One in every six babies in England are living in overheated homes, causing sleep disruption and serious health risks, according to new analysis.
The National Housing Federation (NHF) and the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) found that more than 70,000 babies are living in overly hot homes as climate change drives record temperatures across the country.
Air Conditioning is already legal Tim, it’s just that our betters have ensured that the electricity to power it is prohibitively expensive. So not banned per se, just unaffordable for the plebs.
As will occur (is occurring) with fossil fuels as hoi polloi refuse to follow their orders to buy EV’s and heat pumps.
No such problems for our betters though, obviously.
More legal for some than others. Story in Terriblegraph about Camden and Islington forcing people to remove legally-installed a/c because something wibble London Plan climate change.
The solution, of course, being to not live in Camden or Islington.
A workable solution, since most can’t afford to anyway!
Shirley, built-in split-unit air conditioners are just heat pumps so beloved by the Climate Zealots…? They can produced heat in the winter and cold air (and dehumidification) in the summer.
The correct response to any request to rip them out is, “fuck off, it’s a heat pump”…
The correct response ends at just “fuck off”
Shitholes.
Interesting. Are they going to ban air-sourced heat pumps as well (the same thing in reverse)? Or is the ‘Climate’ only vulnerable in summer?
The Grid is vulnerable in summer, in conditions such as these, as the Spanish proved. Of course, it’s vulnerable at all other times, too.
Personally I think we need a really big solar storm to sort everyone’s ideas out. That’ll whip the see-through clothes off the Emperor.
Bugger me with a dead badger. The Graun gets worse and morphs into a left wing Daily Express.
I bought a 6″ fan from The Range the other day. Tenner. Wanted it for a small space. Great.
Are Graun readers such a bunch of numpties that they have be told to go out and buy fans ?
Also in my expeience, babies that get too hot kick off their bedclothes. Dont clad them in thermal line SpiderMan suits might help a bit. My cat doesnt like the heat. But shes wearing a fur coat.
(Rolls eyes, kicks punkawallah)
Whilst most people don’t have Air Conditioning in their homes, where it is normally not needed, it’s pretty standard in new cars where it is.
Yesterday we enjoyed fish and chips in the beach car park, sitting in a nicely air conditioned car. Fortunately being a hybrid it ran off the battery so the engine was off.
It’s normal to heat one room of your house in winter, for some value of normal. What’s the best technology for a tight arse to cool a single room in their house – don’t want to cool rooms that aren’t being used
Where we are staying in Périgord there is a plumbed-in a/c unit in the bedroom. We’ve been running that at 20C all night We also have a fan/humidifier unit so we use that to direct cold air from the bedroom into the lounge area. With 40C outside in the afternoon the lounge is about 25C.
Amazon do a portable aircon for about 500 notes with a hose you can poke out of the window. That would work for a bedroom for the few days in the year where it makes sense in the UK. Not sure what the noise would be like though.
I have one but rarely use it. Noise level? That’s very subjective. I’ve spent most of my life living in the centers of cities where you always have high noise levels. I could quite happily sleep in a room with it running. Other people are going to say it’s like being next to a jet running its engines up for take-off.
I have one (unless anyone from my local council is reading, in which case I don’t). It’s very noisy, so I can’t sleep with it on. I run it for a few hours before bedtime and it more or less does the trick. You have to mess around with a fabric seal for the window though
Sparrowhawksearplugs, ma’m.Just got one for about 350. No trouble with the noise. The missus is back from the hospital but not too chirpy so she’s got it in the bedroom, pipe out of the window gap with various gaffer tape fixings. So far so good.
Crikey, I paid £120 from Homebase about ten years ago. Inflation (plus buying during demand?).
Apart from the noise, the big problem is that by venting the heated air out of the window a negative air pressure is created in the room. That will draw warm air in (from outside or from the rest of the house) which lessens the cooling efficiency.
I did consider stripping the facade off my unit and “building” it in to the top corner of my landing. Heated air would go into the roof space, cooled air would go through the wall into the bedroom. The bedroom would receive the full benefit of the cooling, have a positive air pressure and some noise detachment.
But I came up with a better solution.
Buy a couple of 5 litre bottles of water (I recommend the “HYDR8” brand because the plastic is still reasonably strong). Pour a bit out of each and put them in the freezer to fully freeze (the space is needed for expanding ice). A couple of hours before bedtime put them in the room, preferably with some height. Adjacent to the plastic covered ice blocks place a desk fan, power it on and point it up toward the ceiling. Appropriately placed, the fan will draw air across the ice blocks and shove it up high where it will fall naturally. In the morning put the bottles of water back in the freezer. Cool, quiet, cheap.
Notes. This is gentle cooling, not an aircon blast. The cold bottles will pull moisture out of the air and gravity will make it pool. Either put the bottles in a plant-pot tray or place a towel underneath them. Obviously, keep water well away from electrics. If, like me, you are prone to aches from drafts, make sure you don’t get direct fan output hitting you. The ice may crack noisily occasionally.
My bedroom is quite small so I can get away with a little slow USB fan which is very quiet. Similar “tech” is cooling me currently in’t’ office.
Ed Milliband can fuck off and die in a hot fire.
That looks like quite a good DIY solution for the usual 3-day heatwave in the UK. If we do start getting more of them or longer ones then something a bit more engineered and plug ‘n play would be better.
Don’t pipe hot moist air into your roofspace. Not unless you have an affection for dry rot.
Thanks for that warning.
I’m not sure how moist the hot air out of my unit is. I had to empty the water tank on it plenty when I was using it. Not going to risk the roof though!
Brilliant and thx
Build a garden room with an ‘air-to-air heat pump’ and a well-stocked bar. Done right no planning permission is required and you can use it all year round.
Open the hatch to the roof space – you do have roof space, don’t you? – and open the door to the cellar – you do have a cellar, don’t you? Close the curtains on the sunny side of the house, open the doors a couple of inches. The natural air flow will cool down the interior of the house. It’s 34C in my garden at the moment and 22C inside, with a nice slow breeze.
That’s actually how the original pan-tiles worked. Before people started thinking you had to cement all the gaps up & seal the roof space.
Pan tiles are clever because the radiative surface is pi/2 times insolation per m³.
Arab wind towers work beautifully in temps way above what we have now.
According to Kathryn Porter, we had to beg to breach a limit on importing leccie from the Frogs because our solar panels don’t work properly in hot weather…. WTF?
It couldn’t happen to a nicer locale. They voted for it, now they get to enjoy it.
See also in the Graun:
I like people cleaning up rivers, and I sympathise with him over the inaction of the so-called ‘Environment Agency’, but get fucked, Powlesland.
People like this are why we have so many stupid fucking enviroballs laws and the agency in the first place, and now all of a sudden he doesn’t like it.
I fucking love to see it.
He’s accusing that raw sewage is being pumped in to the river. They ain’t. There used to be two sewage treatment plants discharged into the Roding. One near Chigwell. The other south of Woodford Bridge. There was a third near Wanstead but that went years ago. Everything’s now pumped to a large treatment works at Beckton where the Roding joins the Thames. If there’s anything coming out of the old discharge pipes now it’ll be rainwater run-off.
If he believed untreated sewage was in the river would he really be wading in it to pull out trash?
He’s a male version of Charlotte Proudman. Always backing into the limelight.
Few months ago his houseboat got burgled and he was complaining about how useless the cops were. I remember thinking that since he was a commie committed to taking everyone’s shit it couldn’t have happened to a nicer candidate.
Related.
Related: amusing to see Oxfordshire council successfully banning England flags, because “communities”.
I went to Sainsbury’s in Wood Green yesterday. It’s completely draped in England flags and bunting, and selling nice England plastic cups for your beer, etc. It is notably full of “communities”, none of whom were batting an eyelid or showing any signs of fear, loathing or oppression. The swarthy security guard at the door was having a knowledgeable and enthusiastic conversation about England’s prospects in the World Cup with a couple of equally swarthy pals. All were clearly England supporters.
You could make a good case that tying England flags to lampposts etc is littering. The problem is the Limp Dumbs have no intention of applying the same logic to Palestine flags
The community never seems to have objections but they have people who will gladly claim offence when nobody is actually offended. And IYDLIFO.applies to them.
Exactly. A lot of years ago there was a fuss about the statue of a pig being removed from a park in Derby IIRC. Locals who complained were told it was because it might offend local muslims. Local muslims were WTF, we don’t care.
So it’s a pretext, this taking of offence by proxy, isn’t it? Just to fuck us up.
You can’t fly the British flag but you can fly the Ukrainian flag. You can’t fly the English flag but you can fly the Palestinian flag. You can’t fly the Scottish flag but you can fly the Pride flag.
Do the Welsh Dragon and the Red Hand of Ulster get exemption? Presumably not.
I repeat: the way to stop someone being “left-leaning” is to string him up.
The Red Hand of Ulster would get you arrested under suspicion of “supporting a terrorist organisation”
One in six, eh? What has it been for the last 3 millennia in the fine British Isles?
Knock up the old lady in spring so the baby will arrive in winter.
The climate of Great Britain has not significantly altered, except slightly less cold at night during Winter.
Babies need to be kept warmer then older children or adults, because they have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio (their skin area is three times greater compared to body weight than an adult), so lose body heat rapidly, they have little subcutaneous fat so are less well insulated from heat loss, and their thermoregulation mechanism is not fully developed.
This is commonly known – I thought. My parents certainly knew.
Keeping baby warm will depend on clothing, blankets and ambient temperature. If the latter is low, more clothing and blankets.
Anyone writing on the subject should know this. In any case define “overly hot”. What is “optimum hot”?
And… how do babies manage in tropical zones and hot Countries?
Yet more Net Zero propaganda. Turn the thermostat down! Use less energy! Disguised as concern for ‘ickle babies… emote, emote, emote.
“And… how do babies manage in tropical zones and hot Countries?”
You mean those poor areas of the Horn of Africa which have the highest rate of increase of populations? Despite or because of all the famines and wars and prodnose NGOs? Despite the birth survival numbers of black babies being worse than privileged whites?
Mystery, innit?
Just been out for a walk. Passed several cars sat idling, their occupant scrolling the phone whilst cooling off in the air conditioning.
See, Ed? That’s what people will do if you rip out their air conditioning. Respond to incentives.
Ed sees this and bans air conditioning in cars.
The parents of most of those babies are from countries where they would be wearing sweaters and anoraks if the temperature fell to the heatwave levels in the UK.
They’re still fucking wearing them here. Take a walk to the startlingly vibrant area near me called Nags Head and you’ll see Somali women in anoraks and dickhead homeboys in puffer jackets. Today. When it’s 33ºC.
TBF this is a mild spring day for some of them.
The cunts can fucking acclimatise if they want to live here on our bennies. I daresay they still have their central heating on, set to 30ºC. Bennies pay for it. CO2? What’s that?
In the UK, CO2 is a gas that we breathe out.
The main generator of CO2 in energy production is China which generates roughly one-third of the total, more than 33 times as much as the UK (and more than twice as much as the USA which is the biggest economy in the world). That excludes the vast amounts of CO2 generated by its coal-fuelled blast furnaces.
Climate change activists should be shouting at Xi JingPing – no-one else (not even Donald Duck) matters.
CO2 is a plant food. The mechanism by which it’s alleged to drive climate change is implausible. It’s merely a proxy for capitalism.
Firstly the claim about “Greenhouse gases” *is* plausible so if you want to refute it you will need lucid arguments supported by hard evidence (and the science is sufficiently complicated for lucid arguments to be in short supply), secondly challenging them to take on President Xi will help you spot who actually believes in “Climate Change” and who is a stooge for China (or Russia).
Bollocks.
A greenhouse is an enclosed structure which prevents convection out of it. That’s how it works, and why it has no theoretical limit to its possible heat gain. It’s also why greenhouses have openable windows and vents, to control the heat gain by allowing heated air to convect away.
The Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t: convection can and does convey heat to the upper atmosphere where it can and does radiate to space. For this we can thank the “greenhouse” gas water vapour, and the Water Cycle in general. It’s a self-regulating process, aided by cloud cover which changes Albedo. This is why the geological record shows no sign of there ever having been a runaway “greenhouse” event.
CO2 works by omnidirectional re-radiation of specific infra-red wavelengths. These wavelengths are a result of solar radiation being converted to infra-red in contact with the Earth’s surface. There is a finite and predictable supply of solar radiation; hence there is a finite and predictable supply of its infra-red by-product: CO2 has a limited fuel supply. NASA satellite data reveals that present concentrations of CO2 are already mopping up nearly all of the available infra-red.
Furthermore, CO2 has a doubling relationship to temperature rise: one must (more or less) double the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to gain an extra degree C of average surface temperature. Given that present levels of CO2 are already at or near fuel-limitation, greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a negligible effect on average surface temperature.
The IPCC concedes all of these points. This is a lucid argument supported by hard evidence, all of which is verifiable.
The threat of Greenhouse Gases is real because the Earth is enclosed by a glass sphere. There is nowhere for the heat and CO2 and the laughing gas kids use today to go.
Satellites and Moon landings are just CIA psyops.
Now you are talking bollocks. Heat is lost by conduction and radiation from a greenhouse. It gets warmer because while reflected light in the visible range can pass through the glass infra-red generally does not. There *is* a theoretical limit to its heat gain which can be calculated. By no means do all greenhouses have openable windows or vents.
The term “greenhouse gas” is well-known (and known to all scientists to be a misnomer) because the prophets of climate doom have been making headlines for decades although the earth does NOT resemble a greenhouse because it is not an enclosed structure.
Heat does not radiate! Heat *may be transferred* by radiation (including that in the infra-red range). If you want to be scientific heat is *a* manifestation of energy.
CO2 would only radiate energy if it received so much that its electrons jumped into a higher orbit; the claim is that it reflects some of the infra-red.
Infra-red radiation can be sourced from other things than reflected sunlight, so that statement is mildly inaccurate, but the energy reflected back into space is only part of that received so the percentage reflected back down by CH4 or CO2 or HFCs is not the limiting factor.
Heat is lost by conduction and radiation from a greenhouse. It gets warmer because while reflected light in the visible range can pass through the glass infra-red generally does not.
And there we have it. Of course a greenhouse will cool down by conduction and radiation when night falls or the sun goes in.
the earth does NOT resemble a greenhouse because it is not an enclosed structure.
Exactly. Heat transfers itself by radiation (to be pendantic) from the upper atmosphere to space thanks to convection.
The amount of available infra-red is the limiting factor. There are other sources than from solar but they are negligible in comparison. The falsification of the CO2 warming theory stands.
the energy reflected back into space is only part of that received
No. All of the energy received is emitted. (Plus a bit to allow for energy from radioactive decay) It has to be or the planet would get hotter>infinity or the cellulose build up would be miles thick. It’s in equilibrium. What keeps it in equilibrium is radiation is proportionate to temperature. Higher the temperature the more radiation.
It’s similar to a bar on an electric fire. The filament doesn’t heat to white heat & melt. It heats to the equilibrium temperature, where the heat being emitted balances the electricity doing the heating.
“radiation is proportionate to temperature”
Isn’t it to the fourth power of temperature? That’s a powerful moderating mechanism.
I don’t have to refute it, they have to do due diligence with their hypothesis that the radiative propertis of .04% of the atmosphere could cause a climate catastrophe. Based as it is on no experiment in the lab or the real atmosphere showing any evidence that the hypothesis is correct. A proper experiment, not a pepsi bottle left in the sum with either dry air or all CO2. Or a set of observations done outdoors showing a change related to small variations in CO2. I think you’ll find it has never been done and it all relies on models, parameterised models not really physics-based all the way down. And some models may be right (ha ha) but all the others must thereby be wrong, but they just smoosh them all together even models which can’t describe the past. The whole, all the way to the Chinese advantage, is the epitome of wrongness.
But they just shout “climate denier, climate denier!” if you ask them to do any *scientific* experiment.
I think the word you’re looking for is “heretic”, which as you know has a long history.
Elsewhere today I posted this, which is pertinent:
So how do you convince a flat-Earther? We asked Lee Mcintyre, a research fellow at Boston University and author of How to Talk to a Science Denier.
“It is nearly impossible to convince a flat-Earther with facts, because their beliefs are not fact-based in the first place,” he warns.
“Instead what I do is talk to them not about what they believe but why they believe it. I ask about their reasoning.
“The thing I’ve had the best luck with is to say ‘okay, so you claim your beliefs are based on evidence, right? So what evidence – if I had it in my back pocket – would convince you that you’re wrong?’
“And they can’t answer. That’s because they aren’t reasoning like scientists, who are willing to change their views when the facts change. Instead they are reasoning like ideologues, who will protect their identity-based beliefs with everything they’ve got.”
“A greenhouse is an enclosed structure which prevents convection out of it. That’s how it works…”
True.
“…and why it has no theoretical limit to its possible heat gain.”
False. Conduction and radiation still work. Heat is conducted/convected from the ground to the glass, conducted across the glass, and then conducted/convected away. The heat flow is slower, and it equilibrates at a higher temperature, but there is still a limit.
“CO2 works by omnidirectional re-radiation of specific infra-red wavelengths.”
No. The ‘greenhouse effect’ in the Earth’s atmosphere works because the atmosphere is partially opaque to IR, so when it radiates IR to outer space it does so from an average altitude of about 5 km. This is combined with the fact that gases warm up when they are compressed and cool down when they are allowed to expand. Air that is circulating due to convection acts like a refrigerator or heat pump, creating a fixed vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere called the ‘adiabatic lapse rate’. This is about 10 C/km for dry air, and about 6.5 C/km for moist air (due to condensation of water releasing extra heat). So the Earth’s surface is about 6.5 C/km times 5 km = 32.5 C warmer than it would be if it radiated directly to space from the surface.
It’s got nothing to do with downward re-radiation from greenhouse gases like water vapour in the atmosphere. The surface being warmer than the layer 5 km up is because of compression due to the weight of atmosphere above you. The layer 5 km up is what settles at the temperature needed to radiate as much energy to outer space as the Earth absorbs.
The magnitude of the greenhouse effect depends on the altitude of the IR-opaque surface visible from space. Ours is about 5 km above the surface. The clouds on Venus are 80 km above the surface.
(This is also incidentally why the centre of the sun is so hot. The fusion reactions in the heart of the sun have about the same power output per cubic metre as the human body. But they’re buried thousands of kilometres deep in a convective plasma that gets hotter when compressed. This was all worked out by Schwarzchild for stellar atmospheres originally around 1930, and the (competent) climate scientists adopted it in the 1950s, replacing Fourier’s incorrect ‘back-radiation’ theory.)
“It gets warmer because while reflected light in the visible range can pass through the glass infra-red generally does not.”
No. A chap by the name of RW Wood did an experiment in 1909 comparing greenhouses made of glass and rock salt. Rock salt is transparent to infra red, so doesn’t block any of the outgoing radiation, but the temperature increase under them both was virtually the same.
“CO2 would only radiate energy if it received so much that its electrons jumped into a higher orbit;”
No. Infrared absorption is generally due to molecular bending and vibration. A CO2 molecule has a positive charge on the carbon and negative charges on the oxygens, so when an electromagnetic wave passes through, the carbon gets pulled in the opposite direction to the oxygens. Similarly with H2O, where the hydrogens have a positive charge and the oxygen negative. Molecules can gain/lose vibrational/bending energy either through collisions with other air molecules, or by electromagnetic radiation.
“I don’t have to refute it, they have to do due diligence with their hypothesis that the radiative properties of .04% of the atmosphere could cause a climate catastrophe. Based as it is on no experiment in the lab or the real atmosphere showing any evidence that the hypothesis is correct.”
The radiative effects of CO2 and H2O were well-established by proper physicists decades before the climate scientists found out about it, and are not scientifically controversial. The problem with climate science isn’t the raw radiative greenhouse effect, but the climate feedbacks that magnify or shrink the result. The effect of CO2 alone would be about 1.1 C per doubling of CO2, but climate scientists scale this up to about 3.5 C/2xCO2 using feedbacks. Like, it’s warmer, so more water vapour ought to evaporate, and water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so this should further magnify the warming. Except, there’s evidence that it doesn’t. (The upper troposphere hot spot predicted by the models is actually a symptom of water vapour feedback changing the moist adiabatic lapse rate. The hot spot isn’t there, falsifying the models.)
The fundamental feature all the models miss is that the climate system is full of feedback control loops that stabilise the atmosphere. It’s like measuring the temperature of a pot of water boiling on a stove to be 100 C, and then putting the lid on the pot and expecting the water temperature to go up to 200 C. It’s not that the lid doesn’t reflect back some of the heat, because it does. It’s that there is a feedback process that increases the rate of heat loss through evaporation to steam hugely, that turns on when the temperature goes over 100 C.
Climate scientists are over-estimating the feedback – which has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Arguments about the greenhouse effect physics are a waste of time. (And people on *both* sides of the debate are usually wrong about it.) But you know how it is – if you don’t agree with them you’re a heretic, whoever you are.
Haven’t they started using the term “forcings” rather than feedbacks?
If I remember correctly they used to practice a little “gotcha” where they’d spring the knowledge that in their discipline the use of positive and negative in regards to feedbacks was different to classical physics and so you were wrong and an idiot for pointing out that it’s obvious the Earth’s climate is a negative feedback system.
Dunno. Arguments about Dark Energy (or not) are a waste of time because the state of our economy is not tied to any particular answer. But if we abandon the climate field to the benefit of the lunatic zealots we’re going to get a harsh lesson in communism.
The fundamental feature all the models miss is that the climate system is full of feedback control loops that stabilise the atmosphere.
Quite. Basically, what I said. The system is self-regulating. But I said that in 5 words, not 900.
It’s not sufficient to get the correct conclusion. You also have to get the correct argument leading up to it.
Like: – Socialism is bad because the word ‘Socialism’ begins with the letter ‘Q’ and the mice in the cuckoo clock told me that all ‘Q’ words are bad…
There’s significant radiation to space all the way from ground level to the ozone layer, and it varies from place to place (mainly due to variations in water vapour). The *average* is at about 5 km.
Oh, and radiation isn’t proportionate to temperature, as someone said above. It’s (approximately) proportionate to the fourth power of temperature. (Stefan-Boltzman law.)
The layer 5 km up is what settles at the temperature needed to radiate as much energy to outer space as the Earth absorbs.
I perhaps ought to point out that the average Cumulo-Nimbus cloud tops out at nearly 8km AGL with the big buggers, of which there is no shortage in the ITCZ and over Oklahoma, Toto, going up beyond 18Km. There’s quite a lot of heat energy in these, busting your 5km layer and spraying that energy straight to space.
Convection is our friend, yet somehow the IPCC fails to model it.
To be fair, though China still generates 60% of its electricity from coal this is changing fast. It has more electricity generated from renewables than anywhere else and is increasing them faster too. China is adding solar faster than the rest of the world combined.
Little point in shouting at them, or us for that matter.
Most years the increase in China’s CO2 emissions is greater than the UK’s total emissions. Since 2000 China’s CO2 from energy has grown from 3.3bn tonness to 11.1bn tonnes, the UK has declined from 0.57bn tonness to 0.32bn tonnes.
China is not adding solar fast enough, the growth in renewables is less than growth in demand so things are continually getting worse. UK is 14% renewables vs ,<3% coal, China is 58% coal, <6% renewable. China’s CO2equivalent emissions from methane and processes is *more than 100 times* the amount of the UK’s.
If (obviously a big “if”) the “climate activists are honest they should go and shout at Xi
I actually saw that happen, with a tinted import from Africa about 20 years ago. Warm night, but her home was heated to boiling point.
Yes, she was on bennies and yes the home was tax-payer funded.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But I know a lot of people from counties like that. And they feel the heat more than I do.
From today’s DT:
So how do you convince a flat-Earther? We asked Lee Mcintyre, a research fellow at Boston University and author of How to Talk to a Science Denier.
“It is nearly impossible to convince a flat-Earther with facts, because their beliefs are not fact-based in the first place,” he warns.
“Instead what I do is talk to them not about what they believe but why they believe it. I ask about their reasoning.
“The thing I’ve had the best luck with is to say ‘okay, so you claim your beliefs are based on evidence, right? So what evidence – if I had it in my back pocket – would convince you that you’re wrong?’
“And they can’t answer. That’s because they aren’t reasoning like scientists, who are willing to change their views when the facts change. Instead they are reasoning like ideologues, who will protect their identity-based beliefs with everything they’ve got.”
All of which rather nicely confirms my theory of empiricism and religiosity being separate, unconnected human attributes. Rationally to debate someone’s religiosity is a category error.
But… but…
Women with penises, men with cervices…covid coming from bats…
How are babies in the UK living in overheated homes and suffering ‘health risks’ while babies in Mexico are doing just fine.
Also, have these people not heard of ‘a fan’?
Racial differences: natural selection will result in those Mexican babies that can survive a warm summer having more grandchildren than those who do not.
There is, of course, the distance between reports in The Grauniad and reality which may be part of the explanation.
In case anyone was wondering what NHF and CIH do.
And why does it take two of them?
It’s called “Grifting”.
First rule of Government spending. Why have one when you can have two for twice the price?