Another modeling claim: Heat-related deaths likely to increase significantly as global temperatures rise

From Springer and the “people are too poor to pay for electricity to keep cool” department, comes yet another ode to the Paris Agreement. Apparently, Vietnam will be hardest hit.

Heat-related deaths likely to increase significantly as global temperatures rise, warn researchers

Models show that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is critical to avoid a large increase in temperature-related deaths

The world needs to keep global temperatures in check by meeting the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, or more people could die because of extreme temperatures, say authors of a new study in the letters section of Springer’s journal Climatic Change.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015 under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), binds nations to hold warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) in global mean temperature, relative to pre-industrial levels. It also urges countries to make additional efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), this is the first study that evaluates global temperature-related health impacts under scenarios consistent with the Agreement. The researchers assessed the mortality impacts projected for a range of temperature increases, either compatible with the thresholds set in Paris (1.5°C and 2°C) or higher (3°C and 4°C). These projections took into account how an increase in heat-related deaths might be offset against a decrease in deaths due to cold, as global temperatures rise.

The scope of the study allowed global comparisons across various areas of the world. The team at LSHTM first analyzed historical data on temperature-related deaths from 451 locations in 23 countries with different socio-economic and climatic conditions. They then projected changes in mortality under climate scenarios consistent with the various increases in global temperature, while keeping demographic distributions and temperature-health risks constant.

The results indicated dramatic increases of heat-related deaths under extreme warming (3°C and 4°C) compared to the mildest threshold (1.5°C), with additional excess mortality ranging from +0.73 per cent to +8.86 per cent across all regions. The net difference remained positive and high in most of the areas, even when potential decreases in cold-related deaths were considered.

The picture was more complex when comparing 2°C versus 1.5°C warming. A net increase in deaths was still projected for warmer regions such as South America, South Europe, and South-East Asia (with changes ranging from +0.19 per cent to +0.72 per cent), while in cooler regions the excess mortality was predicted to stay stable or drop slightly.

The results support the assessment of an upcoming Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scheduled for approval in October, that evaluates the health risks associated with 1.5°C and 2°C of warming.

“Our projections suggest that large increases in temperature-related deaths could be limited in most regions if warming was kept below 2°C,” explains Ana Maria Vicedo-Cabrera, the first author of the study. “Under extreme changes in climate, large parts of the world could experience a dramatic increase in excess mortality due to heat. This would not be balanced by decreases in cold-related deaths. Efforts to limit the increase in global temperature to below 1.5°C could provide additional benefits in tropical or arid regions, including the most populous and often poorest countries.”

Antonio Gasparrini, co-author of the study, says: “We hope that the results will help convince nations to take decisive actions by implementing ambitious climate policies consistent with the Paris Agreement in an effort to save lives. Currently, we are on a trajectory to reach over 3°C of warming, and if this trend continues there would be serious consequences for health in many parts of the world.”


The paper:: Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M. et al (2018). Temperature-mortality impacts under and beyond Paris Agreement climate change scenarios, Climatic Change Letters DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2274-3

96 thoughts on “Another modeling claim: Heat-related deaths likely to increase significantly as global temperatures rise

    • Chaamjamal

      Thank you. That was the first question that popped into my head. Isn’t it also the case that the northern and southern hemispheres will warm more than equatorial regions?

      It’s also notable they don’t seem to mention the 120,000,000 predicted to die from smoke inhalation (WHO) from burning animal faeces and wood for cooking and heating. I wonder if these people are simply considered collateral damage in the insane drive to stop a minuscule and beneficial amount of anthropogenic CO2 being added to the atmosphere?

        • And when they get upset they paint signs, put on silly costumes and march in the streets which in turn upsets the commuters.

        • According to the paper, even at +1.5C (warmer than today) more excess deaths from cold than heat will occur in Vietnam, Phillipines, and Taiwan. Thailand is the only nation they studied where heat deaths were projected larger at +1.5C and that’s not by much.

          The paper isn’t actually claiming that warming will cause excess heat deaths to outnumber excess cold death. It’s claiming that the increase in (less numerous) heat deaths will outweigh the decrease in (more numerous) cold deaths. This is a surprising claim to me, but since it’s based on no change in vulnerability between now and the future it can never actually be tested.

        • If you aren’t used to it, dropping into the low 70’s and 60’s can be life threatening if your only clothes are a loin cloth.

  1. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. So the obvious approach to this problem is for countries to gradually reduce their populations to numbers for which they can afford to supply appropriate air conditioning.

    • You don’t know how close you are to what they really want. 30 years ago I discovered while doing research for a paper that they really wish the population be reduced to what it was when Ceaser was emperor of Rome (200 million) a reduction in population of 98%!! (of course with them in control)

  2. How can they model this change? Several reports here at WUWT place excess mortality due to cold as 19 or 20 times greater than due to heat. Now it shifts dramatically toward excess mortality due to heat with a slight temperature change? If this was true those white-haired ladies moving from winter-time Chicago to Miami would just vaporize instantly? This reads like some pre-conceived notion modeled to fit.

      • RyanS, also here at WUWT there is a call against ad hominen attacks, but your question deserves a reply, therefore, Sir, I pass gas in your general direction.

      • I know you’re just a troll, but let me ask you this; If you’re so convinced you’re right all along, why not take me up on a wee wager, put your home & pension on the line! If I’m wrong about AGW, you can have my house! If you’re wrong, I get the lot from you! Be warned, we’ve already passed the 2014 Arctic Ice-Free metric & 4 years on it’s not yet ice-free in the Summer, plus no further globul warming for the last 20 years to date! What say you?

    • Probably because their stupid “models” ASSUME (because they programmed them that way) that higher “average” temperatures will produce more “heat waves,” when no such thing has been observed in reality.

  3. “The net difference remained positive and high in most of the areas, even when potential decreases in cold-related deaths were considered.”

    But, but does that mean we can no longer trot out the warmer is better schtik? Nah.

    • RyanS

      You might want to read Chaamjamals post (first one of this article) before making your predictably stupid comments.

    • It is also a case of dealing with events like the “heat wave” in England, where the average temperature isn’t even 20 C.

      • Tom, that’s cracking Summer for the UK, & some people have even been able to “plan” for a weekend! 😉

        • Alan the Brit


          No one in the UK ‘plans’ for a weekend, no matter the forecasts. We hold our breath and hope.

    • Even assuming the worst case, for 99% of the planet, warmer is better.
      For the other 1%, the warming won’t be enough to notice.

      • And it will mostly be in slightly warmer winter lows [Yeah, Models, I know – but those are the crazies’ numbers, not mine, so I throw them back].

        Admirer, as noted, of models in slim-line swimwear.

        • Auto

          Female models in swimwear I presume. But that might be considered a sexist assumption. Forgive me if so.

          Not that I care. In my youth I might have been ogled (indeed I know I was) by members of the opposite sex. I accepted it as a compliment, not a threat; indeed, an opportunity. And I know most women of my acquaintance felt the same, and still do.

          Male and female interaction make the world go round. I welcome homosexuality, I accept it’s fun and necessary for some, but the human race is predicated on procreation.

          The fact is if the last couple on the planet aren’t heterosexual, the human race dies.

          Remaining heterosexual is an achievement these days, and it shouldn’t be.

          Sorry, well OT.

    • Given that most of the areas in the paper show more excess cold deaths than excess warm deaths even *after* warming, I wouldn’t take for granted that the conclusion is correct.

      • Indeed. Cold is a killer. There’s a reason why the most prosperous times in human history were during periods of warmth. A warmer world is a better world. Does that mean every single place on Earth will be better in a warmer world? of course not (there are always outliers). But for the vast majority of the world it certainly will be, just as it has been all the previous times the world warmed up.

    • The simple historically proven fact that warmer is better really gets under you thin skin, doesn’t it RyanS dear boy. Perhaps you should spend some time considering why that would be. Could it perhaps be that it makes you realize your CAGW religion isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be?

  4. It’s another shame: The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is still highly regarded when they stay within their field of competence.
    Everyone (except the climate afflicted) knows the tropics aren’t likely to warm much, if at all. Geological evidence suggests equatorial latitudes actually get cooler when the earth as a whole is warmer. Any likely problems would be due to extra humidity, but they can no more predict rainfall patterns than they can predict regional temperature.

    • Most of the time when the earth was warmer, it was because the oceans were doing a better job of transporting tropical heat to the poles.
      Poles warmer, tropics cooler.

      • Richard Patton

        Can you provide a credible study which demonstrates, by empirical examination, that CO2 causes the planet to warm?


        Thought not.

        • Beats the heck out of me what you thought I was saying. I was just curious what study indicated that when the Earth was a lot warmer the tropics were cooler. I do know that at the heights of the last ice age the tropics were about the same temperatures as today which means that the ‘mid-latitude’ storms must have been pretty hellacious, think EF7 tornado?

    • I think we can also accurately say, “We will have MORE heat related deaths by instituting “green” energy “policies” than all the “climate change” in the world could ever muster.

    • Steve O

      120,000,000 expected to die by 2050 (32 years away) because they are forced to cook with cow shit and wood.

      They are pissing around with inconsequential numbers whilst people die in their millions because of the climate change criminals.

  5. The only problem for them(AGW LOVERS) is the global temperature trend has turned lower (late year 2017) and it is going to continue lower as we move forward for several years.

    As the magnetic fields weaken it should grow colder.

    Let’ see what AGW is made of . Up to year 2005 all natural factors influencing the climate were in a warm mode for several decades(which is why the global temperatures went up). Then post 2005 the natural factors STARTED to transitioned to a colder mode with this transition just about complete (now).

    So if AGW is real the global temperatures should continue to rise(in the face of natural factors in a cold mode), if it is not real global temperatures which have been falling will continue to fall moving forward and many of the items I listed below will not materialize.


    Global snow cover as of today above normal.

    Overall oceanic sea surface temperatures lower then a year ago.

    Global avg. temperatures trending lower last year or two.

    Earthquakes magnitude 4.0 higher increasing dramatically up 30% over the last month.

    Atmospheric circulation less zonal more meridional.

    Polar vortex no longer contracting northward.

    Global cloud coverage? I think it is increasing now.

    AMO possible flip to cold mode. PDO no longer in strong warm mode, which will diminish El NINO frequency and intensity.


    For RCP8.5 climate fraud…

    2 Brief description of the method


    These “time-slices” were obtained from three global climate models (GCMs, specifically HadGEM2-ES (Jones et al. 2011), IPSL-CM5A-LR (Mignot and Bony 2013), and MIROC-ESM-CHEM (Watanabe et al. 2011)) under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). The combination of RCP8.5 and the three GCMs was selected to ensure a warming level of up to 4 °C in GMT over the current century.

    We’re on track to a warming level of 0.5 +/-0.2 °C in GMT over the current century.

  7. This looks like it came from Captain Obvious… the question is what will happen with overall death rates caused by extreme temperatures (both cold and hot). And it is likely to go down.
    Edit: just saw the graph. OMG. There’s no way anybody can conclude something as ridiculous as that, unless they have been forced to believe that low temperatures will increase less than high temperatures, i.e. the opposite of what observations show.

  8. The number of deaths that could be attributed to the Global Reliance on Wind and Solar would be catastrophic. Air Conditioners powered by Coal Burning Power Plants will result in 0.00 heat-related deaths. They key isn’t to stop the natural warming, the key is to bring energy to the needy so they can cool their homes.

  9. They’re coming close, at least they said “Our projections blah blah blah”

    So they’re not *completely* passing the buck on this one.
    They could/would/should have said “We think blah blah blah” but somebody wimped-out.
    Tiz the Modern Way

    Right, lets talk Death
    Considering that 25% of *everybody* will die of a Cardio Vascular complication (‘cept in Uganda where AIDs will getcha) and considering also this:-

    “Diclofenac and ibuprofen, both commonly used drugs, were associated with significantly increased risk of cardiac arrest.
    “NSAIDs should be used with caution and for a valid indication. They should probably be avoided in patients with cardiovascular disease or many cardiovascular risk factors.

    From here:

    Why not let people eat a properly nutritious diet?
    How. Why.
    1. Eating sugar dehydrates you, due to sugar’s epic affinity for water. The first symptom of which is a mild headache. nuff said there. A lot of people think it’s actually a signal to eat something. And then they wonder why they’re getting so fat!!!!

    2. The sugar also chemically depresses you, so, you reach for the coffee to re-awaken yourself. Try taking sugar and booze out of your life and the *first thing* you notice= Caffeine gives you ‘A Bad Head’

    3. Nicotine is a poison also like caffeine – how does it manifest and what’s the cure if not a headache pill or another cigarette?

    4. What about the comedown from cannabis or any number of other legal and otherwise ‘stimulants’ – deemed so necessary these days? I am forced to defer to anyone/everyone else’s experience of these, I have none. Reach for the headache pill?
    (The sugar I’m talking about is all sugar: Fructose, Sucrose, Dextrose and not least: Processed and cooked starch= Glucose)

    Today’s wonderation is thus: Does warm(er) weather equate to an increase in the use of headache pills, especially Ibuprofen but all NSAIDS are implicated.

    Would a reduction in sugar consumption reduce the number of head-aches and thus the number of cardio vascular events?
    What is the mechanism of death of these people during heatwaves, CVD or heatstroke.
    What *is* heatstroke if not a complication of dehydration?
    Does the purchase and use of head-ache pills increase during ‘heat waves’? Is that triggering these deaths in folks who were ‘close to the edge’ anyway?

    Would my proposed reduction in sugar production, viz: The ploughing, tilling, nitrogen fertilisation and subsequent dessication of vast areas of the world’s surface (10% maybe?) affect the occurrence of hot weather events? More water retained in the landscape, increased albedo of the surface and (perennial) plants transpiring water vapour for 12 months of the year instead of just 3 or 4 months max

    Eating fat coming from grazing animals would have all those beneficial effects.
    (Assuming you imagine that reduced warming *is* beneficial)

    Innit a wonderful world?
    Especially as me myself I noticed during the recent UK heatwave and follower of my own advice – I lost over 5kg in weight during the heatwave.
    Yes I was active, in my garden and bouncing around like a loon in front of some very loud loudspeakers in various fields BUT, during the heatwave,
    I was simply not hungry

    What gives

    • Hello Peta. Is that big sugar refinery still there at Newark? I remember seeing it from the A1, and from the train. It stands out in that flat country. Haven’t been that way for quite a while; when I visit UK these days I mostly stay north of the border.

      Just wondering if it was a mistake to move to Newark, to be so close to a major source of sugar. Might cause you to get stressed out and start ranting?

      Just having fun, take no notice.

    • Let’s talk death. I almost died due to complications of HFCS. I lost 26 Lbs. since discovering what that evil was doing to me. 182-26=156 Lbs.
      After spending much time being skeptical of things. The research on sugar and many other things is much like the climate debate. Extremely biased.

      • Martin557

        Thank you for that comment.

        We had a campaign on the benefits of eating pasta and potatoes in the 70’s. We got fat.

        We had the opposite with booze, obesity, smoking, too much sex, too little sex, vaccinations, bees………you name it, and now there’s a sugar tax.

        Oh what!…….an excuse to tax something. Well I never.

        Educate people, fine, I accept that. Regulate them?…….Stick it.

        My health, my life my problem.

        • The problem is that once you turn payments for health care over to the government, your health does become everyone’s problem, not just yours.

          Yet another reason why it is a bad idea to turn health care over to the government.

  10. This scenario seems very dubious, as most of the warming has been at high latitudes, and is actually the overnight lows increasing, not the daytime highs.

  11. Electric fans are cheap and use only a small fraction of the energy required for AC.

    Even a small computer fan will keep you comdortable if blowing on you face regardless of how hot it is outside while using about 1 penny worth of power a week. Unless of course you live in Kalifornia where the price will be unaffordable unless powered by kale.

    • For some people, yes. However, those of us who are very heat-sensitive, not so much. If necessary, though, I will “sacrifice” and move to northern Alaska to keep my fossil fuels!

      (You had to mention kale. My shudder for the day, I hope….YUCK)

        • HotScot: Thanks for the invite, but it’s a bit too rainy there for my taste. The upper temperature of the UK is appealing for sure. I actually love cold and snow, as odd as that often seems to people.

          • Sheri

            Don’t believe the hype. Had around 3 or 4 wet days this summer. The South East is quite dry, the West coast not so much. I also prefer cooler weather.

  12. Alarmist’s claims are built on a foundation of sand, which they like to pretend is solid, even as their structure sags, sinks, and breaks apart. Sadly, and ironically, it is the very lame-brained policies that they champion regarding energy which cause increased weather-related deaths among the poor and/or old.

  13. Ugh. So much hubris, arrogance, and willful ignorance on display.

    First, because they assume that the warming we are experiencing is caused by human CO2 emissions, when they have no empirical evidence to support (1) that the rise in CO2 level is human induced, and (2) that increases in CO2 level drives temperature increase.

    Second, because even if their CO2 drives runaway warming BS is accepted as fact, the “Paris Climate Agreement” would, under those circumstances, have the effect of lowering the amount of temperature rise by an amount too small to measure for a duration measured in WEEKS a HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW, which hardly justifies destroying the world’s economy to “accomplish.”

    Third, because they are actually arrogant enough to assume (1) that human influence on the Earth’s climate is significant, in the face of geologic history that shows temperatures have been significantly warmer AND significantly cooler, all without any humans to blame it on AND without ANY indication that CO2 level has ever had ANY affect on temperature at all, and (2) that humans can “control” the range of “climate change” through the control/reduction/elimination of fossil fuel use, DESPITE there being no empirical evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever on temperature (or “climate”) beyond “hypothetical BS,” and despite there being NO complete understanding of “climate” at this stage, just a lot of “scratching the surface.”

    This “study” boils down to “In my model fantasy world, you’re all gonna die.” Meanwhile, in the REAL world, no such thing is going to happen the way their fantasy model “world” suggests.

  14. What the model fails to consider is human adaptation.

    We lived 10 years in Malaysia. Climate like Vietnam. Hot as hell comes to mind. The Muslim majority covers up head to foot as required by the religious police. Yet you never see them break a sweat. Us on the other hand in shorts and t-shirts have the sweat pouring off us.

    An even more extreme example is PNG even closer to the equator. In winter (24C) the locals are wearing gloves and ski coats while we are sweating away in our t-shirts and shorts.

  15. Of course people are going to die off rapidly from excess heat if the models are to be believed.

    I seem to remember calculating that if the rate of temperature change between 12:00 midnight and 12:00 midday (which around here is about +10 degC) were to continue unabated, it would only be about 4 days before the outside temperature exceeded that of boiling water….

    It’s wonderful what scares you can create with simple extrapolation….

  16. “Under extreme changes in climate, large parts of the world could experience a dramatic increase in excess mortality due to heat. This would not be balanced by decreases in cold-related deaths.”

    Confused: not be balanced by decreases in cold-related deaths? Shouldn’t that be the other way round or something? Either way it doesn’t make sense to this engineer!

  17. Why do you need a model? All they have done is assume that (i) it’s going to get hotter and (ii) that when it gets hotter, more people die. The model does absolutely nothing, adds absolutely nothing. If the base assumption they feed into the same model is that higher temperatures causes fewer deaths, then “the model” will show…..fewer deaths when it gets hotter.

    As Professor Hajek said about a different model:

    “The model only reflects whatever spurious assumptions are put into it. Starting with the opposite assumptions would generate the opposite result. This is no route to a scientific finding.”

  18. An activist had a fevered dream. Thrashing in their sleep, sweating and moaning and kicking blankets while dreaming of the fires of Hell for their duplicity and awoke with a revelation regarding the end of mankind from discomfort.
    What a joke!

  19. The analysis assumes no changes in population and vulnerability — but to get a high temperature change even if the models were correct, you need a *lot* of development to keep pumping that CO2 in the air, and development affects vulnerability.

    Does it seem unintuitive that increase in excess heat deaths would outweigh reduction in excess cold deaths? Is the conventional wisdom about excess cold deaths being a bigger problem wrong? In the supplemental tables here’s projections for excess deaths at +1.5C, warmer than today, by region:

    North America: 0.64% heat, 5.01% cold
    Central America: 0.61% heat, 4.18% cold
    South America: 1.34% heat, 2.63% cold
    North Europe: 0.50% heat, 6.77% cold
    Central Europe: 1.54% heat, 7.65% cold
    Southern Europe: 2.09% heat, 5.63% cold
    East Asia: 0.61% heat, 8.46% cold
    South East Asia: 2.43% heat, 2.55% cold
    Australia: 0.64% heat, 7.27% cold.

    Excess cold deaths outweigh excess heat deaths *everywhere*, even in Southeast Asia and in most places it isn’t close. And that’s not *today*, that’s in a warmer world than now. Of the specific SEA countries they used in their analysis, at +1.5C only Thailand had more heat deaths (2.87% vs 2.05%), Vietnam, Phillipines, and Taiwan were still losing more to cold.

    Now as the temperatures rise, the cold rates go down and the heat deaths go up. That seems reasonable enough; what’s not obvious (and as far as I can see, not explained), is why the smaller heat excess would increase more in absolute terms than the larger cold excess reduces in absolute terms, worldwide. This is especially unintuitive given that AGW is supposed to have its largest effect in reducing winter minimums in cold regions and its smallest effect on increasing summer maximums in warm regions. If Vietnam loses more to cold than heat at +1.5C, why would increasing another 0.5C increase warm deaths from 2.06% to 4.19%, but only decrease cold deaths from 4.33% to 3.99%? That seems — really odd.

    Of course, in colder nations they still benefit from going to +2.0C instead of +1.5C. You can see in the chart above that the US, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, China, Mexico, Australia, and other countries are killing their own citizens (by these projections) by limiting warming to +1.5C.

    Once you get into the unrealistic anomaly increases it becomes more strongly negative. So for example take China:

    +1.5C — 1.16% Heat, 10.33% cold
    +4.0C — 4.29% Heat, 7.57% cold

    Dramatic rise in temperature which should affect wintertime lows much more than summer highs — heat deaths more than triple, cold deaths about 25% less. No tipping point involved here — cold is still killing a lot more people at +4.0C.

    What about the US?

    +1.5C — 0.63% Heat, 4.89% Cold
    +4.0C — 2.55% Heat, 3.65% Cold

    Again, cold killing more people, but the heat deaths are quadrupling while the cold deaths are off about 25%. Surprising result, completely unexplained.

    But we’ve already warmed about +1.0C since late 19th century. And what’s happen to excess heat and cold deaths in that span? That information is not in the paper, though since the paper assumes the impossible (no change in vulnerability), the effect of the rise so far is bound to disappoint them. Air conditioning pretty much eliminates excess heat deaths, if you can afford to install and run it.

    There’s also the niggling detail that in the US winter minimums have seen a dramatic rise during the modern warming while summer maximums haven’t gone anywhere at all. So if the models they used are projecting something different, using actual history to see the effects of the rise of annual anomaly in the United States just won’t be useful. But if not based on history, what is it based on?

  20. Excerpted from article:

    The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015 under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), binds nations to hold warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) in global mean temperature, relative to pre-industrial levels.

    During the next 10, 20 or 50 years, …. the average global mean temperature could increase by 8 or 10 degrees Celsius (°C) and no one would die from that extra warmth/heat and 50% of the population wouldn’t even realize it was occurring …… simply because, in actuality, there was no extra warmth/heat being added or introduced.

    The afore noted “average increase in global mean temperature” ……. is simply the result of the near-surface temperatures not decreasing as much during the nighttime and/or during the fall, winter and/or other normally “cool periods” during the year.

    Whenever the normally cool/cold temperatures don’t decrease as much, …… then the average global mean temperature increases.

  21. Highly deceptive. In most countries with reliable statistics – especially temperate developed nations – cold related deaths are an order of magnitude higher than heat related deaths and comparing percentage changes gives the impression of similar numbers when they are not even close. That would be the most important deception if it weren’t for the fact this is all just modeling which means the “researchers” just put whatever parameters they wished (projected but imaginary warming, projected but unproven health effects, lack of adaptability, lack of technology change and lack of accounting for the ability to afford energy for self protection) into their computer program to get whatever outcomes they feel are likely to catch attention and get published.

  22. Vague, ominous warnings, based on a projection off of a presumption – with kind of a no-brainer premise to start – you probably wouldn’t get cold-related deaths IF it was getting warmer.

    I mean, how many shell games are working in there at once?

    • “people are too poor to pay for electricity to keep cool”

      And again, who’s cranking up the price of power?
      I seem to remember Obama telling me I didn’t have the right to keep my thermostat where I wanted it – and being Obama, he took steps to see to it that no one could.
      Seriously, a president that deliberately bankrupts a major industry that also happens to be a major source of power for the country he was charged with?

    • OK, what’s going on in Ireland? They are getting much more cold related deaths while the rest of the world is warming?

      How does that happen? Is the Guinness cooling things down…:^)

  23. This is just another waste of resources on another “What if ?” study that concludes if a region warms by x degrees, heat-related deaths will increase by y percent. This kind of “research” is worthless on so many levels. Whether the planet will be warmer or colder long-term cannot be forecast with any reasonable certainty. The first derivative of the global mean temperature trend line has been positive for the past 20 years but has decreased in value each month for the past 20 years. The derivative is likely to become negative in the mid-2020s and increase in negative slope well into the 2030s, i.e., the mean global surface temperature will decline. And how can mere mortals be so audacious to assert that the world community can unite sufficiently to tweak the minuscule content of CO2 in the atmosphere? And even if the CO2 content can be tweaked, will a tweak have any effect on the temperature of the planet? Science fictions gets no crazier than this.

  24. “people are too poor to pay for electricity to keep cool”

    So, let’s give them access to cheap electricity and air conditioning.

    Such an old fashioned solution that the people in charge are too dumb to let the people who need it have it.

  25. The huge levies on energy in the UK have resulted in about a 20% increase in the cold related deaths. I assume this is factored in when they talk about the death rate increase. Renewable energy fails to deliver any significant output here when we need it most in the cold foggy still winters and they are trying to force smart meters on us to have half hour slots for immense price hikes to cut demand. I assume it is so we choose to die from hypothermia rather than have them admit the murdered the victims with their Eco laws.

Comments are closed.