MIT Technology Review: Pandemic Denial Shows Rising Climate Deaths Might Not Lead to Action

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate alarmists arriving at the horrified realisation that not everyone sees risk they way they do.

The pandemic taught us how not to deal with climate change.

We must transform the economy, not halt it, to prevent runaway warming. And we’re doing it far, far too slowly today.by 

James Temple
January 1, 2021

There’s a case to be made that 2020, for all the sacrifices it demanded and tragedies it inflicted, could at least mark a turning point on climate change.

But here is what frightens me the most about what happened in 2020.

Researchers and advocates have long assumed, or hoped, that people would start taking climate change seriously as it began to inflict real harms. After all, how could they continue to deny it and refuse to take action once the dangers were upon them and their families?

But what we’ve seen in the pandemic doesn’t bear that out. Even after more than 300,000 Americans have died of covid-19, huge portions of the population continue to deny the threat and refuse to abide by basic public health measures, like wearing masks and canceling holiday travel. Despite waves of infections tied to Thanksgiving gatherings, millions packed the airports the weekend before Christmas.

That’s terrifying in itself, but it’s particularly ominous for climate change.

In an essay in August, when global covid-19 deaths stood at around 600,000, Bill Gates pointed out that climate change fatalities could reach that level by 2060—but as an annual occurrence. By the end of the century, the death toll could be five times that figure.

If the pandemic offers any clear lessons, it’s that even all that loss may not persuade many of the reality of climate change or the necessity to act—particularly since those deaths will tick up gradually. Politicians can still find ways to downplay the dangers and exploit the issue to sow division, rather than seeking common cause. And we may simply learn to live with the elevated risks, particularly since they’ll disproportionately harm those in the poorest, hottest parts of the world who had the least to do with causing climate change.

It should be a call to arms. But it’s hard to look at 2020 and come away feeling optimistic about our collective ability to grapple with complex problems in rational or humane ways—even, or perhaps especially, in the midst of multiple unfolding calamities.

Instead, overlapping climate disasters could poison our politics even further, making all of us more selfish, more focused on our own comfort and safety, and less willing to sacrifice for or invest in a better common future.

Read more: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/01/1015533/covid-lessons-for-climate-change-emissions-renewables/

How many people die every year? According to the WHO, 55.4 million people died in 2019. 600,000 additional deaths per annum is a 1% increase in the normal death rate – undesirable, immensely sad for people personally affected, but not a world ending tragedy. To give this number some perspective, it probably wouldn’t even make the WHO top 10 list of causes of death.

The estimate of 600,000 excess climate deaths seems a rather dubious number. Cold weather is a far more prolific killer than warm weather. According to a study published in 2015, cold kills 20x more people than warm. So it seems likely that even if a few degrees of global warming causes a rise in warm weather related deaths, the corresponding reduction in cold weather related deaths due to milder winters would lead to a net reduction in climate related mortality. Global warming would probably save lives.

What about people in the extreme tropics? Global warming if it occurs will affect the tropics far less than than other regions, thanks to polar amplification. But if any mild tropical warming occurs which leads to discomfort, the best solution for low income hot climate countries would be to industrialise, to raise income levels, so ordinary people in those countries can afford air conditioning like the rest of us.

Thankfully poor countries have already thought of this – China is building vast numbers of coal plants throughout Asia and Africa, including many low income hot climate countries.

4.6 21 votes
Article Rating
84 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2hotel9
January 1, 2021 10:04 am

So, mit shows itself to be nothing more than a corrupt political sideshow, complete with clowns and animal dung scattered about copiously. Got it.

Kevin
Reply to  2hotel9
January 1, 2021 11:49 am

A web site, collegeconfidential has a forum for each university where people post information about their high school grades, extracurricular activities, test scores, race, sex etc. and whether they got accepted. From what I’ve seen, MIT practices “holistic” admissions.

2hotel9
Reply to  Kevin
January 2, 2021 9:08 am

Guess they changed from Beaver Call to Krishna, Hare Krishna as their fight song.

Vuk
January 1, 2021 10:05 am

SC25 solar cycle still going strong for the second month, and it looks as the current solar minimum is defensively over
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN-3-minima.htm

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
January 1, 2021 10:06 am

definitely

Hotscot
Reply to  Vuk
January 1, 2021 10:55 am

According to most of the climate alarmist propaganda, the Sun has no effect whatsoever on the Earths climate.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Hotscot
January 1, 2021 11:13 am

If Bill Gates wants to blot out the sun isn’t that an admission that it is the sun. Just a thought.

Greg
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 11:31 am

No, it’s a recognition that the sun is our primary source of energy. That does not necessarily imply that solar variation is the cause of climate variation.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Greg
January 1, 2021 1:06 pm

As our only source of heat I suspect it plays a large role, but I have no scientific training at all so I’m open to suggestion.

Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 2:45 pm

UV radiation and the so called TCI, the cooling and heating, shrinking and expanding thermosphere is certainely not without effects.

Pauleta
January 1, 2021 10:06 am

AFAIK, we, humans, don’t have a lot of hair/fur, which means we are much better adapted to warm weather than cold weather.

Well, at least it’s what evolution and natural selection made of us.

Redge
Reply to  Pauleta
January 2, 2021 12:47 am

Isn’t it more about blubber?

(I get your point though)

January 1, 2021 10:10 am

Doing even cocktail napkin math on activist’s claims reveals how overblown and unlikely the claims are. A one percent increase in the death rate is so much less ominous than just a bare number, and noting that most temperature related deaths are due to cold weather makes it even less scary.

Hotscot
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 1, 2021 10:58 am

It’s like quoting the number of Tonnes of CO2 mankind releases into the atmosphere. It’s a number designed to scare rather than inform.

I’m not a scientist so prefer Beer Mat calculations……… 🙂

PaulH
Reply to  Hotscot
January 1, 2021 5:03 pm

Or how many tested positive over the past day/week/month for the WuFlu without noting that we’ve never before done mass testing of the entire population for any infectious disease. (Especially with a test as error-prone as PCR.)

Sparko
January 1, 2021 10:13 am

We live in a sad post modern world where propaganda rules over science, in this case in particular the concept of comorbidity.

Robert Arvanitis
January 1, 2021 10:14 am

At one point, MIT was the epitome of rational analysis. Now the statist agenda has corrupted academia so thoroughly that this not only passes, but the partisans block any rational case to the contrary. Sad.
I offered this some years ago. events subsequent only reinforce the anti-warmist case:

Two key issues:
1.       Climate is a chaotic system. In simplest terms, that means it is unstable and non-linear; small changes can have outsized effects and sudden reversals prevail.
2.       We must consider costs against the present value of highly uncertain future benefits, discounting the latter at appropriate (risky) rates.
 
·         Is there global warming?
o   Well, coming off an ice age, duh — some.
·         Is it man-made?
o   Some, not all.
·         What are our alternatives?
o   In part, slow or stop it.
o   In part, adapt to it.
o   In all cases, admit we don’t know nearly enough.
o   Understand with chaotic systems, we are just as likely to exacerbate as to ameliorate. E.g. Are we trapping heat or raising the albedo?!
·         What are the costs and benefits? This kills the statists. No price is too high for them, nothing must hinder their power.
o   Full accounting of current costs, not just direct, but indirect and knock-on effects.
o   PLUS the deleterious social and psychological effects of ever-growing government intrusion. This is really bad but regrettably diffuse and under recognized.
o   Appropriately high discount rates for highly uncertain future benefits.
o   As the math soon makes it clear, it’s far better to increase our wealth, and then fix any adverse results in future, rather than impoverish ourselves AND THE FUTURE, today.
o   Recognize the current poor in the world deserve to live better, and not be kept in squalor for the mere thought of improving the future
On that last point — if you’d read this far, invest another ten minutes in a terrific video by Hans Rosling:

.
 

Fran
Reply to  Robert Arvanitis
January 1, 2021 11:33 am

Great video – my grandma told the same story. The washing machine was the pride of her life and she could look back and tell how it would have changed bringing up 6 children. All of their diapers were washed by hand.

You can’t get this kind of convenience with a bit of intermittent power from solar panels and windmills.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Robert Arvanitis
January 2, 2021 3:29 am

“At one point, MIT was the epitome of rational analysis. Now the statist agenda has corrupted academia so thoroughly that this not only passes, but the partisans block any rational case to the contrary.”

At least regarding MIT- its devolution into the new religion of climate catastrophe is because it’s in Massachusetts- the epicenter of the hysteria and new religion of climate hysteria. The state that sued the EPA to issue the endangerment finding of “carbon pollution”. That new religion here is so fanatical that few people dare challenge it. You cannot find in any media in this state the existence of climate skeptics. Our governor Baker is now a full member of the new religion. The following was in a local paper.

“BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts has released a plan to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which includes in part a requirement that all new cars sold in the state be electric by 2035 and converting 1 million homes from fossil fuel to electric heat.
The plan came in two reports issued Wednesday by the administration of Gov. Charlie Baker — the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Report and an interim 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan.
The reports detail policies and strategies to cost-effectively reduce emissions and combat climate change.
As part of the plan, state Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides set an interim 2030 statewide emissions limit of 45% below 1990 levels.
“The people of Massachusetts are experiencing record droughts, increased risk of wildfire, severe weather, and flooding in our coastal communities,” Baker said in a statement. “The costly impacts of climate change are on display in the Commonwealth, making it critical that we take action.”
The goal of what the state calls a first-in-the-nation roadmap is designed to reach net zero emissions by 2050 affordably while maintaining a thriving economy.”

Mariano Marini
January 1, 2021 10:28 am

Terrific. Human prefer to live even if they soon or late will die!

Peter W
January 1, 2021 10:28 am

This is a prime example of why I stopped donating to MIT, having received a Masters degree in industrial management from them. Of course, I knew some time ago how bad their politics is. Back when I was there, their economics professors (Samuelson, Thurow) were touting the marvelous accomplishments of the Soviet Union and claiming it was going to overtake us. The few good guys on climate have apparently been pushed out.

David Kamakaris
January 1, 2021 10:34 am

I would love to read Richard Lindzen’s response to MIT’s ridiculous proclamation.

fred250
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 1, 2021 1:25 pm

Would it be printable ? 🙂

John Adams
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 1, 2021 7:09 pm

It seems that only those who have retired can speak freely.

January 1, 2021 10:35 am

“Researchers and advocates have long assumed, or hoped, that people would start taking climate change seriously as it began to inflict real harms. After all, how could they continue to deny it and refuse to take action once the dangers were upon them and their families?”

I’m looking for, but I can’t find any harm.
In contrast, I hear in Radio news, Afghanistan is suffering from to much early snow and unexpected cold and it’s feared, many people, in particular children will dye because of cold, missing wood or coal and clothes and basic food.

I have to add, they talked about refugee camps, camps of displaced persons,.

Cold is the real danger, not some warmer days.

Last edited 9 months ago by Krishna Gans
Ed Reid
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 1, 2021 10:50 am

“MIT Technology Review: Pandemic Denial Shows Rising Climate Deaths Might Not Lead to Action”
What climate deaths? Do they plan to elide “dying from” and “dying with”, as has been done for COVID19? Does that mean that, since climate is changing, all global deaths would now be”dying with” climate change.

The mind boggles!

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Ed Reid
January 1, 2021 12:42 pm

Look on the bright side: as deaths are attributed to Covid-19, there are so many fewer death attributable to things such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, stroke, Alzheimer’s, pneumonia and even car accidents. Each person dies only once.

John Adams
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 1, 2021 7:11 pm

Can’t they be counted multiple times? How is that fair. Gonna screw up our scary statistics.

David A
Reply to  John Adams
January 2, 2021 4:16 am

The new climate model, ” Dominion” designed to beat all previous models, will be released early in the Harris presidency.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 2, 2021 3:37 am

in usa you might die once…but it seems you can still vote for years;-)

Scissor
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 1, 2021 11:14 am

Yes. It would seem that harms inflicted by those in political power would deserve a fuller measure of our attention.

January 1, 2021 10:35 am

Can’t we just learn to live together, instead of constantly making fun of the covidiots and their climate alarmist warmonger pals?
How I miss the days when our greatest existential threat was a Red under the bed!
Then again, all this fear porn is from the Reds who feel safe to get out from under the bed…

Last edited 9 months ago by paranoid goy
Ed Reid
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 1, 2021 10:52 am

…and ignore China’s aggressive coal plant expansion and the resultant increased emissions.

Scissor
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 1, 2021 11:19 am

Unfortunately, the fear porn produces real consequences, few of which are all that beneficial or pleasurable.

Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 10:38 am

When Biden has Californicated the rest of America and Boris has covered what’s left of the British countryside with windmills and tried to make us all run electric cars , and the loons running Europe have done the same, then we will all have the pleasure of unaffordable intermittent electricity,then we might see a huge amount of climate deaths but all those victims of climate will die in winter. Their numbers may turn out to be right but it won’t be warmth killing them

Kevin
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 11:52 am

But we were told Boris was a conservative.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Kevin
January 1, 2021 1:04 pm

Yeah I fell for that one as well, oops

Notanacademic
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 1:10 pm

Also that was before I knew who was looking after little Boris!

Redge
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 2, 2021 12:54 am

I didn’t fall for that one. I’ve always said BoJo was a clown who would say anything, flip flop a hundred times just to get power.

The UK hasn’t had any real Tories since Thatcher

Hell, the UK hasn’t had any decent politicians since Thatcher.

OweninGA
Reply to  Redge
January 2, 2021 6:07 pm

I don’t know, Thatcher may have inadvertantly started this whole “CO2 climate change” scare in her rhetoric used to break the communists who were running the mining unions. not that I am against breaking communist organizations…

Chris Wright
Reply to  Kevin
January 2, 2021 3:09 am

Yes, in the recent past one of his favourite words was “doomster”. He actually referred to climate alarmists as “doomsters” in a piece in the Telegraph.
Now it seems he’s become the doomster-in-chief. Very sad. I’ll never vote for him again. I’ll be voting for Nigel Farage. I don’t think he’s a doomster.
Chris

Dave Fair
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 4:05 pm

Yeah, its all fun until the waiter shows up with the bill. Middle class America will, as always, be asked to pick up the tab. The current problem is that the massive costs will be impossible to hide/minimise using the sausage-slice principle. A trillion here, a trillion there; pretty soon you are talking real money.

Hotscot
January 1, 2021 10:50 am

According to official figures from the ONS (Office for National Statistics) there were 50,000 (Fifty Thousand) Excess Winter Deaths in the ‘unremarkable’ winter of 2017/2018 from a population of ~66m.

During the ‘unprecedented’ Indian Heatwave of 2017, according to the Indian Disaster Database, there were 250 (Two Hundred and Fifty) heat related deaths, from a population of around 1Bn, ~70m of whom live below the Extreme poverty level of surviving on less than $1.95 per day.

Every period of warming, Minoan, Roman and Medieval has seen human progress. The intervening cold periods are notable for high levels of famine and disease.

Our current ‘warm’ period of ~150 years has seen mankind make astonishing progress with the Industrial Revolution, and now the Technological Revolution.

History is not kind to climate alarmists.

Reply to  Hotscot
January 1, 2021 11:37 am

According to the WHO, 55.4 million people died in 2019. There were 7.7 billion people on the planet. 55.4 million dying in a year gives us an average life expectancy 138 years.

Let’s work for the World Health Organization for a loooong life!

Sparko
Reply to  Curious George
January 1, 2021 12:43 pm

You have to factor in a more youthful population

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Hotscot
January 1, 2021 1:01 pm

Reality is not kind to climate alarmists…

Gary Vasey
January 1, 2021 10:54 am

Homo sapiens sapiens RIP Once an oportunistic species. Now an ideological inconsequence.

Matthew Sykes
January 1, 2021 10:59 am

600,000, Bill Gates pointed out that climate change fatalities could reach that level by 2060″ Cold kills more than warm. 14 C is too cold, thats why we wear clothes and build houses. At 25 C average we are pretty comfortable. We all know this, deaths will reduce as we get warmer.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 1, 2021 4:11 pm

But … but … but … our models show that many excess deaths by 2060 with an ECS of >5 and the RCP 8.5 (+). Trust me! I practice CliSci journalism.

Scissor
January 1, 2021 11:08 am

Wait a minute, wait a minute. What personal pronoun does this guy use?

Greg
January 1, 2021 11:29 am

thanks to polar amplification.

It’s “arctic amplification”, not “polar”.

fred250
Reply to  Greg
January 1, 2021 1:29 pm

turned up to 11.. or just not enough cow bells?

No warming in the Arctic this century except for the effect of the 2015 El Nino .. nearly all gone.

comment image

(I’ll make a new graph once December values are in)

Dave Fair
Reply to  fred250
January 1, 2021 4:13 pm

Actually, it is Arctic over short periods and Antarctic never. Polar? Meh.

Rick C
January 1, 2021 11:34 am

Should freezing to death due to inability to afford heating bills be classified as a “climate death”? I think the intentional destruction of our functional, affordable, reliable fossil fueled energy delivery infrastructure will ultimately be the cause of far more deaths and misery than anything a degree or 2 of “average global warming” could produce. Future generations will curse the idiot alarmists who destroyed their potential prosperity as the tear down abandoned wind turbines and solar panels and rebuild coal, gas and nuclear power plants.

That this kind of ridiculous unfounded speculation and claptrap would come from a once great institution like MIT shows how completely the radical left has gained control of academe. Apparently even engineers who should know how insane this war on fossil fuels is are intimidated enough to stay silent.

Pat from kerbob
January 1, 2021 11:41 am

Here is the discussion point.
In canada, we clearly have an issue with cold, none with heat. Cold deaths must outnumber heat deaths by at least 100:1. Energy poverty will increase that ratio.

Generally accepted numbers are that canada is 1.6% of current world CO2 emissions. Our government is suggesting we have to reduce that by about 1/3 by 2030 to meet the Paris accord.
Or we all die.
However, by that same accord, China is currently 1/3 of world emissions and is allowed to increase that by 50%. How much they will actually increase is a coin toss, but the point is they are allowed.

Simple math shows that the allowed China increase is equivalent to 30 times the amount our required reduction.

So I simply ask people to explain why we are at risk for extinction if we don’t reduce by 1/3 when we agree China can increase by 30 times that amount anyway?

Then we morph to the fairness doctrine where canada has 0.5% of population but 1.6% of emissions, which lumps us per capita with billions through equatorial regions who do not require home heating, plus we have a little more population than the city of seoul but spread across 1/6 of earths surface, so it’s a ridiculous comparison.

Plus with China allowed to increase and the rest of the developed world has to decrease, by 2030 China could be 50% of world CO2 emissions with ~1/6 of world population?

So I’m tired of stupid arguments over ridiculous policies that these people clearly don’t believe in.

David A
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 2, 2021 4:26 am

The Hypocrisy of China’s energy policy is astounding. Although I have been a CAGW sceptic since at least 2006, I did not accept President Trump saying CAGW was a scam from China. Yet your very accurate post makes me say, and not for the last time, “Trump was right”.

starzmom
January 1, 2021 11:48 am

Since when did wearing masks everywhere and all the time, and cancelling holiday travel, become “basic public health measures”? I cannot remember a time in my life when either was urged on the public or was common, even in a bad flu year. And I am a baby boomer. So yeah, maybe we do question the efficacy of these extraordinary government mandates..

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  starzmom
January 1, 2021 12:49 pm

The worry about ‘public health measures’ doesn’t seem to extend to increased suicide rates, mental health deterioration, relationship break-ups, homelessness, hunger and poverty.

[please fix the spelling of your email in the autofill so I don’t keep having to do it~mod]

starzmom
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 1, 2021 3:09 pm

You are right about that. The rates of child abuse, domestic violence, suicide, divorce and other social ills are up a lot.

And I should mention that most people DO wear masks and socially distance, and most of us DID change our holiday plans to accommodate the government diktats, which still doesn’t make them basic public health measures.

David A
Reply to  starzmom
January 2, 2021 4:30 am

Well we must not forget that destroying the global economy ( much worse then wearing masks) is likewise not basic health policy. At least not a sane one.

gbaikie
January 1, 2021 11:51 am

The World Health Organization proved to be a failure in regard to covid -19 pandemic.
The 1997 Kyoto agreement has proved to be a failure in regards to lower CO2 emission.
It could be argued WHO caused more deaths from the pandemic.
It can proved be governmental action to reduce CO2 emission, has cause more CO2 emissions.
Now, one can argue lowering CO2 emissions is not something we need to do.
In terms of Earth, we presently have low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, recently in terms of Earth history {not the brief human history} it’s thought Earth CO2 reached dangerously low levels of CO2- all life can not exist if CO2 are not high enough- and plants grow poorly below 300 ppm, and plants grow much better above 500 ppm- and most of Earth history has CO2 levels above 500 ppm.
And since human are living in enclosed spaces, indoor air tends be over 1000 ppm, and the exhaled air of humans is about 40,000 ppm- though if indoor air is over 9000 ppm, it could be a concern.
Related to this, is that indoor air tends to be more polluted than outdoor air {not because higher CO2 levels, but there other pollutants]. Or getting “fresh air” is healthy for humans, conversely, locking people in their homes, is subjecting people higher air pollution.
Everyone knows this but it seems they forget it- or if not forgotten, uneducated, or “experts” are “trying” to kill people.
Also a simple way to increase heating efficiency is prevent fresh air from entering a building- or stop warm or cold air from leaving a building.

Anyhow, another thing everyone knows, is we have been living in an Ice Age for millions of years {a brief portion of Earth history}. During this period of time Human evolved from other primates, and polar bear evolved from brown bears.
There connection between low CO2 levels and being in an Ice Age.
There is connection between cold oceans and Low CO2 levels.
Definitional, an Icehouse climate {also called Ice Age} has cold ocean and polar ice sheets {ice caps}. Earth currently has cold ocean and ice caps.
An Icehouse climate is not defined has having low CO2 levels, but one “expect” lower CO2 levels, and during the last glaciation period, CO2 levels are thought to lowered to about 180 ppm- plants die at 150 ppm- and what I meant by approaching dangerous levels.
Now global level of CO2 is not the same as various regions. CO2 a lot fluctuate in terms surface air and regional effect. Or the reason to measure CO2 on top of high mountain {and surrounded by a vast uniformity of an ocean, is to limit this fluctuation {Mauna Loa, global CO2 levels}.Anyhow the 180 ppm level is estimate and we are measuring global CO2 by measuring amount CO2 trapped in ice. If you were measuring from Mauna Loa 20,000 yearsago, it might have averaged around 180 ppm, and would have considered it, a “a major crisis”. But it seems to me that 300 ppm is far too low. And our higher levels of CO2 is making plants grow faster, and causing “global greening”- which is roughly harsh condition for plant life is improved by having more CO2 in the air. Tundra and deserts have more plants growing. And being in Ice Age means we have more deserts and Tundra regions.
Or one can say, global greening is proof of global warming.
Other proof is warming ocean, higher average water vapor, and actually having highest air temperature ever recorded being over hundred ago, is proof we had global warming for
hundred years. Or having highest surface air temperature is related to drier conditions {less average water vapor, more than 100 years ago}.

gringojay
January 1, 2021 12:03 pm

“He not busy being born is busy dying.” Thus sprak Bob Dylan in 1965; the year he also recorded the Rap song “Subterranean Homesick Blues”.

marlene
January 1, 2021 12:43 pm

“This isn’t only a small conspiracy of movers and shakers who planned it and launched it. This is a very wide-ranging conspiracy of silence. “Don’t blame me. I’m just following orders.” “But you know COVID is a total fraud.” “Of course I know.” “And you know others who know.” “Many others.”
 
“PCR techs in labs all over the world, who are running the test, are fully cognizant of the crimes they’re committing every day—by utilizing “too many cycles” and therefore destroying any shred of validity when diagnosing ANYTHING. Sharing this open secret among themselves, they otherwise remain silent. Getting the picture?

George Daddis
January 1, 2021 1:30 pm

After all, how could they continue to deny it and refuse to take action once the dangers were upon them and their families?

For a normal family, WHAT dangers were upon them?

  • hurricanes and wild fires that if anything are at a century low?
  • floods that have occurred since Biblical times?

Those “disasters” have ALWAYS impacted the hottest and poorest parts of the world; eons before CO2 levels started to rise.

Notanacademic
Reply to  George Daddis
January 1, 2021 3:54 pm

And eons before they fell to preindustrial levels.

UNGN
January 1, 2021 1:33 pm

It’s “Terrifying” that people want to live a normal life? I wore mask 9 hours a day at work, but still got because people think a Mask will stop Covid, so they carry on as usual with Covid.

Covid sucked, but I Blame Ralph Baric, the “Bat Lady” and the people that fund “Gain of Function” research and not the person who gave me Covid, because he was just a sheep that believed “mask’s work” and isn’t manipulating Virus RNA in a Lab and testing the resulting Franken Virus on Human Cadaver Lung cells for their lethality.

Where does MIT stand on “Gain of Function” research? Are they “in denial” it is happening?

Dave Fair
Reply to  UNGN
January 1, 2021 4:22 pm

Being lazy, I won’t search around for the recent international study that shows masks don’t work, but lockdowns do. Stay calm and carry on.

OweninGA
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 1, 2021 5:26 pm

Lockdowns increase a whole slew of societal ills including depression, drug abuse, and suicides. So no, lockdowns do not work, they just move the death over to other means.

Dave Fair
Reply to  OweninGA
January 1, 2021 6:02 pm

Lockdowns do work in delaying the spread of the ChiCom virus. Their efficacy is unquestioned by real world numbers; it is their cost that needs consideration in their use in any given situation by those who will be held accountable for all the various positive and negative outcomes. Mask-wearing feels good (politically expedient), but it is proven to be ineffective in controlling the spread of the ChiCom virus. The political outcome will become apparent only over time; virtue signaling with mask mandates may or may not rescue individual political careers in the coming years. I assume that herd immunity from the vaccines will stamp out the ChiCom virus, to the benefits of the politicians in charge at such time. Economic concerns will predominate after then.

January 1, 2021 1:59 pm

If Climate Alarmists think that the Sun has no effect on Earth’s weather, they should imagine for a moment what would happen on Earth if the Sun was switched off for a few days. They would soon come to cherish that Chinese financed Coal Power Plant.

Kevin kilty
January 1, 2021 4:12 pm

600,000 estimated annual climate change deaths compared to annual deaths of 80,000,000 among the estimated world population of 9.8billion in 2060. 100% projections, 0% perspective.

Gary Pearse
January 1, 2021 4:46 pm

“we may simply learn to live with the elevated risks, particularly since they’ll disproportionately harm those in the poorest, hottest parts of the world”

I was in Lagos, Nigeria (on the coast) in the mid 1960s and in 1997 and temperature at those times and today – 30C. It is well known that the tropics stay , on average, pretty much the same while polar areas have amplified warming in a warming world. It’s an undisputed part of the theory concerning what happens to planetary solar heating which mainly occurs in a 20° band of the tropics.

Mike
January 1, 2021 6:17 pm

What’s a ”climate death” ?

Ron Ginzler
Reply to  Mike
January 1, 2021 7:33 pm

It’s someone who died because he couldn’t get to a hospital because gas and diesel vehicles were banned.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Mike
January 2, 2021 12:22 pm

Similar to a Covid death only different spelling but fully inter-changeable.

Pflashgordon
January 1, 2021 10:02 pm

So the learned brainiacs at MIT know so little about their own research subject that they must lean on a scary statement by billionaire non-expert Bill Gates. How stupid is that?

OweninGA
Reply to  Pflashgordon
January 2, 2021 6:11 pm

There are the billions in grants to consider…wouldn’t want to risk that now.

January 1, 2021 10:35 pm

“people would start taking climate change seriously as it began to inflict real harms.”
Be sure to let us know when people start dying from CO2 induced warming.

“Bill Gates pointed out that climate change fatalities could reach that level (600k) by 2060—”
Bill, haven’t you noticed that the climate alarm industry is incapable of an accurate forecast?

January 1, 2021 10:36 pm

“people would start taking climate change seriously as it began to inflict real harms.”
Be sure to let us know when people start dying from CO2 induced warming.

“Bill Gates pointed out that climate change fatalities could reach that level (600k) by 2060—”
Bill, haven’t you noticed that the climate alarm industry is incapable of an accurate forecast?

Redge
January 2, 2021 1:13 am

Q: In the last 50 years how many people have died of climate change?

A: Zero

If you think the answer is anything other than zero, please provide direct links to your data (The Guardian or the BBC doesn’t count)

David A
Reply to  Redge
January 2, 2021 4:39 am

Perhaps the better question is…
How many people have lived better due to warmer weather and more food production and increased water efficiency?

Redge
January 2, 2021 1:23 am

2020:

Population = 7,800,000,000, Annual deaths = 55,000,000

2060 (projected)

Population = 10,150,000,000, Annual deaths = 71,570,512

Difference between annual deaths = 16,570,512

% of deaths attributed to climate change in the year 2060 = 3.6%

As with everything related to global warming, the figures are just a guess

Stephen Skinner
January 2, 2021 11:06 am

What happened to MIT and why does it despise the US? There’s another article on their site about China’s Chang’e 5 mission. Well done China and a great mission. However, this is how MIT described the mission. Anything missing?

“China’s Chang’e 5 mission successfully delivered samples of lunar rock and dust to Earth on December 17. It marks the first time in 44 years that moon rocks have been brought back to our planet, since the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 mission in 1976. It’s also the first time China has ever pulled off a sample return mission.” 

January 3, 2021 5:19 pm

Analysis shows ~2.8 million fake? votes for Biden.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/Vote_Dumps_Report.pdf
_____________________________

The Big Picture:
The global warming / climate change scam, the Covid-19 full-Gulag lockdown scam, the specious linkage of these two huge frauds, and the leftists “Final Solution”, the
Marxist “Great Reset”.

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM PRESENTS: THE GREAT RESET— “YOU’LL OWN NOTHING, AND YOU’LL BE HAPPY.”


The World Economic Forum’s twitter account deleted the tweet in which this video was originally embedded in 2016.

%d bloggers like this: