Bjørn Lomborg writes on Facebook about some new and surprising data that turn climate alarmist claims upside down.
Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters.
This is clearly opposite of what you normally hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events are happening. The number of reported events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, lower thresholds and better accessibility (the CNN effect). For instance, for Denmark, the database only shows events starting from 1976.
Instead, look at the number of dead per year, which is much harder to fudge. Given that these numbers fluctuate enormously from year to year (especially in the past, with huge droughts and floods in China), they are here presented as averages of each decade (1920-29, 1930-39 etc, with last decade as 2010-18). The data is from the most respected global database, the International Disaster Database. There is some uncertainty about complete reporting from early decades, which is why this graph starts in 1920, and if anything this uncertainty means the graph *underestimates* the reduction in deaths.
Notice, this does *not* mean that there is no global warming or that possibly a climate signal could eventually lead to further deaths. Instead, it shows that our increased wealth and adaptive capacity has vastly outdone any negative impact from climate when it comes to human climate vulnerability.
Notice that the reduction in absolute deaths has happened while the global population has increased four-fold. The individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters has declined by 98.9%. Last year, fewer people died in climate disasters than at any point in the last three decades (1986 was a similarly fortunate year).
Somewhat surprisingly, while climate-related deaths have been declining strongly for 70 years, non-climate deaths have not seen a similar decline, and should probably get more of our attention.
If we look at the death risk for an individual, seen below, the risk reduction is even bigger – dropped almost 99% since the 1920s.
Data Source: The International Disaster Database,http://emdat.be/emdat_db/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s “an individuals”?
Someone who forgot an apostrophe.
There is a problem of some kind with the graphs. The Indonesian tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 killed over 250,000 people all by itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami
He said it’s turned into decadal averages.
Unfortunitly I will not be around to see the latest end of the World”, 102 years is stretching things a bit, but as usual the IPCC, that is if they are still there will come up with a good excuse.
I thought that Climate was a 30 year thing, so lets stick to just calling it weather.
MJE
It’s because God’s chosen climate- and geoengineers are doing their very best to save to climate 24/7 all over the world.
Meanwhile nothing important happens, just a new ice age. Could last more than 400 years, as I said, nothing important.
“Grand Solar Minimum News with Lee Wheelbarger interviewing Charles Scott” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HasMPE_uhm4
“Professor Valentina Zharkova Confirms “Super” Grand Solar Minimum [Edited}” – https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/
“Ice Age Now” – https://www.iceagenow.info/
“New Ice Age Ahead” – http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/
“Adapt 2030” – https://www.youtube.com/user/MyanmarLiving/videos
“Ice Age Farmer” – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-Am0t4qQaP_Do9FwMWw3Q/videos
The Indonesian tsunami, like all tsunamis, was caused by earthquake not weather or climate.
This chart may be even more important chart than it initially seems, by proving our ability to adapt. What this means is that you can accept as Gospel Truth everything the Church of Climate Scientology claims about the impending Climate Apocalypse and STILL not come away with any immediate calls for action.
What is the evidence that spending resources on a series of half-measures and futile gestures to mitigate the global climate cycle is a better approach than adjusting to the climate as it comes? We have proof of our ability to adapt. And we have proof of our inability to mitigate.
It should be mentioned that he started his graph when the biggest natural disaster of the century , with something around 1,000,000 deaths , the floods in China occured . Also , it seems odd that apparently the hundreds of thousands who died in the tsunami of 04 didn’t register in his graph either . Or am I missing something ?
Yes, the flood in China was a weather event. It is of interest to note that was before CAGW. A tsunami, though, is not a weather event.
Other catastrophes of interest: The 8 million who starved to death during the Stalin’s “Holodomor” (1932-3) in the Ukraine was not a weather event The 40 million who starved during Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1958-62) was not a weather event. As evil as Hitler was, he was a third rate evil compared to Stalin and Mao.
The point? Climate Catastrophes pale into insignificance when compared to Socialist Catastrophes. The Socialist body count for the last century is upwards of 200 million. (By the way, the acronym NA*I stands for National Socialist German Workers Party. Uncle Adolph was a Socialist.)