Number of people born in 2020 who will face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts under 1.5C 2.7C and 3.5C warming. Source: Save the Children | CarbonBrief
By Jo Nova
It’s like expert scientists in Nature have never heard of an air-conditioner?
The Blob launched its latest permutation of Fire and Brimstone. By using broken climate models, and ignoring ten thousand years of bones, rocks, sediments, ice-cores, caves and corals, they were able to pretend that babies today will suffer “unprecedented” storms, floods and fires of every kind and it’s all your fault.
The paper by Grant et al ticks the full Marxist Bingo Card whipping up class warfare driven by “intergenerational inequality”. It was funded by the EU and is being used to shake down citizens to get more money and power for the EU, so they will be happy. “Mission accomplished”. (That’s what ‘The ScienceTM’ is for right?)
But it is embarrassing. We have to talk about that formerly esteemed “Nature” journal. For starters, the researchers behave like the universe only formed in 1960. Their whole shtick is that babies today will live through more ghastly heatwaves than their grandparents born in 1960 did. And it’s all “unprecedented” (they use the term 25 times in the paper). It’s as if the Holocene did not exist. Sea levels were at least a metre higher 8,000 years ago. How could the world not have been hotter? And how did those cats, dogs, geese and frogs live in the high arctic north of Norway 9,000 years ago. There were thousands of bones in those caves. Do they or do they not exist?
Spare a thought for the babies of 6,000 BC who lived through far more heatwaves in their lifetime than any will today, and they didn’t have an air conditioner, a baby monitor, or a Fire Department to call when a bushfire broke out. Somehow they didn’t become extinct.
The solution to all the potential, imagined cataclysm of one more degree (if it even happens) is cheap electricity. If we try to save babies with slave-made-solar panels from Xingjiang we’ll be committing a crime (and more than one).
We’ll save more babies by burning fossil fuels and making electricity cheap again, so people can afford to turn the air-con on.
Airconditioners are the miracle that save 20,000 lives in USA each year. As it got hotter in Spain from 1980 to 2015 fewer people died — and it was because more of them were able to get air conditioning. The Science says fossil fuels save lives.
Global deaths and disasters are down in the last 100 years. But shameless UN lies are up. To solve the increase in global disasters, just axe the UN.
Global death rate from disasters last century, per capita, per decade. Our World in Data. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.
Deaths are down per capita from fire, landslide, storm, flood, extreme temperatures and drought.(Our World in Data).
Global weather disaster costs have also declined since 1990 as a percentage of our GDP. The more CO2 we emit the less we spend on global weather disasters.
REFERENCE
Grant, L., Vanderkelen, I., Gudmundsson, L. et al. Global emergence of unprecedented lifetime exposure to climate extremes. Nature 641, 374–379 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08907-1
h/t Willie Soon
Not necessarily this Nature article but many climate-related articles in that formerly reputable journal are in fact paid, and are essentially advertisements. In any case, someone would have paid a lot of money publishing this in an Open Access format. Too bad that money wasn’t used for something useful like educating children in the Scientific Method and the history of science.
100
Was the cost included in the grant that paid for the rest of the mess?
30
Thanks Jo and Dr Hans Rosling’s BBC joy of stats video covers 200 countries over 200 years, 1810 to 2010.
His life expectancy of under 40 in 1810 is now always quoted as under 30 and still just 32 yrs in 1900.
See Dr Pielke jr, Dr Koonin, Dr Christy, Dr Happer, Dr Lindzen and the UN etc.
Dr Rosling travelled the world trying to end the ignorance and stupidity, but found he had a hard job on his hands.
Here’s his video in under 5 minutes and never forget he is only talking about the last 0.1% of Human history and our now soaring wealth, health and safety. When will we wake up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
120
It seems that as more and more people either are skeptical, or are becoming skeptical, the UN and it’s legion of leeches are becoming more unhinged. The renewable investors must be desperate as the failures to produce reliable power are being manifest and the populace are, rightly, connecting increases in power bills to increases in renewables. The big lie that renewables are the cheapest form of energy is patently obvious to all who pay for their own power. Even those who thought they were helping by using green energy now see the destruction caused by its manufacture and installation. And the really big one; Trump’s “drill, baby, drill”. The only idiots still in thrall to the UN’s madness is good old, dumb, Australia.
Only 13% of Brits put saving the planet above saving their wallets, their livelihoods and their families.
170
What is this BLOB you keep referring to? Is it an acronym, something like Bloated Libertine Oligarch Bureaucracy? In the IT world, it’s a Binary Large OBject.
022
What is this blob? Look in the mirror Simon and you will see it.
160
Lifted direct from your favourite wokipedia:
# Blobs were originally just big amorphous chunks of data invented by Jim Starkey at DEC,
who describes them as “the thing that ate Cincinnati, Cleveland, or whatever” from “the 1958 Steve McQueen movie”, referring to The Blob.#
So Simon your lesson for today: that IT term has the provenance for precisely the meaning with which folks on Jo’s site associate it!
FYI – In that movie they freeze the Blob and take it to Arctic with a question about whether it will return again sometime.
30
‘The Blob is a large mass of relatively warm water in the Pacific Ocean …’
A marine heatwave is not what Jo meant, of course, more to do with the unthinking masses who are easily swayed by clever propaganda.
Keep in mind that the AGW theory is inculcated into the education system from an early age, disinformation at this level is a crime against humanity.
41
In all seriousness, read the paper. The population most affected by global warming are also the poorest. They don’t have air conditioners.
021
“They don’t have air conditioners.”
Why not? Electricity came to my town in 1937 – before me. I grew up in a family just above the poverty level and we had a refrigerator just prior to 1950. A/C (a window unit) came about 1958. I believe that followed by a year the hottest summer I can remember. Location was in western Pennsylvania.
160
All of us “people” should be acquainted with our planet’s air conditioner – the Antarctic circumpolar current (ACC) and the ice-covered landmass of Antarctica. It is why the planet will never experience runaway global warming in humanities lifetime. The ACC would have to stop – never going to happen unless continental drift closes the Drake Passage, so humanity is safe from overheating millions years. Look at the climate history for the last 3 million years – natural variations yes, runaway warming no.
The following link is a good primer…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTgxTP-k2R0
70
Do you seriously believe, Simon, that someone used to living in the heat, and cold, of sub Saharan Africa is really going to notice a degree or so of warming? If their crops are growing because of the extra CO2 in the air and need a bit less water to do so, they are probably waiting for more global warming.
Funny. I still meet lots of people from Victoria hauling their caravans North for the winter. I wonder why? Escaping the cold perhaps?
60
I liken modern aircons to latest tech diesel engines. Once both were noisy, inefficient behemoths but are now both artistic forms of modern engineering and tech. The split systems these days are incredible, offering both efficient and noiseless comfort. For cooling and heating. How’s about Nature ( or the Guardian or the SMH/ Melbourne Age) write a story about the history of a/c. Not only marvelous tech but also life saving in the order of probably millions of people
190
And in Victoria you get OPM to pay for half of any large unit. China builds close to the best units available for domestic use so are good value to start with then the government largesse pays for half of it.
80
Yes RW. I mentioned a few weeks ago how the VicGov would replace my home central gas heating for FREE!! Part of some emissions reduction scheme. State’s broke but we can interchange perfectly good gas systems with new electric. Explain that to me.
80
Here’s Dr Rosling’s TED talk trying to educate a younger audience about true World data and they are easily beaten by the chimps.
This was obviously a huge, younger, tertiary educated audience but very few understood the real world data and the rapid changes and a much improved way of life.
Just watch the first 5 minutes of his 3 question Q & A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg
30
Sorry that link didn’t work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg
20
If you predict disaster , and implement policy for disaster, eventually you get it . That why they are pushing for renewables , promoting nonsense , and destroying financial systems through unsustainable debt . We can complain about it , but the best thing to do is plan for the future with likely consequences in mind . Hope for the best , but plan for the worst…
90
What’s worse?
Elites and their grafted government and academic sycophants, utilizing the fraud of ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Pandemic’ to steal wealth from future generations, by indebting them to pay for fake talisman magical ‘decarbonization’ and vaccination schemes …
or making children fearful and doubtful that they will have a future at all?
It’s possible to restore wealth.
Impossible to restore purposely damaged youthful joy and faith in the future.
Most of us here remember a time when political and academic leadership tended to offer pride and promise in human endeavor, rather than incessant guilting and constant fearmongering.
The reason that MAGA is POTUS.
130
How will the children cope with this 25x increase in back-to-front upside-down interminably repetitive non-science nonsense shoved into their young pliable minds when all around them they see climates doing what climates do, give-or-take.
For example NZ’s Mt Hutt skifield has had so much pre-winter snowfall they’ve announced they will open 31 May for King’s Birthday long weekend – the first May opening in 16 years. Sure, it’s an advertising gimmick yet the metre (3ft) base of nature’s snow is for real (it was over waist-deep last week).
Kids I know who are into outdoor sports seem immune to the CCC™️ cult-speak rantings as they’re more in-tune with the cyclic nature of our weather – or possibly their parents / grandies taught them wisely – they’re not all spoiled sprats on the spectrum.
140
Is Nature trying to shore up the climate scare because people are turning against it?
61
Of course we are very accurate if we say that today we live in the best period of Human flourishing in recorded history.
So Human flourishing is indeed unprecedented today and we should never waste TRILLIONS of $ on toxic, unreliable, W & S that have the lowest capacity factors compared to BASELOAD Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear.
IOW follow the data and not the BS and fra-d.
80
The Climate Realism show this week has Dr Judith Curry as their guest and I think we could all learn something and could be some fun.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/09/live-at-1-p-m-et-a-critique-of-the-climate-apocalypse-with-dr-judith-curry-the-climate-realism-show-156/
20
I have never understood the argument that a warmer world is a terrible world. Most people holiday to warmer places. They only fled to the cold places for protection in the first place. Everything works better in a warmer world.
So how was the Climate Catastrophe created? By flipping the truth.
Sea level rise? How? Air doesn’t heat the water. Try boiling water with a hair dryer.
74% of all solar energy goes straight into the water. It can only cool by evaporation, heating the air. So flip it around and make the air heat the water? You could put all the air in the ocean and water temperature would not increase 0.01%.
Droughts? All water, rain comes from the ocean by evaporation. People associate droughts with heat but droughts are consequence of cool weather and lack of evaporation. So flip it around and make increased temperature responsible for droughts. Northern Africa used to have monsoons and jungles and dinosaurs until the area cooled. Even in Roman times it was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.
Increased CO2, essential for all agriculture and life on earth. More warming means more CO2 from the vast ocean and of course the CO2 must go through the top layer. So flip it around and blame increased CO2 on fossil fuel, less than 1% of atmospheric CO2 a year, 0.02% of total CO2, not on warming.
Pretend the ocean is already full of CO2 and can only take half. Which is ridiculous. As if Coca Cola does not exist. Oceans reach 1000 atmospheres of pressure at 1 atmosphere per 10 metres.
And reverse it and blame slightly increased CO2 in the uppermost ocean layer on increased CO2 in the air? And call it ‘acidification’ when no ocean is acid or ever could be acid. Without melting all the ocean floor and coast lines of chalk and limestone. The Limestone coasts, the Nullabor plain, the White Cliffs of Dover, the Great Barrier Reef. All would have to go before acid would be possible.
These lies that the sky is falling, seas are boiling story were invented by the UN. It’s was path to power and money in 1988.
And none in the media challenge it. Which is the inconvenient truth.
The whole climate catastrophe is a reversal of simple science, a denial of truth, of the obvious. I cannot understand how the President of the UN can say the seas are boiling. Where? name one place.
It is beyond science that the EPA in America has classified Carbon Dioxide as a toxic gas, harmful to mankind. When every living thing breathes in oxygen and breathes out carbon dioxide. Every living thing is made from carbon dioxide and water. Only a lunatic would ban carbon dioxide.
But that’s not the point is it? Taxing carbon dioxide is the entire point. An excuse to steal billions by stealth, as with the new UN $42Bn tax on ships at sea.
And anyone who points out that there is no truth in it, no science, is hounded out of a job. As a ‘denier’.
140
JD Vance has again put his finger on the real cause of EU decline
JD Vance was right to warn about the hard power costs of losing industry. The EU is effectively shipping its might to Beijing
At the Munich Leaders’ Meeting in Washington DC this week, vice-president JD Vance put his finger on a major cause of Europe’s recent decline. “One of the things that the Germans were very good about,” he declared, “is that they had kept the industrial strength of their economy consistent with the first world standard of living. But now what we see in Europe is a lot of our European friends are de-industrialising.” Hard power, he continued, requires strong industry.
Europe’s present state is hardly surprising. Its industrial base is getting whittled away by net zero policies, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to preserve the environment placed ahead of almost everything else, including economic growth. Worse, China is ramping up coal-fired power at the same time. The net effect is not likely to be net zero but economic suicide for the West.
EU is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, making the continent so-called climate neutral. The aim is to tighten the rules progressively. By 2030, the plan is for net CO2 emissions to be 55 per cent lower than 1990 levels, and 90 per cent lower by 2040.
Clean air and water are of course worthy goals. But according to the Heritage Institute’s Climate Calculator, based on government economic and climate models, reducing Europe’s entire CO2 emissions to zero would have a net temperature mitigation of only about 0.12 degrees Celsius by 2100, assuming the highest climate sensitivity to carbon.
The argument that any level of government intervention is justified to “save the planet” is therefore seriously flawed. Especially since making all those solar panels and batteries – net zero technologies that Europe requires – currently drives up the use of fossil fuels. China manufactures 80 per cent of global solar panels, for example, with production mostly powered by fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
With America’s new energy dominance, Europeans cannot ignore China’s burning coal fires, which mock the EU’s senseless deindustrialisation.
130
If 1.5 degrees makes that much difference, Victorians should be able to look with pity on Queenslanders with their higher average temperatures. How many of our Northern state’s populations are attempting to relocate to cooler climes? None. Zero. Zilch
Perhaps a program of moving all children to cooler places, a few hundred kilometres North or South depending on which hemisphere you live in, until they are able to withstand the higher temperatures of their birthplace.
I live in wonder at the machinations of some people to make weather a controllable feature of the World and the lengths they go to in order to justify their seemingly irrational fears.
30
BBC quietly edits Question Time after ‘making false net zero claim’
Debate on climate policy taken out of programme amid dispute over statistic provided by broadcaster’s fact-checking unit
The BBC quietly edited an episode of Question Time after allegedly making a false claim about net zero.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, appeared on Thursday night’s panel show following his party’s sweeping gains in the local elections last week.
During the show, which was recorded before a live audience but broadcast later, he was asked about his party’s position on climate change policies, which he said was to “scrap net stupid zero”.
In the debate, Fiona Bruce, the host, intervened to correct Mr Tice on the proportion of carbon emissions that are man-made.
The MP for Boston and Skegness claimed that it was “about three or four per cent” of all emissions, to which Bruce said that, according to Nasa, it was around a third.
Mr Tice claimed that he approached a BBC editor after the show to tell them that the statistic was a mistake, and was informed that the information had come from BBC Verify, the broadcaster’s fact-checking unit.
The exchange with Bruce was then edited out of the programme, but the BBC has not reflected this in the show uploaded to its iPlayer.
There is no clear consensus in the scientific community on the correct statistic. However, the BBC stands by the Nasa statistic and has said there was no mistake.
The BBC said the segment was edited out because “two statistics were compared which were not directly comparable” and therefore “more context would have been needed to explain the two statistics sufficiently”.
A BBC spokesman said: “These claims are simply untrue. It is normal practice to edit the programme before broadcast for audience clarity. In this case two statistics were compared which were not directly comparable. The decision was taken to edit this as more context would have been needed to explain the two statistics sufficiently. The statistic came from Nasa, which is a trusted authoritative source on the issue.”
BBC Verify was launched in 2023, when its purpose was described as “explaining complex stories in the pursuit of truth”.
But the unit has been accused of making errors and being politically biased.
130
This is exactly why government funded propaganda arms should be shut down.
70
” the proportion of carbon emissions that are man-made.
The MP for Boston and Skegness claimed that it was “about three or four per cent” of all emissions, to which Bruce said that, according to Nasa, it was around a third.”
It hardly matters, it’s what happens to CO2 which matters. It all rapidly goes into the ocean. What we have learned from C14 which is a direct measure of fossil fuel CO2 in the air is that total fossil fuel CO2 was 2.03% in 1958. The total atmospheric CO2 increase to that date was 13.7%. Even so 98% of all CO2 is in the ocean.
So this idea of adding up ’emissions’ is silly. There are at least 36 papers which argue that almost ALL of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged every 10 years. Most CO2 evaporates from the ocean gets absorbed again without becoming part of a plant. And fossil fuel CO2 is a tiny component, under 1%.
Further atmospheric C14 was doubled in about 1965 with H bomb atmospheric blasts and we know all that CO2 has gone into the oceans producing a rise of 2.0%. So the total atmospheric C14 is exactly what it was in 1800. As if fossil fuel CO2 did not exist.
So
1 There is no accumulation of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere beyond the 2.0% in rapid transit
2 The increase is 98% natural.
3 The total atmospheric CO2 is determined by the oceans, ocean currents and ocean temperatures, and heat and gas flowing in ocean currents and gyres.
4 If an increase in CO2 produces additional warming, and atmospheric physicists say that is not true, we humans are not responsible, fossil fuels are not responsible and there is nothing we can do about it. Sequestration, growing trees are both pointless as NASA have shown.
5 our climates are entirely controlled by the oceans and their currents and there is 50 times as much CO2 and 1400 times as much heat in the ocean as in the air.
And still with all their supercomputers, climate scientists cannot even predict El Nino. Or the future temperature anywhere. Frankly as Michael Mann amply demonstrated, they cannot even get the past right.
So we have a measure of how much fossil fuel CO2 is in the atmosphere at any time in rapid transit into the oceans, 2.0%. Negligible.
The reason the discussion is about ’emissions’ is that they are alleged to be a problem. They are not. CO2 has nothing to do with human activity, as is seen from the graph of CO2 for the last 55 years. Not the slightest hint of human activity.
30
The deaths caused by floods in the 1930s and 1950s, as shown on the graph above, are astonishing. Recent floods are supposedly a symptom of undeniable climate change according to many people who buy into the narrative. The graph seems to say otherwise…
60
See this Wikipedia entry:
1938 Yellow River flood
20
And
“1887 Yellow River flood”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Yellow_River_flood
00
The deadliest flood in Australia’s recorded history was in 1916. 65 soles were lost in the Claremont flood that year:
https://www.talesfromthegrave.org/post/remembering-the-devastating-clermont-flood-of-1916
20
Notice how the graph specifically uses “children” rather than the broader “people”, evoking the reader into feeling a deep maternal anguish. It’s a slight of language used all the time by the climate cult pagans into tricking largely a teenage girl demographic into a panicked tailspin. Everything the modern green progressives post is one giant fishing net for blind emotional altruism, and every year it catches millions of voters who aren’t old enough or critical enough to distinguish data from propaganda.
50
May 09, 2025 – THE MORNING RANT: As Tesla Sales Decline, Ford’s EV Sales…Fall Off a Cliff
With the EV-loving media having recently refocused its venom on Elon Musk because of his alliance with President Trump, Tesla has become a target for the left.
The media has gleefully been reporting any bad news about Musk’s electric car company, celebrating not only falling sales and financial repercussions, but also legitimizing vandalism against Tesla vehicles because of Musk’s politics.
The media has also been desperate to report that competitors are benefiting from Tesla’s woes. If you have the stomach for it, this nasty piece of journalistic bias from the AP dated 4/02/2025 hit all those marks, including the blaming of Musk himself for vandalism against Teslas: ”Tesla sales tumble 13% as Musk backlash, competition and aging lineup turn off buyers”
But something funny is happening. As Tesla sales decline, competing electric vehicle brands are not capturing the lost sales. It’s just the opposite, in fact. Legacy automakers who tried to make a big splash in the EV market are seeing their already nominal EV sales decline precipitously as the electric vehicle fad wanes. Ford had anticipated that by 2025 its electric lineup would be a major component of its product lineup, but now its EV sales are barely an asterisk, with sales plummeting from any already low peak.
“Ford’s EV sales fell by 40% in April and now it’s adjusting plans for another major project” [Elektrek – 5/01/2025]
Despite higher sales of internal combustion (ICE) and hybrid vehicles, Ford sold significantly fewer electric vehicles last month. Ford sold 4,859 fully electric vehicles in April, which is nearly 40% less than the 8,019 sold in April 2024.
“Despite?” Is that the correct word to use here? It reminds me of the infamous Fox Butterfield stories from the NY Times, which had comically obtuse headlines along the lines of, “Despite record incarceration, crime rates are down.”
Anyhow, “despite” people buying more gasoline powered (“ICE”) vehicles in April, Ford’s electric vehicle sales fell off a metaphorical cliff.
70
China dominates manufacturing of everything including EVs. These are 2024 figures:
It will be interesting to see how the economics of BEVs eventually pan out. I doubt there is any western country able to compete with China so we are headed for a world where only a few SE Asian economies will compete for vehicle production.
30
Maybe the Ford BEV’s are just rubbish?
20
FWIW – cartoon caption
“What’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever done?
Awfully bold of you to assume I’ve peaked.”
(No link)
60
Sure. The city of Dubai, over 5,000,000 people in absolute desert with no water, no food, no chance of survival. But they can go skiing in one shopping mall and ice skating in another. The bus stops in the desert are airconditioned. As are the open platforms on their commuter train. They have built mansions in the ocean, so not afraid of rising sea levels at all. And the people live in luxury, inside totally airconditioned places.
But it has become clear that the UN invention of man made Climate Change is not being challenged at all, except by Donald Trump. In the five percent of people paying massive carbon taxes, it is a ripoff.
And what arguments for man made CO2 and CO2 made Global Warming and deadly warming have all collapsed. But no one cares. They never did. It’s a hoax run by the UN and their masters in China. And everyone knows it, especially the real scientists, not the self appointed climate tragics and Greens, tree ring counters and the millions of science fantasists. Often salaried. Now BBC fact checkers tell us what is true and untrue. And who checks on them?
50
The Barakah nuclear power plant (BNPP) is the United Arab Emirates’ first nuclear power station, the first nuclear power station in the Arabian Peninsula and the first commercial nuclear power station in the Arab World.
It consists of four APR-1400 nuclear reactors. Total nameplate capacity is 5600 MW which is intended to supply up to 25% of UAE’s electricity needs.
The site is in the Al Dhafra region of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, approximately 53 km west-southwest of Al Dhannah City, on the coastline between the Persian Gulf and the E11 highway.
By The Way
Smart Energy Council Australia, related to Climate 200 backer of Teal MPs lobby group, claimed before the election that the 7 nuclear power stations Dutton Coalition Plan would cost $600 billion. For that amount of Australian dollars we could have 12 Barakah specification nuclear power stations.
30
“The total cost of the Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was an estimated $32 billion. The project, involving four 1.4 GWe reactors, was initially contracted at $20 billion in 2009. However, by 2020, the cost had risen to $32 billion. ”
Make that $A50 billion. And the entire build took 12 years with the first of 4 ready after 8 years. 5.6Gw. And Australia’s load is close to 18Gw. So the total bill would be $A200billion over 12 years.
Meanwhile “A new High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) coal power plant, like a modern ultra-supercritical (USC) plant with a 1000 MW capacity, is estimated to cost around $2.2 billion to build.” So for the cost of Snowy II we could have had 6GW. 1/3 of our requirement. And they would be operational today, halving CO2 emissions and coal consumption.
00