Essay by Eric Worrall
As opposed to the 10s of thousands of excess winter deaths which occur every year in the United States and Europe.
Extreme weather caused two million deaths, cost $4 trillion over last 50 years
Over two million deaths and $4.3 trillion in economic losses; that’s the impact of a half-century of extreme weather events turbo-charged by man-made global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Monday.
According to WMO, weather, climate and water-related hazards caused close to 12,000 disasters between 1970 and 2021. Developing countries were hit hardest, seeing nine in 10 deaths and 60 per cent of economic losses from climate shocks and extreme weather.
WMO said that Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States suffered a “disproportionately” high cost in relation to the size of their economies.
“The most vulnerable communities unfortunately bear the brunt of weather, climate and water-related hazards,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.
Staggering inequalities
In Least Developed Countries, WMO reported that several disasters over the past half-century had caused economic losses of up to 30 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).
…
WMO stressed however that improved early warnings and coordinated disaster management have helped mitigate the deadly impact of disasters. “Early warnings save lives,” Mr. Taalas insisted.
…
Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897
Obviously it is deeply embarrassing to global warming alarmists that even hot countries like India suffer more deaths in winter than summer, which makes a complete mockery of claims that controlling global warming would help reduce global death rates.
The difference between developing and developed countries shows the way forward. As the UN WMO themselves suggested, if everyone enjoyed first world levels of disaster warnings and if everyone was able to embrace other “climate adaptions” such as living in hurricane resistant homes, there would be far fewer deaths. Decent long range mass transport such as widespread fossil fuel driven automobile ownership also helps with evacuation of expected landfall zones.
Cheap fossil fuel energy for everyone, so everyone can industrialise and afford all the safety we take for granted, this is the way to make everyone safer from “climate threats” like extreme weather. This solution applies as much to poor people in wealthy countries, as it does to people who live in poor countries.
Denying people in need of such a simple solution, which would save countless lives, in my opinion is the face of evil in today’s world.
Definite POOMA numbers here, aside from begging the question as far as climate change and severe weather being related in a positive direction.
STORY TIP Elon Musk is all in for a carbon tax….he proclaims that he really believes the world will convert to windmills and solar panels and batteries. This guy has become rich off the gubment and wants more….and more….
I suspect the EV market is already at saturation, without some serious coercion to force more people to go EV.
Force they will.
Like Yoda, you speak.
What about the tax on on the coal used to make the electricity to charge the cars who pays for that
“Elon Musk is all in for a carbon tax….he proclaims that he really believes the world will convert to windmills and solar panels and batteries.”
I guess Elon isn’t as smart as we thought he was.
Elon Musk is in the business of selling solar power and batteries. He is merely talking up his business.
How much of EM’s wealth is due to Tesla stock-buying by virtue-signaling very wealthy individuals? It sure isn’t Tesla sales!
I’m waiting for Elon’s “The Boring Company” to bore all roads downhill. That way, we can use gravity for transportation.
Over 60 million human lives lost with the UN’s religious (i.e. moral, ethical, legal) sanction of the wicked solution in America alone, for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
Looking at the chart above, 50 years ago, the total number of deaths per year from weather related events dropped below 100,000 per year. Deaths per year continued to drop to around 20,000 per year in 2018. Just eyeballing it, I would say that the total number of weather related deaths over the last 50 years was less than 2 million total.
Are they claiming that absent global warming, deaths from weather events would have magically stopped in 1970?
Bankrupt communism: stop paying United Nations dues.
All they do is cause problems for the rest of us.
They must desperate if nothing changed 500,000 per year times 100 year is 50 million above the line is more than half that so lets say saved 20 million lives saved over the century
The minimal loss of lives from cyclone Mocha as compared with previous cyclones illustrates the beneficial impact of better forecasting and higher incomes. Cyclone Bhola of 1970 and the associated tidal wave took Pakistan by complete surprise resulting in massive loss of lives, 300,000-500,000 people. The disastrous impact was compounded by lack of resources to help the survivors. In sharp contrast, Mocha was forecast well in advance, allowing the government ample time to move people out of harms. The government also had the resources too move people into safe buildings.
Yes many of us here actually remember the appalling devastation in Pakistan and India from several severe weather events in the 60s and 70s.
Only a idiot or pure propagandist could believe things are worse now. I think conservatives in US Republican party ,candidates and politicians need to go on an “ activist” campaign targeting the MSM, organize in person protests out side of the head quarters get creative, use old fashion flyers, I don’t know but what ever it takes to communicate directly with the public . The MSM is slowly being replaced by alternatives but they are still the source for a lot peoples info. You have to call them out, get in their face, be aggressive.
Hi Mohat, if you have more information about Cyclone Mocha vs previous cyclones which you would like to share, or other climate issues, please send a news tip. Western media tends to ignore Indian subcontinent nations, so I’m sure we miss a lot of news which would be of interest to WUWT readers.
Joe Bastardi had a list on his Saturday Summary two weeks ago.
There are at least 10 organizations fighting climate change (2 or 3 in Germany) and contributions are welcome. NOAA will give its hurricane forecast this week….one forecast already out sez 1 or 2 storms below average.
NOAA is making a below-average hurricane prediction?
Has NOAA ever done this before? All I ever hear out of them is how bad the next hurricane season is going to be. They’re a broken record.
“organizations fighting climate change”
Funny mental image. Kids in army gear rallying against… ?
In 1950 the world population was around 2.5 billion and is now 7.9 billion.
If adjusted for population growth as deaths per 100,000 say, the above graph would be even more conclusive.
Was going to say that myself.
Also there is a samping error here; we now all have phones and radios.
Half a century ago, if a landslide caused by rainfall wiped out a whole village in Papua New Guinea, the deaths would be unrecorded. Now they would be counted.
So the graph has more uncertainty – in the “death” direction – the earlier backwards we look.
The longer you look, the worse it gets.
Lies, lies, lies and more lies. It’s all they have and all they do.
Yes right…
But those 2 million people were alive before they died, maybe, just maybe, they were living happy lives with friends, family and children around them.
On top of that, who are you, who is anybody, to make judgements on that?
So: Why does Everybody Else on This Earth need to be endlessly bombarded with trivia, big numbers, Irrelevance, OtherPeoplesVirtue & SelfImportance in an attempt to make them feel guilty because:
The most natural and inevitable thing happened to those people. i.e. They died.
Does ‘fixing climate change’ mean that nobody is ever going to die ever again?
Is that what they’re trying to say?
This is a really deep (and serious) mental disorder going on here
The “fix” they propose will kill orders of magnitude more than the ALLEGED, but NOT truly, amount of supposed “climate related” (really just weather related) deaths.
So over the last 50 years on average, 40,000 people die a year in warm temperatures and 5,000,000 die in cold temperatures.
but it is clear from those figures that hot places have disproportionately large deaths due to cold.
so global warming will kill more people from cold.
i’ll get my hat………..
Winter night lows in central India where I grew up were about 7oC. My room had screens, not glass. The ordinary people had wooden shutters and rafters open to hand pressed clay tiles on the roofs – just as drafty as my room.
They’ll add a heater before they replace the roof.
The big unanswered question for me regarding Climate Alarmism is this.
What motivates the MSM to continue pushing a false premise, i.e. that CO2 causes climate change? They do that, even when the growing reality, now a mountain of evidence, shows that claim to be wrong?
Where is the upside for the BBC, the Guardian, the NYT, ABC and so many others too numerous to list, what advantage to them is there, pushing their false stories of doom?
Children are being traumatised by the alarmist climate nonsense. People are dying from their self imposed actions because of anti industrial rhetoric pushed out by the MSM.
Some might say the Media organisations get big grant aid from state funds for complying with the preferred Man Made Climate Change story. That could be so, but it has a definite limit and a very dangerous outcome for the media, as people become ever more informed about the climate.
At some point and maybe soon, the Media will mimic the tumbling walrus incident. That story with its lies promoted by Attenborough and the BBC did permanent reputational damage. The tumbling media’s fall down their reputational cliff, (I am being generous), will be from a great height, ironically, entirely due to Climate Change.
What motivates the MSM to continue pushing a false premise… – I believe they think they are the good guys, that they are doing good. If you accept their false premises, what they are doing makes perfect sense.
Most the the worst periods of human history were created by people who wanted to do good. Most people are good, so how else could they enlist good people to their cause, except by convincing them they were doing the right thing?
Catastrophically wrong, rather than catastrophically evil.
Yes, I often recall a saying that is very true. It explains many things such as destructive climate alarmism, globalisation and wokeism.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Chris
Eugenicists were motivated by a desire to help the human race.
They honestly felt that they were improving humanity by getting rid of those people who were pulling the average down.
Were they good people doing evil, or were they evil people?
The end results are still the same.
I’m going with (C) All of the above.
Me, too.
There are lots of motivations for pushing the CO2-caused climate change narrative. None of which have anything to do with actual science.
“What motivates the MSM to continue pushing a false premise, i.e. that CO2 causes climate change? They do that, even when the growing reality, now a mountain of evidence, shows that claim to be wrong?”
The MSM does it for politics. Reining in CO2 requires government action and control. The MSM likes as much government action and control as they can get because they are a bunch of socialists.
They don’t have to look at the evidence disputing human-caused climate change. They have all sorts of claims by climate change alarmists that they can point to as “confirmation” of their position. It doesn’t matter that the claims are bogus, because they don’t look that far into it. Just the claim alone allows them to continue the narrative and advance Big Government/Big Socialism.
Tom Abbott:
“They don’t have to look at the evidence disputing human-caused climate change”
What evidence are you speaking of?
The fact that there is no evidence supporting their belief system.
“What motivates the MSM to continue pushing a false premise”
Same thing that motivates motivates most Western humans – paycheck. Not millions, just enough to pay for rent and hamburgers.
Will you PLEASE, PLEASE stop mislabeling “floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, hearwaves” as “CLIMATE related?!”
These are WEATHER RELATED, NOT “climate” related. A review of ALL (not cherry picked subsets) WEATHER and WEATHER RELATED event data, with consideration of differences in our ability to observe said weather events, shows that NOTHING IS GETTING WORSE, and in fact, has gotten BETTER if anything.
The “climate” is NOT that “cause” of any of it!!
Good point.
And there is no evidence connecting any weather-related event to being caused by CO2. Not one shred of evidence, yet these politicians act like it is an established fact. And we know why they do that. It’s to sell their CO2-crisis narrative. That’s where the money and power is.
AGW is Not Science:
I would differ with you.
As the climate gets warmer, floods, droughts,storms, wildfires, heat waves intensify and/or become more common, so they ARE climate related.
Do you have any evidence supporting that belief. Out here in the real world, there has been no increase in any of those things.
He doesn’t have any evidence that the climate will get warmer, either. At the present time, the climate is cooling. According to CO2-phobes, this isn’t supposed to happen when more and more CO2 is going into the atmosphere. But it is happening.
Tom Abbott:
No, it is NOT happening
In case you haven’t noticed, the 2020-2023 cool La Nina ended in Feb of this year, and ENSO temperatures have already risen into warm El Nino territory.
This is exactly as I had predicted would happen, in Sept. of last year.
“Net-Zero Catastrophe Beginning?”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035
You predicted that the La Nina would end.
That’s quite a limb to climb out on.
Mark W.
“That’s quite a limb to climb out on”
Not really. It HAD to, since the control knob for Earth’s temperatures is simply the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, and they are being reduced by “Clean Air” and Net-zero activities.
BTW, ENSO temps have increased by > 10 deg.C since Feb, from -5 Deg. C. to + 5 deg C., the fastest rate ever, that I can find.
As I attempt to visualize a mass evacuation in EV only green city….
Between 1970 to around 1983-’88, concern about man-caused global cooling was all the rage. But none of us are expecting the World Meteorological Organization to amend their report to break out which deaths/disasters resulted from a cooling climate.
And here I thought the LibTards (Turds?) wanted fewer people.
Now where have I heard tactics like this UN excuse before….
Why Russia Is Attacking Ukraine: Putin’s Justifications for Invasion (businessinsider.com)
Putin has also accused Ukraine of committing genocide and called its government a Nazi regime, claims for which there is no evidence.
Earlier this month, Putin claimed genocide was being committed against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region, where Kremlin-backed rebels have been fighting with Ukrainian forces since 2014.
What Was Germany’S Reasoning Behind Invading Poland? – The Canadian-Polish Congress (kpk-mississauga.org)
What was Germany’s excuse for invading Poland?On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. To justify the action, Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also falsely claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany.
So, if we accept Bjorn Lomborg’s graph as true, there were about 480,000 climate-related deaths per year in 1925, dropping to about 50,000 deaths in 1975. Assuming a linear trend, the average would be 265,000 per year times 50 years, or about 13.25 million climate-related deaths over that 50-year period.
Shouldn’t a decline from 13+ million deaths to 2 million deaths over succeeding 50-year periods be considered an tremendous improvement?
Where did that 6-fold improvement come from? Maybe better access to reliable home heating and air-conditioning, available from those EEEEEEVIL fossil fuels?
And/or maybe, as the WMO points out, “early warnings” of weather-related disasters. Lots of those warnings come from satellites, which can track the movement of tropical cyclones (including typhoons and hurricanes) and give people warnings several days before they strike low-lying coastal areas, so that vulnerable populations can be evacuated before storms make landfall.
But most weather satellites currently in use were launched after 1975, and fossil fuels were needed to get them into orbit.
So maybe the headline should read “Use of Fossil Fuels Saved 11 Million Lives from Weather Disasters in 50 years”.
I had a couple of spare minutes and thought I could use a PhD from an AAU accredited university, so I created a climate model that proves conclusively that CO2 and Methane are killing millions of people every month.
int non_climate_death = 0;
int climate_death = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < dead_people.size(); i++) {
if (CO2_present == true || Methane_present == true) {
climate_death++;
} else {
non_climate_death++;
}
sprintf(“CO2 and Methane killed %d people and other factors killed %d people.\n”, climate_death, non_climate_death);
I think this could win a Nobel Prize.
Every year about 7 million people die from “indoor air pollution” because they only have stuff like dung to burn to cook their meals or heat their homes. They don’t have access to or the ability to use affordable and clean energy products like natural gas. Of those 7 million annual deaths, about 2 million are children. So, in our efforts to stop 2 million people from supposedly dying over 50 years from climate change, we kill off 7 million people every year by denying them affordable and relatively clean energy.
In 100 years, the loss of life due to global warming will be 7 billion. Of course the loss of life for any reasons will be the same number.
Someone should tell the UN that people who die in computer models aren’t real people and they aren’t really dead. GIGO.
Huh? I clicked the headline expecting nonsense, but they didn’t even try. Added up all extreme weather death estimates for 50 years? The writing doesn’t even sell it well.
Do virtual people use virtual power plants?
Cursory web-search “factcheck” – World population increases during the period.
e.g. World population appears to have been about 3B in 1960.
On a percentage basis the chart would look opposite-of-alarming.
Waitaminit… what does “climate-related” mean?
With absolutely not facts to back them up they would still claim the sky is magenta. Idiots on parade.
The US needs to stop funding the WMO and the UN in general. We can find other places to throw our money away to that will cause far less damage
Cause of death due to climate change: death itself.
There are no climate-related deaths. All those events listed are weather, apart from wildfires.