in the atmosphere and does not release the fabled “photons” back to Earth.

      CO2 with the low virtue inherent at 11,000 metres altitude cannot send energy back to the earth against a temperature difference of 53C°.

      Even IF it could, the amount would be quantitatively irrelevant.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    SORRY – OFF TOPIC – BUT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT FOR “WEEKEND UNTHREADED”

    Get ready for “the worst cold ever”…

    https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-58624295

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Global warming and cooling happens all the time and warming is always a good thing but I’m not sure we are currently warming because of extensive fraudulent corruption of the global temperature database as regularly documented by Tony Heller.

    Some good warming times when civilisation thrived were:

    The Minoan Warm Period
    The Egyptian Warm Periods.
    Roman Warming.
    Sui-Tang Warming
    The Medieval Warm Period

    No doubt the Left will soon write these out of history.

    100

  • #
    TdeF

    I found this video of Jørgen Peder Steffensen very interesting. The outside world does not touch gigantic areas of deep ice. But what he found is that it is so well insulated that the temperature is also frozen in time, thousands of years later. That in itself is very interesting, amazing even. He lowered thermometers down the bore hole and could measure different temperatures, confirming the temperatures from other sources or proxies.

    But it shows that the air temperature changes are quite irrelevant to deep ice and deep oceans. Both are huge reservoirs of heat and cold with no connection to our world. The idea that one melts and the other grows rapidly in size and especially in a short time is absurd. +1C in air is equivalent to a change of 1/1400C or a +0.0007C change in ocean temperature. When it happens, if it happens, over thousands of years.

    Because we humans are sensitive to air temperature because it is our immediate view of the weather, we think everything on earth cares. Most is completely insulated from the daily, even annual changes. +1C in air temperature is nothing.

    The business of man made Global Warming preys on ignorance. People think they inhabit a planet. In fact we are the equivalent of ants on a golf course, thinking we own the place because of our vast numbers. We are irrelevant, as a single earthquake shows.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      It’s called borehole paleothermometry and can be also done with terrestrial boreholes as well as ice.

      80

    • #
      Annie

      My husband and I both reflected on the fact that there was nothing, absolutely NOTHING, we could do about the earthquake. It was a good reminder of how puny the human race is!
      They think they can alter the climate; yeaah, right.
      What we should be doing is being moderate in our demands and try not to mess up our local environment with rubbish left lying around.

      110

  • #
    Neville

    I’ve linked to the 2015 Lancet study before and this reviewed 74 million deaths around the world. In fact more deaths are attributable to MODERATE COLD not EXTREME COLD and moderate warming and EXTREME HEAT deaths are very low.

    See the link and FIG 2 at that link of about 13 countries and the graphs. Why do these these idiots have to lie, yet I suppose the answer is obvious. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE, so lets make it up.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

    90

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Our findings show that temperature is responsible for advancing a substantial fraction of deaths, corresponding to 7·71% of mortality in the selected countries within the study period. Most of this mortality burden was caused by days colder than the optimum temperature (7·29%), compared with days warmer than the optimum temperature (0·42%). Furthermore, most deaths were caused by exposure to moderately hot and cold temperatures, and the contribution of extreme days was comparatively low, despite increased RRs. The study was based on the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature–health associations, and included more than 74 million deaths from 13 countries (panel). The analysis of data from 384 locations provides evidence for temperature-related mortality risk in a wide range of climates and populations with different demographic, socioeconomic, and infrastructural characteristics.

      50

      • #
        Neville

        Good quote Old Ozzie and the FIG 2 graphs tell us the truth.
        And those countries have been selected from around the globe and MODERATE COLD kills more people than the other 3 combined.
        Unbelievable but true.

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Even if global warming were true, I have never heard a rational explanation of why it is a bad thing. People love warmth and are prepared to spend a lot of money on heating or (when travel was permitted back in the day) travelling to warm climates to vacation or relocate. Warmth is also good for agriculture.

    100

    • #
      PeterS

      If global warming were true and it’s time critical as the loudest of alarmists keep reminding us, then how come we are not building nuclear power plants, which is categorically the only real way to achieve net zero emissions ASAP while at the same time providing reliable, stable and reasonably affordable power? Of course the answer is it’s not about climate change, just as the COVID-19 issue is not about the virus. It’s all about destroying the West and replacing it with a tyrannical regime with all its accompaniments.

      80

      • #
        PeterS

        It’s worth nothing that not all those in power are that evil minded, at least not yet anyway. Only some are but the proportion I believe is increasing rapidly. The rest are just following along as they feel pressured by their peers, that is other world leaders. The same sort of thing started to happen prior to when Hitler started his campaign for world domination. Many in the UK and US were trying to be friendly with him and considered him to be a worthy ally – until it became obvious that he was pure evil. As far as I can tell there is no equivalent to a modern Hitler, at least not yet. I firmly believe it will be a combination of two people, the chief antichrist along with his cohort the false prophet, who will tip us over into the darkest period in all of history. The difference this time though is the leaders won’t be able to change their minds after they realise how evil they are. They will be forced to by them and the devil himself. Fortunately for those of us who know the big picture, their days will be very short lived but it won’t be as a result of any human intervention like it was in the past. Next time it will require the supreme powers of God simply because the unholy trio will have very strong powers themselves. Unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved (see Matthew 24:21-22).

        30

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget that Willis has checked all the DATA and found NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY at all.
    These fools live in a fantasy world and the REAL world data proves that we are living in the very best of times.
    And Dr John Christy has put all of their so called claims to the test and he agrees with Willis.
    BIG surprise NOT.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

    50

    • #
      PeterS

      This and more only just proves that the likes of our state and federal governments, along with much of big business are either deliberately telling lies big time, or just so badly misinformed and being delinquent in their duties. Either way they ought to be charged with crimes against humanity. Many might scoff at such a suggestion but the fact is people have been sent to life in prison for far less, so what I’m suggesting is actually not an exaggeration at all – it’s the reality and it’s the truth.

      40

  • #
    Neville

    Meanwhile the latest DATA tells us that Antarctica is cooling and Willis has checked out Greenland and found it is WAY COOL compared to the earlier Holocene temps. And DITTO for Dr Christy.

    For the last 7,000 years the only time it was cooler than todays temps was during the recent LIA. OH BTW Antarctica and Greenland combined contain 99% of our planet’s ice. ANT 89% and Greenland 10%.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/

    80

  • #
    Neville

    In contrast to the RECENT REAL DATA Boris has just told the UN that the UK could become the Saudi Arabia of WIND ENERGY.
    EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN’T BLOW.
    How do these clueless fools get away with their delusional nonsense?

    70

    • #
      Serp

      He’s repeating a line from months ago which keen watchers of Boris know is actually his wife’s; she runs the entire show in Number 10 having vanquished all competitors from Dominic Cummings down. At least a form of Brexit has been obtained although lord alone knows what the people of Northern Ireland think.

      10

  • #
    PeterS

    It wasn’t due to heat exhaustion as a result of climate change that caused Harry Potter, actor Tom Felton, to collapse during a celebrity round of golf ahead of the Ryder Cup. Was it due to the vaccine? Only time will tell if we see more people dropping out like this and other ways. Several other similar incidents have been happening of late. We just need to wait and see if there is a trend. We might have to wait for as much as a year before the truth comes out, one way or the other. Clearly it can’t be put down to climate change but will they start using that as the excuse if we do see a real trend in such incidents? I don’t see why not given they have blamed a lot of other things on climate change.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Can we say “typical Leftist hypocrite”?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson

    The Co-Founder Of The Fact-Checking Site Snopes Was Writing Plagiarized Articles Under A Fake Name

    “You can always take an existing article and rewrite it just enough to avoid copyright infringement.”

    Dean Sterling Jones
    BuzzFeed Contributor

    Updated on August 27, 2021, at 11:19 a.m. ETPosted on August 13, 2021, at 10:19 a.m. ET

    David Mikkelson, the co-founder of the fact-checking website Snopes, has long presented himself as the arbiter of truth online, a bulwark in the fight against rumors and fake news. But he has been lying to the site’s tens of millions of readers: A BuzzFeed News investigation has found that between 2015 and 2019, Mikkelson wrote and published dozens of articles containing material plagiarized from news outlets such as the Guardian and the LA Times.

    50

  • #
    Ross

    You can see that anyone publishing any actual or perceived anti AGW argument or criticism of IPCC/COP processes leading up to Glasgow will be heavily censored. Man made climate change denialism will be put in the same bracket as child abusers or similar. It will be like the US election where social media will completely ban any commentary from climate realists. But everything alarmist will just get the OK.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Who fact checks the fact checkers?

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/06/breaking-down-a-week-of-media-disinformation/

    Lies, omissions and false fact checks – a banner week for media disinformation

    By Post Editorial Board

    September 6, 2021 | 2:28pm

    Last week, USA Today decided to fact check reality. Presented with a photo of President Biden checking his watch during the return of dead US service members to American soil, reporter Daniel Funke said that was “wrong.” Don’t believe your lying eyes.

    No, Funke insisted, Biden only checked his watch after the ceremony was over. No matter that military family members were already quoted saying the president did it multiple times.

    Then, calamity. Pictures revealed that Biden checked his watch at least three times. Funke was forced to fact check his fact check, which he did grudgingly as a “clarification.” USA Today couldn’t even bring itself to say the fact was “true.” It was changed to “missing context.”

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    110

  • #
    OldOzzie

    I want one of these when the seas rise

    Aa I said to my wife, I want a Green Granny Pod down the Backyard (not sure we could afford it)

    What a great idea.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    A good article.

    https://www.streetsensemedia.org/article/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers/

    Who fact-checks the fact checkers?

    by JEFFERY MCNEIL

    It wasn’t long ago that op-eds were to be taken as opinions. Today, if you disagree with consensus thinking, you are met with resistance by social justice warriors disguised as fact-checkers. 

    According to these new guardians of the truth, you can’t opine on any topic unless they are corroborated by trusted sources, such as CNN and MSNBC. Fact-checking has become so ridiculous that everything has become serious, and nothing is funny, insightful, or interesting. 

    Despite all this fact-checking, who fact-checks fact-checkers? Why is Fox News, or Newsmax not a credible source, while the New York Times and Washington Post are considered credible sources? The Post and the Times have had to retract stories or have been sued over alleged false or defamatory claims. Recently, both media outlets have had to correct a misleading story regarding former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; they reported that the FBI had briefed Giuliani that he was being targeted by Russian spies. Alan Dershowitz is suing CNN for $300 million because he claims the network unfairly characterized and edited a statement he made while representing Donald Trump at the Senate impeachment trial in 2020.

    I wish that a fact-checker showed how many times conservative publications had to retract or pay defamation lawsuits. Can someone explain how left-wing sources are truthful, while conservative outlets spread lies or conspiracies? Fact check this: CNN lost nearly 50% of its primetime viewers between Nov. 4 2020 and Jan. 21 2021. 

    As a writer for Street Sense Media, I urge us not to be cheerleaders for the Biden administration or risk alienating a wider audience that may be interested in donating but are turned off by the divisiveness and partisanship. The Opinion page has become an uninteresting and unreadable platform for Pro-Biden fluff pieces. 

    Writing shouldn’t be about cheerleading or protecting narratives. But saying things that make people uncomfortable. If someone is passionate about issues such as transgender intersectionality, then there shouldn’t be silence but the ability to write about it and withstand criticism. All perspectives should be represented, especially the views of working-class people. 

    Political correctness makes people walk on eggshells, and I think fact checkers spend more time worrying about being PC than confirming whether or not something is true.

    Fact-checking is code for burying a story that counters the establishment’s narrative. When censored, consider it an honor. If what you say is crazy, there should be no need to silence you. They censor people who the establishment fear because you’re not going along and calling the corporate-controlled bullies out. The reason people listen to Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones is because nobody wants to hear President Joe Biden while gas prices are increasing, borders are not being secured properly, the Middle East is in turmoil, and our nation hasn’t been this divided since the civil war.

    Biden ran on restoring America’s soul. He vowed to get Democrats and Republicans together but since elected everything he’s done antagonizes Conservatives and even those that — honk honk — have given him over 80 million votes. In the end, if I feel Biden isn’t transparent, I don’t need media reports on how fit Biden may be. If I believe I need an umbrella because it’s raining, I don’t need Rachel Maddow telling me I’m not getting wet. 

    Those that claim Biden won fair and square believe it is final. With the census, strict voter ID laws, and forensic audits, no amount of fluff, cheerleading, and silencing will stop the determination to understand the 2020 election. Stay tuned because those not buying what these fact-checkers sell will be a thorn in the side of the left for this century and the next.

    Jeffery McNeil is an artist and vendor for Street Sense Media.

    90

  • #
    gowest

    The really hilarious part of this is that Joe is importing heaps of black people totally unsuited to cold weather into USA – a country that freezes regularly and runs out of power, especially now with the GSM underway.. His excuse (from Tuckers show yesterday) is that he wants more black people in the country. Talk about unforeseen consequences. They refuse jabs because of religion. The real reason is re-election! Its a Pity these immigrant will end up being sacrificed when the country goes broke.

    40

    • #
      David Maddison

      Also, the racist Democrats claim black and Hispanic people are too stupid to obtain identity documents, hence the opposition to voter ID.

      What is a consequence of not having ID?

      A large number of black and Hispanic people are being excluded from going to restaurants and other public places in NY due to the need to identify yourself plus prove vaccination status and 75% of black people in NY are not vaxed.

      The racist Democrats have reinstated racial segregation.

      Tony Heller discussed this. See https://youtu.be/ah0M1I72Ijk

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    This is for Once Great Britain.

    Europistan wouldn’t be held hostage to Russian gas prices if there had not been a coup d’état against President Trump.

    I hope all those Trump-hating European Leftists are enjoying this.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-considers-temporary-nationalisation-of-energy-companies-to-stop-collapse-b1923264.html

    Government considers temporary nationalisation of energy companies to stop collapse

    ‘Special administrator’ could be appointed as gas prices and energy cap put companies at risk

    Jon Stone

    Policy Correspondent

    3 days ago

    The government is considering temporarily nationalising failing energy companies to stop them collapsing from surging gas prices, ministers have indicated.

    Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is holding crisis talks with firms following a meeting with regulator Ofgem on Sunday. Mr Kwarteng said “well-rehearsed plans” were in place to ensure consumers were not cut off.

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    ALSO SEE

    Russia ‘to determine UK’s winter fate’ after Merkel ‘outsmarted’ by Putin on energy crisis

    Daily Express, 23 September 2021

    VLADIMIR PUTIN has the fate of a UK’s winter in his hands after he “outmanoeuvred” Angela Merkel on gas supplies in Europe, experts have warned.

    The German Chancellor struck a deal with the Russian President for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to export gas from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland and Ukraine.
     
    But to avoid Berlin from implementing EU law across the system, Mr Putin has reportedly restricted the flow of gas into Europe that travelled through existing pipelines putting pressure on European gas supplies. This affects the UK, as it imports Russian gas from the Netherlands.

    It comes as gas prices are already soaring, with experts warning that central heating could be a “luxury for the rich” this winter.

    John Lough, Associate Fellow of the Russia & Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, says Russia has “outmanoeuvred” Germany on Nord Stream 2.

    Economic commentator Ambrose Pritchard-Evans has even warned that “Russia will determine Britain’s winter fate”.
     
    He pointed out that the UK has no national strategic storage of gas in reserve, making matters even worse for Britain.

    He wrote in the Telegraph: “This Government will have to explain why Britain’s gas storage capacity was slashed to 1.7 percent of annual demand when the global norm is a safety buffer of 20 percent, and why it has subcontracted the task to countries in Continental Europe, now facing their own supply squeeze.”

    Gazprom, the state-owned Russian gas company in charge of the pipelines, also chose not to bid for a top-up of flows in October through Nord Stream 2, further hiking up gas prices and posing a threat to European gas supplies.

    British energy suppliers have started to collapse and after soaring wholesale gas prices bumped the cost of energy above the price cap.

    70

  • #
    Hanrahan

    I don’t have a link, my son just told me, but a nuclear plant in Britain has just chut down because they have no C)2 and the main Coke bottling plant only has enough for 2 day’s production. The shortage is widespread.

    Fortunately there is a good wind blowing across the north and the North Sea.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    Iceland today is much colder than any period over the last 8K to 10K years.
    EXCEPT the 19th century during the LIA.
    Here’s the link to a number of recent studies of Greenland’s neighbor and these studies seem to support evidence for a very cold period up to the present day.

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/12/14/modern-icelands-climate-is-colder-with-more-ice-than-any-other-time-in-the-last-8000-years-except-the-1800s/

    50

  • #
    Tilba+Tilba

    I think the Bjorn Lomborg post/argument is utterly ridiculous, and there are very good reasons why it was vilified.

    If you wish to stop people at higher latitudes dying as a result of cold, then you have a sensible social-democratic government to ensure that those in lower socio-economic groups can have decent heating.

    Lomborg’s argument is as ridiculous and silly as the one that says Woopee! we can grow grapes again in Britain. These people have no idea – global warming (caused by by CO2 increase – yes really it is true) – is causing huge problems in the already hot parts of the world.

    Most of the poor people in the world are WORSE OFF as a result of global warming. Armchair warriors don’t understand anything.

    08

    • #

      Thanks to a 15% increase in crop yields millions of the poor can afford to eat. Useful eh?

      100

      • #
        Neville

        True Jo and Andrew Bolt has highlighted the crop increases etc for decades.
        In fact it was mainly the Bolter, Lomborg, Carter + Jo Nova, Jen Marohasy,Don Aitkin, Dr Rosling etc that convinced me to START to look up the data for myself.
        Thanks again Jo.

        50

    • #
      clarence.t

      Globally, deaths from cold far outweigh deaths from heat

      If you wish to stop people at hotter latitudes dying as a result of heat, then you have a sensible social-democratic government to ensure that those in lower socio-economic groups can have decent air-conditioning and water supply.

      And no, CO2 really doesn’t cause any atmospheric warming.

      I have presented evidence of that in several posts..

      You just have a non-science “belief” backed by absolutely nothing.

      “causing huge problems in the already hot parts of the world”

      Where? Tell us all about it, details and evidence that its CO2 causing it.

      60

    • #
      Tel

      They can have very low cost heating … buy natural gas from the Russians!

      The punishment of the poor in Europe is 100% inflicted by their own government imposing sanctions on them.

      50

    • #
      Neville

      T+T you should really start to wake up to yourself.
      I’ve provided you with the DATA across the world repeatedly.
      Our poorest ( + very hot) continent has seen remarkable increase in health and wealth since 1900, 1950, 1970 , 1990 etc.
      The 53 countries’ population was 363 mil in 1970 and life exp of about 46, but today life exp is 63 and pop is 1370 million.
      Are you really so stupid or are you just so committed to your fantasy world and dopey L W politics?
      And the world pop increased from 3.7 bn in 1970 and life exp of 57 to 7.8 bn today and life exp of 72.8.
      ALL of the above in just the last 50 years. WAKE UP.

      50

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘Armchair warriors don’t understand anything.’

      We know that an increase in CO2 has been beneficial for agriculture and greening the planet. At the end of the Holocene this is useful knowledge and people are not worse off because of global warming. Still waiting for the climate change refugees?

      10

  • #
    Flok

    Humans seek saunas to detoxify. In warm weather pain from osteoarthritis is less. Mentioned global warming is saving lives, in reality it is extending existence.

    While serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and endorphins are the happy hormones, there is no such thing as a sad hormone, just lack of some of the happy hormones.

    The same applies to CO2. There is no substitute or the opposite. More CO2 means a productive life on the planet. Less CO2 is the stagnation of life.

    60

  • #
    CHRIS

    I see that Tilba is on his usual deranged rant about CAGW. Since when is CAGW caused by increasing CO2 levels? I haven’t seen any proof of this. Of course, Tilba totally ignores the role the Sun and the Oceans (as well as other natural phenonema} play in the scheme of the Earth’s climate. As an “armchair warrior” with a Masters in Climatology, I’ll just absorb the relevant research, and make up my OWN MIND (unlike the Zombies like Tilba who will believe anything that garbage like Flannery tell us).

    40

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s Dr Rosling’s video of the amazing increase for human health and wealth over the last 200 years.
    I fully understand that blog donkeys like T+T won’t understand any of this data from the REAL planet Earth, but we can but try.
    Apparently he’d prefer that we still resided in the LIA POOR and SICK corner of Rosling’s graph, but most of us fully understand how much better off we are today.
    And Dr Rosling’s BBC video is only made possible by plotting 120,000 data points over that very long period of time.
    OH and it only takes 5 minutes of your time to understand the progress to health and wealth over the last 200 years.
    THINK ABOUT IT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    50

  • #
    CHRIS

    Hey Gordo…my degree is a result of six years study at Macquarie University (NSW)…what’s your excuse???

    00

  • #
    CHRIS

    PLUS: Anyone who thinks Mann has any creditability is off the planet (or Hockey Stick, whichever you prefer)

    00

  • #

    […] Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year: UN says Stop That Now […]

    00