Climate change may have unexpected benefits for Britons because fewer people will die from the cold during the winter, a new study suggests.
Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar as the climate heats-up, in northern Europe hot weather mortality will be cancelled out by the decrease in cold weather deaths.
It’s interesting what he got right in that book. And also how badly he’s been excoriated over the years for doing so, isn’t it? His predictions of the price of solar power have been right, for example….
What! When the lovely “New European (Traitor)” newspaper expresses the wish that old Brexit voters will die in the cold so their grandkids can spit on their graves .
Won’t those euroscum be disappointed. And how will those poor kids have a happy life without being conscripted into the EuroArmy that was just a figment of leavers imaginations.
“Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar as the climate heats-up…”
Er, why? Neither people not the environment react to temperatures as a flat line graph.The 3 degrees they’re talking about, in the warmer parts of the world, are hardly noticeable. Difference between a hot day & another hot day. It’s at low temperatures small variations make a much greater difference. 3 degrees is the difference between hypothermia & not hypothermia. Between a frost that kills off crops at the budding stage & a good crop.
Watermelon strategy is ‘never look back, never apologise’. They climb on to one bandwagon, ride it till it crashes and then clamber on the next one without an admission of error. The media lap it up never asking why their previous predictions of doom never happened.
We need a database of the different positions of the Greens over the years and use it to expose their varying positions to nail them as the shysters they are.
Ah yes Ecksy, The New European: written by arseholes, for arseholes.
Funny thing is though, if you look on the website there is precious little about Europe. Just a few bits in the culture section (including a piece by Victor Lewis-Smith – who lives in France – slagging off French restaurants).
An alien reading the paper would assume that ‘Europe’ was just some gigantic McGuffin to hang the plot on….
For an organisation that sticks rigidly to the delusion that it has been, without any military, the reason for (some sort of) peace in (western bits of) Europe since 19_made_up_number, the EU is desperate for an army. Possibly because, at the geo-strategic level, it is an irrelevance.
Why would anybody go and talk to whoever is minding Juncker during his latest brandy induced snooze, when they could talk to May or Merkel? Or, if the problem is in certain bits of Africa, you could even try Macron.
Remember also when they wanted our Security Council seat? Hmm, yes.
One wonders about the purpose of the EU army: to enforce acceptance of migrants on unwilling nations? Employment for all the lovely military age young enrichers? To police the NI: Eire border? To protect the Eurocrats once the populace get out the piano wire? (Incidentally Gatestone Institute has run articles recently on the new enriched intake being trained for the Berlin police to the alarm of instructors.)
Correction: not Gatestone but http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/11/are-you-an-immigrant-gangster-theres-a-great-future-for-you-with-the-berlin-police/
Ljh One wonders about the purpose of the EU army
It will provide a superb adventure playground for the generals but the troops will never leave their barracks. The only issues on which the member states would all feel sufficiently strongly that they would agree to send their own people, would be issues where their opponent was strong enough to make the risk of war unacceptable.
To put it another way, EU diplomacy is so completely clumsy and incoherent (Crimea, Ukraine) that a military arm is likely to be make Brussels even more sclerotic.
TMB: and their diplomatic efforts were peaceful how in the Ukraine/Crimea? With an army the Eurocrats can demonstrate idiocy to a higher magnitude (and it will be useless to individual states to disagree, this is another shift away from accountable elected government.).
Bjorn Lomborg is a worthy heir to the Mantle of Julian Simon or Peter Bauer. A brilliant and courageous man. The environmental lobby is one of the most deadly manifestations of militant leftism and he has endured sustained physical and written attacks from it for two decades.
Back to the subject: why is it that the warmer regions of the world are currently outbreeding the chillier, shouldn’t they be dying of heat?
One wonders about the purpose of the EU army
Here’s a prediction: its first serious deployment will be against EU citizens rather than an outside enemy.
Here’s a prediction: its first serious deployment will be against EU citizens rather than an outside enemy.
Given the current EU hysteria against the Polish government, it would be like the old days with tanks rolling over the border. This time though the flag painted on the side would be different and they would be on the “Progressive and Good” side.
“its first serious deployment will be against EU citizens rather than an outside enemy”: that’s the purpose of most of the world’s armies, isn’t it?
It used to be pretty much limited to Britain, the belief that a standing army is a threat to liberty. The USians took up the refrain and (of course) persuaded themselves that they invented it.
Why did they require a study to discover this? You just need to look at the stats, which have been clear on this for years. It predates Lomborg.
ljh: and their diplomatic efforts were peaceful how in the Ukraine/Crimea?
Perhaps I expressed myself badly: the diplomatic effort was inept and provocative. To further extend EU incursions into foreign involvement by providing a military capacity will end very badly.
A Russian infringement of Balt or Polish borders would see NATO bowing out in favour of the EU army which in turn would do nothing more than go on manoeuvres – probably in Sicily or Portugal – to show how tough the EU can be.
I don’t see how this is surprising. Europe is a terrible place where people have for millennia had to start fires in their homes to ward off the cold and had often fallen victim to these fires going out of control.
Europe was the home of Hans Christian Andersen who wrote The Little Match Girl about a poor little girl who (spoiler alert!) freezes to death because she’s outside at night.
During the same time in Mesoamerica and Africa, natives could walk around naked or wearing just a loincloth and were entirely comfortable.
So yeah, warming up the planet will give Europe a much more tolerable climate.
More from the Gipsy Rose Lea Department of ‘science’.
‘Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar as the climate heats-up…’
Except the climate is not ‘heating up’ and since (as the IPCC states) it is impossible to predict climate, then it is false to state death rates ‘will’ soar ‘as’ climate heats up, ‘may’ soar ‘if’ … maybe, but that overlooks the use of air conditioning and better insulated buildings, which if developing Countries are allowed to develop and if they can use fossil fuels to generate the electricity to run it, death rates won’t soar ‘if’ the climate heats up.
John B: it’s worse than that! All that increased heat does in the Tropics is increase evaporation rather than temperature, it’s the cold arid Polar regions that warm up. Gasp! The Polar Ice Caps may melt (again), the treeline will march north and the growing season be extended, all horrid prospects!
BTW: most of the increase of 1.5degC since 1850 has been idue to increased minimum recorded temperatures rather than maximum temperatures which are pretty much stable. Unadjusted temperatures for the 1930s remain the highest on recors.
‘Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar’
Gross speculation.
And we are talking about HUMANS, who have infinite capacity to adapt.
BWTM: in the same vein, the tens of thousands who die in Britain from cold could be saved. Their deaths are optional. Indeed, some of the deaths are due directly to actions taken to ‘reduce climate change.’
‘The Paris Treaty is an international agreement to tackle climate change by limiting carbon emissions.
Membership: 194 countries, including the EU and China, joined the accord in 2015. However, the United States, the world’s second-greatest polluter, plans to withdraw at some point after 4 November 2020
Targets: To limit global warming to less than 2°C above the Earth’s pre-industrial average, with an ambition to limit temperatures to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This would be achieved by reducing net carbon emissions to zero’
An affront to common sense.
Carbon dioxide is plant food, and what everyone reading this exhales. It is NOT pollution. The assertion that the U.S. is the second-greatest polluter is weapons grade stupid. No editors at the Telegraph either?
‘with an ambition to limit temperatures to less than 1.5°C’
Using a decimal point shows that they do in fact have a sense of humor.
Man might have some control of CO2 emissions; Man has NO CONTROL OVER TEMPERATURE. To suggest we do is more weapons grade stupid.
‘Antonio Gasparrini, Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century.’
By whom? Associate professors of biostatistics? It is a stupid assertion. As are all of the assertions in the article. The Telegraph, your best source for junk science.