The mountain of failed predictions and significant flip-flops seems to be never ending when it comes to climate change experts.
For years they predicted (i.e. carelessly speculated) that a warming climate would increase the incidence of the nasty dengue fever disease.
But now researchers are reporting that the incidence of the disease could actually be reduced with warming climate change.
“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,” said Dr Harley, an epidemiology researcher at the ANU Research School of Population Health. ... The findings are also relevant to other mosquito-borne viruses including Zika because the mosquitoes that carry dengue also transmit the Zika virus. ... “There is significant concern in countries on the margin of the tropical areas where dengue is mainly found, that with global warming dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses such as Zika will encroach and become common,” Dr Harley said. ... “Previous projections have suggested that climate change will increase transmission of mosquito-borne diseases globally. ... “Our work, using a mathematical model based on Queensland conditions, suggests that dengue transmission might decrease with greater warming.”
Naturally, this is good news that all global warming alarmists should embrace, with the exception of a single caveat regarding the study that should give pause. This latest flip-flop was based on a computer model, which is quite simply, nothing but simulated research using limited empirical evidence.
The climate change fear-mongering generated by government-related persons and agencies has recently reached peak levels, with claims that are a mixture of absurd and just plain silly when compared to the empirical scientific evidence.
Such claims include the meme that rising global CO2 has caused accelerating, rapid US warming; that droughts are destroying all of our food crops; that more frequent and stronger weather disasters from warmer temperatures are wreaking untold harm; that global warming will shorten/threaten US life spans; that ever expanding wildfires are consuming our forests; and etc., etc., etc.
(One indeed wonders why so many Americans can't wait to retire to the tropical and warmer climates that Hawaii, Florida, Arizona and S. California offer if warm temperatures are so harmful and deadly.)
There are even bizarre claims that bumblebees' tongues are shortening and pumpkin pies are at risk, both supposedly due to global warming.
With all that said, the U.S. has the best weather and climate measurement capabilities in the world, with observations from a wide geographical dispersion and a extensive range of micro-climates, be it tropical islands or Arctic tundra. The most extensive and complete empirical evidence comes from the continental U.S., which the vast majority of the American population resides.
Instead of believing the promoters of doomsday screams about every single impending weather event being the next civilization-busting disaster, or the journo/pundits' propensity to shout about the hottest hour, the hottest day, week, month, summer and/or hottest year stats (take your pick) ad nauseum, it might be best to reflect on what the American public has realized about long-term climate change doomsday from the empirical evidence - it's a very thin nothing-burger.
To the empirical evidence.
The adjacent chart depicts several long-term climate record trends of 10-year averages (US hurricane landfalls, forest fire acres, drought, precipitation, maximum and average temperatures). The chart also includes the following 10-year average trends: atmospheric CO2 levels; the U.S. corn yield; and, the U.S. life expectancy trend from decadal census information.
As can be seen, the CO2 growth trend has been truly remarkable, only exceeded by the exceptional trend for corn yields (by the way, other agricultural crops also possess exceptional yield trends). And the increasing life expectancy trend for Americans is none too shabby either.
In contrast, the charts reveal the truly unexceptional, unremarkable long-term trends for any climate/weather attribute previously predicted to worsen from the modern era's CO2-induced climate change.
These fitted curve trends have yawn-inducing characteristics, indicating CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is spectacularly not the powerful greenhouse gas emission that experts conjectured about.
Conclusion: Although short-term variation extremes in weather attributes and incidents can be large and at times awe-inspiring, they are not climate change. Long-term climate change since the Little Ice Age has been dominated by a very slow warming, which the chart's 'average' and 'maximum' temperature trends reveal. The long-term climate change across the continental U.S. as represented by the precipitation, hurricane landfall events and drought are much more difficult to discern from their respective fitted trends (objectively, they are rather climatically insignificant overall). Forest fire acres burned has had an uptick in recent years (for bureaucratic reasons) but is vastly below levels reached in the early 20th century. All in all, human CO2 combustion emissions are directly linked to the great agricultural prosperity and vastly improved well being of the American citizen over the past century, much to the chagrin of doomsday cultists - whether yesteryear's or today's.
In other words, the politicos and bureaucrats predictions of gloom, doom and disasters were wrong, significantly.
Notes: Excel used to produce chart's fitted 2nd order trends. Sources of datasets used for chart can be found by downloading this Excel spreadsheet from MS OneDrive. For the temperature, precipitation and drought (PHDI) curves, 9-month YTD through September measurements from NOAA were used. CO2 levels used for its trend curve represents the September ppm value for each year. Corn yields represent the 'commodity and market' year reported. Both corn and CO2 had beginning values set to '10' in order that they would fit on a '0' to '150' y-axis (did not affect linear trends of either). Hurricane US landfalls observations used represent a per year average from the given decade's count of events. Life expectancy data are U.S. decadal averages for female/male and all races.
Article: Researchers analyze empirical evidence across 8 Korean cities. It is inescapable, cold extremes are much more dangerous for humans than heat waves. Cold waves boost admissions some 50% versus 5% for heat waves. From this peer-reviewed study, one can conclude that global warming will reduce the cold extremes, thus making it safer for human life.
The CAGW climate change alarmists and "experts" fill the mainstream media with frightening tales of looming disasters, including crop failures that will lead to mass starvation - but when compared to global warming reality and actual world rice production and yield, the research and empirical evidence show output results are enhanced, not harmed
(click on images to enlarge, data source, rice image source)
The green-religion fundamentalists have a long history of making crop failure and massstarvation predictions. A 2010 study by a group of academia warming alarmists added to the collection of doom prognostications of coming crop failures, due to anthropogenic warming from human CO2 emissions.
As the above chart on the right indicates however, despite the modest global warming since the 1970's, and the massive increase of human CO2 levels, world rice production increased and continues to do so. Why?
Well, certainly better agriculture methods and technology made fools of the green 'Earth Day' fanatics. In addition, the latest research actually documents with irrefutable evidence that rice crop yield benefits from both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.
Roy et al..."the five researchers from the Central Rice Research Institute of India conducted a three-year open-top-chamber field study to observe the effects of elevated as opposed to ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 vs. 390 ppm), as well as elevated temperature (T, 2°C above ambient temperature), on dry matter production, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant parts, and their allocation in a tropical rice cultivar...Results of the experiment revealed the following responses in the elevated CO2/elevated temperature treatment: (1) Dry matter accumulation in the aboveground portion of the rice plants was enhanced by 18.1% at maturity. (2) Root biomass, leaf area index and net carbon assimilation rates also increased significantly. (3) Grain yield was significantly higher (19.6%) in the CO2-enriched treatment. (4) The net carbon yield increased by 24.2%. (5) Nitrogen allocation increased significantly in leaf (13%), stem (14%) and panicle (17%) at maturity. [K.S. Roy, P. Bhattacharyy, S. Neogi, K.S. Rao, T.K. Adhya 2012: Field Crops Research]
1. Global warming alarmists' predictions of world hunger and mass deaths should not be believed
2. Green agenda-driven foretelling of crop failure and starvation from higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are obviously without much merit
3. Rice crop yield and production improvements will likely continue despite the doomsday predictions
Read here. Will the world's populace suffer from increasingly weird ear problems, more infections and aches due to global warming and climate change? How about more respiratory allergies or non-respiratory seizures?
Ask the IPCC "scientists" and the answer would be 'yes.' Why? Because their computer models told them so, thank you very much....Hmmm...remember how accurate the computer models were at predicting the predicting the swine flu apocalypse a few years back?
Fortunately for the world, the computer models used by the IPCC are again wrong. The impact of climate change on health has been nil and appears not to be highly correlated with most infections and diseases.
"The three US authors [Miller et al.] - who hail, respectively, from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston -- say "there is concern that climate change may affect hay fever and other allergic conditions by impacting pollen amount, pollen allergenicity, pollen season, and plant and pollen distribution," because "allergy and atopic disease rates are rising, and global warming has been implicated as a possible cause."...annual prevalence data for frequent otitis media (defined as three or more ear infections per year), respiratory allergy, and non-respiratory seizures in children were extracted from the US National Health Interview Survey for 1998 to 2006, while average annual temperatures for the same period were obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency...report that regression analysis found that (1) "annual temperature did not influence the prevalence of frequent otitis media," (2) "annual temperature did not influence prevalence of respiratory allergy," and (3) "annual temperature and sex did not influence seizure prevalence." [Mia E. Miller, Nina L. Shapiro, Neil Bhattacharyya 2012: American Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Medicine and Surgery]
Conclusion: The impact of climate change on health appears to be of little significance, according to health research experts, and, of course, contrary to the UN's highly publicized hysteria published by it climate politics agency, the IPCC.
Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
The United Nation's IPCC agency has long predicted that the infectious disease malaria will spread due to global warming - new study says that's false
Read here. Like so many of the catastrophic claims and predictions that the IPCC has ginned up to scare policymakers and the public, the fear of malaria's spread from global warming was very effective. The only problem with the malaria claim was that the empirical evidence did not support it. It's another failed prediction by the very troubled UN climate agency.
New research by Paaijmans et al finally buries this specific piece of IPCC B.S. fear-mongering that left / liberal media "science" pundits (Romm and Revkin) always push on their gullible, anti-science audience.
"A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study...finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness...Simon Hay, an expert in malarial epidemiology at the University of Oxford, UK, who in 2010 reported a scant correlation between malaria and global warming, says that the study could have wide significance...Rising temperatures “may well contribute to the host of other changes that have occurred during the last 100 years that have caused malaria to contract in extent and intensity globally,” he says." [Krijn P. Paaijmans, Simon Blanford, Brian H. K. Chan, Matthew B. Thomas 2011: Biology Letters]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists, and other taxpayer funded alarmist scientists, have long predicted that global warming would cause catastrophic crop failure leading to mass starvation.
Unfortunately for the left/liberal alarmists, this 2011 growing season's bumper crops are again proving how wrong the United Nation's IPCC and climate alarmist predictions are - their constant prediction failure is simply a systemic characteristic of the embarrassingly feeble AGW-CO2 hypothesis.
"These people think you're stupid: We're supposed to ignore all those "bumper crop" reports and believe that trace amounts of CO2 are devastating world food production"
As the year 2011 is turning out to be a good year in terms of agriculture, the below charts clearly demonstrate the agricultural abundance that "global warming" has delivered to U.S. farmers since 1959. And, as this empirical evidence (corn, rice, soybeans and wheat yields) reveals, the feared global warming has actually proven to be a boon to feeding the world's hungry.
(click crop yield charts to enlarge - data source:)
Obviously, warming is good for food; and, more significantly, alarmist climate scientists and the United Nations have been robustly wrong, with significant consistency.
Read here. The IPCC's climate scientists and green global warming alarmists have long predicted that global warming will cause an increase/spread of malaria to higher latitude regions. As with most catastrophic AGW predictions, the IPCC and alarmists are wrong, again.
In a peer reviewed study, researchers analyzed all pertinent Finnish data from 1750 to 2008, which robustly confirms that malaria's incidence declined in the Nordic region while global temperatures increased. The decline occurred well before advanced malaria eradication techniques were implemented.
"The authors analyzed malaria statistics that were collected in Finland from 1750 to 2008 via correlation analyses between malaria frequency per million people and all variables that have been used in similar studies throughout other parts of Europe," including temperature data, animal husbandry, consolidation of land by redistribution and household size...report that "malaria was a common endemic disease in Finland in the 18th and 19th centuries and prevalent in the whole country," and they say that "mortality during malaria epidemics usually varied between 0.85 and 3%." Thereafter, however, they found that "malaria declined slowly in Finland without any deliberate counter-measures," such that "the last epidemic in Helsinki occurred in 1902" and "during the 1930s malaria was close to extinction."" [Lena Hulden, Larry Hulden 2009: Malaria Journal]
Read here. Image source. The UN's IPCC and world health experts predicted that global warming would grow the mosquito population and cause an increase in malaria incidence. There was no prediction by these "experts" that the mosquito population in portions of Africa would actually plummet and new malaria case numbers would shrivel. In fact, that is what has happened in Tanzania say scientists.
Researchers have found that the number of mosquitoes per insect trap has fallen from 5,000 to 14 over a 10-year period. This took place in villages with no DDT or bed nets. Some researchers think the decline is due climate change but there is no convincing evidence that would confirm that.
"But the lead author of the study...says that he is not convinced that it is just the changing climate..."It could be partly due to this chaotic rainfall, but personally I don't think it can explain such a dramatic decline in mosquitoes, to the extent we can say that the malaria mosquitoes are almost eradicated in these communities..."What we should consider is that there may be a disease among the mosquitoes, a fungi or a virus, or they're may have been some environmental changes in the communities that have resulted in a drop in the number of mosquitoes"...The research team also found anecdotal evidence that their discovery was not an isolated case..."Other scientists are saying they can't test their drugs because there are no children left with malaria.""
Read here. Damn, computer models say the darndest things. A peer-reviewed study utilizing computer simulations analyzed malaria statistics from Burundi. From this analysis, it was determined that mosquitoes really don't like warming thus malaria cases will decline as a result.
"The authors -- a mathematician and a statistician -- introduce their study by stating that "malaria is the main public health problem in the area of Burundi,"...employed Bayesian Generalized Additive Models (GAMs)..."the results of the GAMs show that an increase in the maximum temperature will cause an increase in minimum temperature," and they say that "the increase in the latter will result in a decreasing maximum humidity, leading to a decrease in rainfall." And these results, as they continue, "suggest that an increased temperature will result n a shortening of the life span of mosquitoes (due to decreasing humidity) and decrease in the capacity of larva production and maturation (due to decreasing rainfall)," so that ultimately "the increase in temperature will not result in an increased malaria transmission in Burundi,"..." [Hermenegilde Nkurunziza and Juergen Pilz 2011: International Journal of Global Warming]
Read here and here. Politicians, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, and the lamestream press go out of their way to implicate global warming as the cause of anything that is not desired, including diseases. They make these claims despite a substantial body of peer-reveiwed science saying otherwise.
Two new studies, Haque et al. and Toro et al., analyze the actual empirical evidence and find no connection between global warming and the incidence of malaria and incidents of heart failure.
"The authors write that "malaria is the most important tropical and parasitic disease in the world," noting that in 2008 there were an estimated 243 million cases that accounted for an estimated 863,000 deaths...Haque et al. looked for potential relationships between malaria incidence and various climatic parameters (rainfall, temperature, humidity, sea surface temperature and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation), as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is a satellite-derived measure of surface vegetation greenness...And in Bangladesh, where malaria is endemic, they report that in that same year, malaria morbidity and mortality totals were 84,690 and 154, respectively...The six scientists report that "after adjusting for potential mutual confounding between climatic factors there was no evidence for any association between the number of malaria cases and temperature, rainfall and humidity," and they say that "there was no evidence of an association between malaria cases and sea surface temperatures in the Bay of Bengal and NINO3." [Ubydul Haque, Masahiro Hashizume, Gregory E. Glass, Ashraf M. Dewan, Hans J. Overgaard, Taro Yamamoto 2010: PLoS ONE]
"Working with data pertaining to 7450 cardiovascular-related deaths that occurred within Budapest, Hungary, between 1995 and 2004 -- where the deceased were "medico-legally autopsied" -- Toro et al. looked for potential relationships between daily maximum, minimum and mean temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed, global radiation and daily numbers of the heart-related deaths...scientists report and restate their primary finding numerous times throughout their paper, writing that (1) "both the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures tend to be lower when more death cases occur in a day," (2) "on the days with four or more death cases, the daily maximum and minimum temperatures tend to be lower than on days without any cardiovascular death events," (3) "the largest frequency of cardiovascular death cases was detected in cold and cooling weather conditions," (4) "we found a significant negative relationship between temperature and cardiovascular mortality," (5) "the analysis of 6-hour change of air pressure suggests that more acute or chronic vascular death cases occur during increasing air pressure conditions (implying cold weather fronts)," (6) "we found a high frequency of cardiovascular death in cold weather," (7) "a significant negative relationship was detected between daily maximum [and] minimum temperature[s] and the number of sudden cardiovascular death cases," and (8) "a significant negative correlation was detected between daily mean temperature and cardiovascular mortality." [Klára Törő, Judit Bartholy, Rita Pongrácz, Zsófia Kis, Éva Keller, György Dunay 2010: Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine]
Read here. The recent outbreak in Europe of the 'blue tongue' disease (cattle, sheep, goats, etc. are affected) has been blamed on climate change due to global warming. In a peer-reviewed study, scientists have determined that global warming is not the culprit - AGW alarmists are blue as a result.
"The two German researchers report that "BTD was the first 'exotic' disease to arrive," but that "it did not slowly spread northwards but jumped in through a still unknown entry point.".....As for possible routes of introduction of the virus, they mention BTV-positive ruminants imported either legally or illegally, virus-carrying midges transported by wind over hundreds of kilometers, accidental importation by ship or aircraft, contaminated vaccines and trade with the products of infected animals.....Kampen and Werner conclude that "it is due to continuing globalization rather than to climate change that even central and northern Europe are at risk of new pathogens as well as vectors of disease entering and establishing."" [Helge Kampern and Doreen Werner 2010: Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift]
Read here, here and here. The incredible, stuck-on-stupid, global warming causes everything and anything to happen is revealed again by the left/liberal chattering classes. The latest example of progressive idiocy is the claim that recent riots in Tunisia and Egypt are the result of global warming.
"Paul Krugman joins the crowd who think that they can see the signal of greenhouse emissions in noisy, short-term data on food prices, and then construct a chain of causality to the ongoing unrest in the Middle East. Such tenuous claims of attribution have about as much scientific standing as Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of the vengeful wrath of God.....Like Pat Roberson's attribution of Katrina to the wrath of God in punishment for our sins, Krugman's attribution of unrest in the Middle East to the wrath of Climate in punishment for our sins is in one sense just emotive commentary from an uninformed pundit. On the other hand, to the extent that Krugman's views shape policy, they are simply misguided and misleading."
Previous "how to spell stupidity" postings: Part I and Part II. Additional Krugman postings here and here. Conservatives, moderates and independents often wonder why their liberal friends sound sooo stooopid: the answer is K-R-U-G-M-A-N, and other chattering idiot-elites who live and breathe stupidity for their readers, viewers and listeners from the major MSM outlets.
Update 2/9/11: Additional critical analysis of 'stuck on K-R-U-G-M-A-N': here and here.
Read here. As has been well documented, the IPCC, AGW scientists and alarmist politicians have predicted the global warming will cause the spread of malaria infections. The actual empirical evidence has been unequivocal though: the spread of malaria has decreased while the world has warmed, clearly an irrefutable contradiction of "expert" predictions.
Recently, a new peer-reviewed study examining the data from western Africa once again confirms that climate change is not the cause of increased malaria infections or deaths.
"...the five U.S. researchers linked reported malaria cases and deaths from the years 1996 to 2006 that they obtained from the World Malaria Report (2008) for ten countries in western Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo) with corresponding climate data they obtained from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.....Jackson et al. report that their analyses showed that "very little correlation exists between rates of malaria prevalence and climate indicators in western Africa."...This result, as they describe it, "contradicts the prevailing theory that climate and malaria prevalence are closely linked and also negates the idea that climate change will increase malaria transmission in the region."" [Monica C. Jackson, Laura Johansen, Cathy Furlong, Abigail Colson and Kimberly F. Sellers 2010: Statistica Neerlandica]
Read here. Empirical evidence continues to accumulate that a warming climate will save lives by making cold weather seasons less cold and thus less dangerous to health. UK death statistics reveal that for every additional summer death due to increased warming, the warmer winters saved 29 lives each year - a huge net benefit.
These findings are totally contrary to the latest IPCC predictions:
"The authors write that "the IPCC AR4 states with very high confidence that climate change contributes to the global burden of disease and to increased mortality..."
"Christidis et al. extracted the numbers of daily deaths from all causes from death registration data supplied by the UK Office of National Statistics for men and women fifty years of age or older in England and Wales for the period 1976-2005.....they compared the death results with surface air temperature data that showed a warming trend during the same three-decade period of 0.47°C per decade.....the three scientists report that if no adaptation had taken place, there would have been 1.6 additional deaths per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year over the period 1976-2005, but there would have been 47 fewer deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 29.4, which represents a huge net benefit of the warming experienced in England and Wales over the three-decade period of warming." [Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010.]
Read here. Global warming alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists predict all sorts of evil doings because of increased temperatures. A very prominent prediction made to frighten the gullible and the ignorant (liberal/progressives, MSM reporters, Hollywood celebrities, etc.) is that "warming" will have negative impacts on food production. Chinese scientist decided to conduct scientific research to determine the validity of this IPCC alarmist claim.
The Chinese research concluded that in the case of wheat, its production increased from 2.5%-6.0% depending on the actual warming conditions, just the opposite of the 5-10% production decrease predicted by climate models and experts.
"...the Chinese researchers [Xiao et al.] say it has been predicted that "the average temperature in the semiarid northwest portion of China in 2050 will be 2.2°C higher than it was in 2002," and they report that based on the observed results of their study, this increase in temperature "will lead to a significant change in the growth stages and water use of winter wheat," such that "crop yields at both high and low altitudes will likely increase," by 2.6% at low altitudes and 6.0% at high altitudes.....Even without the benefits of the aerial fertilization effect and the anti-transpiration effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, the increase in temperature that is predicted by climate models for the year 2050, if it ever comes to pass, will likely lead to increases in winter wheat production in the northwestern part of China, not the decreases that climate alarmists routinely predict." [Xiao, G., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Wang, R., Yao, Y., Zhao, H. and Bai, H. 2010]
Read here. One of the most blatant lies spread by global warming alarmists is the one that warmer temperatures always cause an increase in deaths. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim, but that hasn't stopped the leftists/liberals/progressives/Democrats from lying to the public about this issue.
Will this new study stop the lying by Democrats? Not likely, but for those who prefer objective science to propaganda, this study clearly indicates warmer temperatures enhance life expectancy - there are less cardiac/respiratory/digestive related deaths when its warmer. This might explain why there is a mass migration by U.S. natives to warmer states of Arizona,Texas and Florida, away from the colder U.S. states. (click on image to enlarge)
"...authors obtained meteorological data from weather stations situated in eight of the provincial capitals that covered the period 1980-1998, while they obtained contemporary mortality data from the country's National Institute for Statistics for deaths associated with cardiovascular, respiratory and digestive system diseases.....Various analyses of the monthly-averaged data revealed a number of interesting results. First, for all three of the disease types studied, Fernandez-Raga et al. found that "the death rate is about 15% higher on a winter's day than on a summer's day," which they describe as "a result often found in previous studies,".....The data clearly demonstrate that the people of the Castile-Leon region of Spain are much more likely to die from a cardiovascular disease in the extreme cold of winter than in the extreme heat of summer. And the same holds true with respect to dying from respiratory and digestive system diseases: cold is a much greater killer of people than heat is almost everywhere in the world..."
Read here and here. Historical evidence from peer-reviewed studies indicates that the worst famines were experienced during droughts of climate cooling phases. When the world experienced global warming phases, drought induced famines, and the subsequent deaths, declined.
"In analyzing the linkages they [Zhang et al.] found to exist among these different factors, the international (Chinese, French, German, Norwegian) team of researchers concluded that "food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts," while specifically noting that "cooling shows direct positive association with the frequency of external aggression war to the Chinese dynasties mostly from the northern pastoral nomadic societies, and indirect positive association with the frequency of internal war within the Chinese dynasties through drought and locust plagues," which have typically been more pronounced during cooler as opposed to warmer times."[Zhang, Z., Tian, H., Cazelles, B., Kausrud, K.L., Brauning, A. Guo, F. and Stenseth, N.C. 2010]
The actual empirical evidence undeniably shows that the world has not suffered a major death-drought over the past two decades, when modern global warming was at its peak. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: 20th century famines primarily due to political reasons initiated by totalitarian, leftist regimes (Soviet Union, North Korea, and China) are not included in the above chart.
Read here. For the period of 2000 to 2008, deaths from all causes averaged 58 million per year. And those from severe weather events? 32,000 per year. This was a during a period when global climate change was supposedly dramatic and unprecedented, causing untold extreme death and destruction.
Yet, as a contrast, severe weather deaths averaged 485,000 per year during the 1920's, over 10 times higher than the present.
Why would the world's politicians of the left and the left/liberal biased media present the case that the world, in recent decades, has suffered untold misery at the hands of climate change when the facts are just the opposite. Why do they focus attention on only 32,000 deaths when over 58 million are dying from other major causes (starvation, malaria, cancer, etc.)?
As has been discussedbefore, the left-liberal-progressive-socialist agenda is one of enrichment and empowerment, for themselves. These people do not care about climate change nor global warming nor global cooling nor any actual facts. They are habitual liars about climate change because they feel that the truth will stop their momentum. That is why climate change has been blown totally out of proportion when viewed against the world's other major issues.
The severe issues that the world faces will never be solved until the left quits trying to enrich themselves via power grabs for world government control. Don't think that's a reasonable assessment of what the left is trying to accomplish? Well, read their own words and then you may finally understand the rationale behind the "climate change" farce.
Read here. Since the Little Ice Age end, the globe has warmed. Global warming alarmists and IPCC scientists predicted that malaria would spread across the world as global warming occurred. As is almost always the case, the alarmist predictions were wrong. From a recent peer-reviewed study, the blue areas of map reveal world regions where malaria decrease; red shows areas of increase. (click on image to enlarge)
Why didn't malaria spread as predicted? Because the prediction was based on known falsehoods about the disease (in different terms, the IPCC lied.) What really caused the malaria decrease? (Note: In reality, global warming didn't cause the decrease.)
"One of the standard tenets of the global warming bible is that malaria will get worse as temperatures rise. We’ve addressed this many times before, primarily by noting that the link between high temperatures and high malaria infection rates is anything but straightforward. Infectious disease expert Paul Reiter is quick to point out that malaria has been observed inside the Arctic Circle…and this is obviously not typical of a so-called “tropical” disease".....this simple comparison illustrates that despite warming global temperatures, the combined natural and anthropogenic forces acting on the disease throughout the twentieth century have resulted in the great majority of locations undergoing a net reduction in transmission between one and three orders of magnitude, larger than the maximum future increases proposed under temperature-based climate change scenarios…When compared to the substantially smaller proposed magnitude of climate-induced effects, an important and simple inference is that [climate change impacts] can be offset by moderate increases in coverage levels of currently available interventions."
Read here. If it isn't obvious by now, scientists in recent years have become totally enamored with claiming some type of causal relationship with global warming, knowing full well that the mainstream media "science reporters" will gleefully repeat the claims. The reporters will accept any scientist's press release without doing any legwork or critical thinking to determine if the "global warming" assertion pasts the smell test. Science reporters from Reuters, AP, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time and the NY Times are infamous for this type of lamebrain journalism. (click on image to enlarge)
The latest example of reporting bogus global warming claims is the spread of a killer fungus disease from Canada to the U.S. during a supposed period of global warming. The claim was made and repeated by the MSM press despite temperature records showing that the U.S. states where the fungus disease was spreading were actually cooling, not warming.
From about 1999 to 2003, the outbreak was primarily confined to Canada’s Vancouver Island, but during 2004 to 2009, instances of the disease spread to the mainland coast of British Columbia, and then southward to coastal Washington and Oregon—all locations with a relatively similar climate of wet, mild winters....If global warming were to blame, the disease ought to be moving northward into regions where it would have otherwise been too cold in years past. Moving southward because of climate change doesn’t make any sense, as the conditions for the occurrence of the disease would have already been well-established to the south.
Read here. Climate alarmists claim that increased CO2, and the supposed wicked warming it will produce, will cause agriculture to decline, leading to starvation and death. Peer-reviewed research refutes this mindless speculation when applied to rice production.
"Even considering the overly-inflated temperature increases predicted by the IPCC, the estimated net effect of global warming and concomitant growth in anthropogenic CO2 emissions ends up producing an increase in rice production in the world's most populated country, where it is the people's single most important food source. This is a blessing that simply cannot be ignored."
Read here. Over several decades, global minimum temperatures have increased. Daily temperature average is calculated using the daily minimum and maximum temperatures. If the minimum temperature is increasing, then the daily average will also increase. (At the same time, the difference between daily maximum and minimum temperatures is shrinking. Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR) = the difference between a day's
maximum and minimum air temperature.)
Chinese researchers found that as the minimum temperature increases (DTR decreases), there resulted in substantially less elderly deaths caused by coronary heart disease.
"And since it has long been known that the DTR has declined significantly over many parts of the world as mean global air temperature has risen over the past several decades (Easterling et al., 1997), it can be appreciated that the global warming with which this DTR decrease is associated (which is driven by the fact that global warming is predominantly caused by an increase in daily minimum temperature) has likely helped to significantly reduce the CHD mortality of the world's elderly people."
Read here. Global warming scientists and alarmists have made non-scientific claims and predictions that global warming will increase the spread of disease. Peer-reviewed research reveals the predictions to be without merit.
"In fact, he concludes that "shifts in climate suitability might actually reduce the geographic distribution of some infectious diseases." And of perhaps even greater import (because it is a real-world observation), he reports that "although the globe is significantly warmer than it was a century ago, there is little evidence that climate change has already favored infectious diseases."
Read here. The actual science has found the following: warm is good, cold is death. More global warming will save lives.
In further discussing their findings, Deschenes and Moretti state that "the aggregate magnitude of the impact of extreme cold on mortality in the United States is large," noting that it "roughly corresponds to 0.8% of average annual deaths in the United States during the sample period." And they estimate that "the average person who died because of cold temperature exposure lost in excess of ten years of potential life [italics added]," whereas the average person who died because of hot temperature exposure likely lost no more than a few days or weeks of life. Hence, it is clear that climate-alarmist concerns about temperature-related deaths are wildly misplaced, and that halting global warming - if it could ever be done - would lead to more thermal-related deaths, because continued warming, which is predicted to be greatest in earth's coldest regions, would lead to fewer such fatalities.
Read here. As the scientific world wasrockedthe past few days by the fraud and lies perpetrated by IPCC climate scientists, it should not be forgotten that lying, and other non-scientific methodologies, have been employed by various UN agencies to make ludicrous claims about human CO2 and climate change. One of the more egregious examples was W.H.O. totally misrepresenting health, carbon and economic statistics to suggest the world's human health is declining because of CO2. In reality, the exact opposite is true - the growth in human carbon use and increasing levels of CO2 emissions is highly correlated with improved health and increased life expectancy.
"In fact, increased health is, if anything, associated with both
increased economic development (GDP per capita) and higher carbon
emissions per capita. That is, these figures suggest that the World
Health Organization has it backward!!"
Read here. The new and robust vegetation growth in Africa comes as no surprise to those who follow the actual science of CO2 impact on the biosphere. Vegetation, be it grasslands or forests or agriculture, love higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures. It's not only Africa that will improve due to more CO2 and warmer temperatures, the entire world will.
Read here. As the public has become weary of all wild predictions of catastrophe due to global warming and climate change, another speculative claim falls victim to actual data and peer-reviewed research.
Read here and here. Climate alarmist scientists have spent billions on research regarding low probability, extreme weather events- floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes, wildfires, windstorms, and, etc. The number of potential lives saved from this research is a small fraction of yearly deaths from other causes. Did climate alarmist scientists' greed siphon away needed funds from much more important, critical science and practical solutions for solving non-global warming deaths? Will developing countries initiate criminal or legal actions against institutions and/or scientists for the harm done?
Read here and here. As the MSM widely publicized, a "scientific" study announced that global warming was causing 300,000 deaths per year, which was an inconvenient non-truth since the study was fabricated by climate change radicals. In contrast, the MSM did not go out of its way to describe the radical environmentalist's agenda of killing 1,000,000 children per year via malaria. This is what will actually happen because radical green organizations pushed the UN and WHO to prohibit the use of DDT, a proven, inexpensive life-saver. Ahhhhh, environmentalist hypocrisy, soooooo obnoxious.