Cherry-picked coverage of summertime heatwaves and wildfires gives an unbalanced picture of the climate. And the trusting masses who procure their world view solely from legacy media outlets have no doubt been convinced that heat = bad, and that this summer is showing all the finger prints of climate change. However, they are dead wrong, on both counts.
The data reveal that temperature-driven deaths are overwhelmingly caused by cold, meaning warmth is good.
In North America, a recent Lancet study found that 20,000 people die each year from heat, 170,000 from cold.
The study found similar numbers globally, too — 4.5 million cold deaths a year, which is 9X more than heat deaths.
The paper goes on to show that a temperature increase of 0.5 degrees Celsius during the first two decades of this century has caused an additional 116,000 heat deaths annually, but also avoided 283,000 cold deaths every year.
The logical conclusion is that warmth is good; fewer humans have died due to the natural, solar-driven warming witnessed in recent decades–well, in recent centuries to be fair, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age which concluded around 1850 (which, coincidentally, is the starting point for all those AGW Party temperature charts).
However, warming, many have been convinced, is a catastrophe that demands harsh collective sacrifices to combat. Across the developed world, governments have promised to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions in order to fight the bogeyman, at a cost of going on $6 trillion annually. The small but noisy subset of the population–the conditioned, terrified, paint-tossers among us–are clamoring for such suicidal policies, having been convinced that they’re the only way to to avoid a mass extinction event, while the majority of people, though decidedly unconvinced that the world is ending, are weighed down by apathy driven by the genuine toils of life, such as affording rent, food and taxes, which, due in no small part to sadistic climate policies, are all exponentially rising in cost, further feeding the indifference.
But a carbon tax, for example, or the decommissioning of a coal-fired power plant tackle climate-related deaths very poorly. Avoiding both cold and heat deaths requires affordable energy access, and the AGW Party’s doctrine strips the world of this.
In the United States, cheap gas from fracking allowed millions to keep warmer with low budgets, saving 12,500 lives each year. Climate policy, which inevitably makes most energy more expensive, achieves the exact opposite. The establishment sells these absurd, poverty-inducing policies with fear. Dramatic images of forest fires fill the front pages. For your average dutiful prole, it is easy to see how they’d get caught up by the fabricated sense of panic. Fire is scary. Fire kills. But fear isn’t a good state to make decisions in. A logical head is required. And logic leads you to view the actual data, which paints a wholly unalarming picture.
Since NASA satellites started accurately documenting fires across the entire surface of the planet two decades ago, there has been a strong downward trend. In the early 2000s, 3% of the world’s land area burned each year. Last year, fire burned 2.2% of the world’s land area, a new record low. This fact, which is official and uncontested, exposes the establishment agenda, it blows it out of the water, and I am honestly intrigued to know how the alarmists square this reality.
The media blatantly ‘wildfire-chase’ around the planet. Greece has provided a good story for this this summer, as has Canada. But again, the data are clear, burn acreage is trending down, globally. This summer has seen Africa, for example, as well as Europe–despite Greece–burn far less than the historical average. As of mid-August, the Global Wildfire Information System shows that the European continent has cumulatively burned less than it has at the same time any of the last 10 years.
Zooming out further: “We’ve actually seen a decline in the area burned by fires in the Mediterranean and across Europe more widely over the last couple of decades, in a way that doesn’t marry up with the rapidly changing risk of fires,” said Dr Matthew Jones, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia.
The Global Wildfire Information System shows that the entire planet has burned less than the average over the last decade.
Cutting carbon emissions via an eradication of cheap and reliable energy is perhaps THE least-effective way to combat the perceived threat. But I have little doubt that this ‘green’ push is not for betterment of humanity. If the recent past is anything to go by, then we should expect a exponentially widening wealth gap, and, ironically, a higher temperature-related death toll as the poor are priced-out of the energy marker to the point where they can’t heat their homes in the winter.
According to a recent UK survey, millions of Brits “are at risk of becoming ill because they are not switching on their heating when it is cold.” A Which? survey of 4,000 people found record-high energy bills had led to almost nine in 10 households (85%) cutting back on their energy usage, while nearly half (46%) said they had not switched their heating last winter–which was a cold one, and all.
One woman in the survey said, “It has had a negative impact in all aspects of my life. I really struggle, we are always cold at home (but) I’m too scared to put the heating on.” Another commented, “I have multiple disabilities, one being fibromyalgia, and I can’t afford to put any form of heating on which is causing increased pain. It’s excruciating and therefore affecting everything I do.”
This is the reality of all these supposedly ‘good intentioned’ climate policies; for the poorest, they ‘lead to hell’.
Droughts and floods are similarly routinely ascribed to global warming, but study after study proves this link imaginary.
Even in the IPCC’s latest report, it is revealed that the UN agency has “low confidence in general statements to attribute changes in flood events to anthropogenic climate change”. The experts also emphasize that neither river nor coastal floods are currently statistically detectable from the background noise of natural climate variability.
And as per a recent New York Post article penned by Bjorm Lomborg (a believer in AGW), in the United States, flood damage cost 0.5% of gross domestic product in the early 1900s, but now it costs just one-tenth of that because greater resiliency and development vastly outweigh any residual climate signal.
“We must resist the misleading, alarmist climate narrative,” concludes Lomborg.
“Panic is a terrible adviser.”