A recent article from The Conversation (TC), titled “COP29: Climate change could kill millions and world leaders must work to limit fatalities,” warns climate change is likely to cause millions of deaths. This is false. A critical examination of empirical data reveals the opposite: deaths due to extreme weather events have significantly decreased over the past century, even as greenhouse gas emissions have risen.
Historical data outlined in Climate at a Glance indicates a substantial decline in fatalities attributed to extreme weather. In the 1920s, such events caused approximately 485,000 deaths annually. By 2020, this number had plummeted to around 7,790 deaths per year, marking a reduction of over 98 percent. This dramatic decrease occurred during a period of significant global industrialization and increased greenhouse gas emissions, negating the assertion that climate change is leading to higher mortality rates.
According to this Associated Press article, the reduction in weather-related deaths can be largely attributed to improved preparedness, early warning systems, and enhanced resilience. For instance, the United Nations has highlighted that better disaster management practices have led to fewer fatalities, even as the frequency and intensity of certain weather events have increased.
Countries like India and Bangladesh have implemented effective measures that have significantly reduced deaths from cyclones and other extreme weather events.
The Conversation’s claim that “climate change could kill millions” lacks empirical foundation. While it’s crucial to acknowledge and address the potential impacts of climate change, projections leading to alarmist conclusions often rely on worst-case climate model scenarios that fail to account for human adaptability and technological progress. Such narratives can lead to unnecessary fear and may divert attention from practical solutions that are already proving effective.
It is also important to consider that cold-related deaths have historically outnumbered heat-related deaths, as seen in the figure below.
Research shows that deaths associated with cold temperatures significantly exceed those related to heat, by almost 10 to 1. As global temperatures have modestly risen, the decrease in cold-related deaths has contributed to a net reduction in temperature-related mortality. This is confirmed by studies published in The Lancet, the Southern Medical Journal, and by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Health Statistics Reports: Cold is the biggest temperature related killer, not heat. These studies also indicate the slight warming we’ve seen over the past century has reduced overall mortality related to extreme temperatures. This positive trend should continue if the earth persists in modestly warming.
Extreme weather can be deadly, and the potential risks associated with it should not be ignored. Still the evidence is clear, unlike what is implied in The Conversation article, extreme weather has not increased during the present period of climate change, and data clearly shows deaths resulting from both extreme weather events and non-optimum temperatures have declined dramatically. It is essential to ground discussions in empirical evidence and historical context. The Conversation’s motto is “Academic rigor, journalistic flair.” In this article’s coverage of climate change, The Conversation betrays the first part of its motto. The Conversation’s readers would be better served if the publication relied on facts to inform its work on climate change, not alarming flights of fancy.
Another Whac-A-Mole article. Truly amazing how these things keep occurring.
“even as the frequency and intensity of certain weather events have increased”. You would be hard pressed to find any global increase in any kind of weather event.
“For instance, the United Nations has highlighted that better disaster management practices have led to fewer fatalities, even as the frequency and intensity of certain weather events have increased.”
…this is false, why did you say that???
extreme weather events have gotten better or stayed the same!
yuh, why did Anthony write that? we wanna know!
I think Anthony meant that is the UN position, not his own.
right
It’s true because they believe it. They don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.
Of course deaths are declining – not because the floods/droughts/winds are lessening BUT simply because weather forecasts allow warnings to be given AND recovery/rescue/emergency services have improved considerably
You mean modern technology powered by fossil fuels !!, right !!
Floods, droughts and winds are not increasing either, you did know that, didn’t you.
Compare yesterdays warning in California for tsunami – thousands leaving area just in case (no significant tsunami but many would have been saved if there was) – with Indian ocean tsunami of 2004 where 170,000 died because the warning system was not set up – no evacuations occurred.
Deaths are not a good indicator of climate change!!!
Tsunamis have nothing to do with climate change. Yes, modern infrastructure would have saved many lives at that time. SO let’s not hold them back, let them develop to their heart’s content, with the best available energy.
I’m sorry, Jeff, but climate change causes the earthquakes that cause tsunamis. Anything bad that happens on the earth can be attributed to it by the rapid response team.
Only developed nations have the warning systems and infrastructure. I wonder why? Oh, it’s because they are wealthy thanks to all of the plentiful, cheap and reliable energy they derived from fossil fuels.
Isn’t that remarkable?
There are no indicators of global climate change, certainly none that have human causation.
And yes, thanks for confirming that it is modern technology powered by FOSSIL FUELS that allows less casualties during adverse WEATHER events.
Other than a very small increase in temperature, that started long before CO2 levels started rising, there are no indicators of climate change.
Even if bad weather was increasing, which it isn’t, all you have shown is that adaptation is the way to go.
Why haven’t cars adapted or houses adapted?
WTF are you talking about??
Essentially by starving developing nations of cheap, reliable energy, you’re sentencing them to death because they won’t have a warning system – typical extreme-leftist.
What have fossil fuels to do with early warning. It is radios and transmitters and electronic sensors. Most of this infrastructure is not connected to fossil generation
LMAO
If you don’t know how things are made in the modern world, perhaps you should read up on the subject.
All built using products from oil, gas, powered by oil, coal, gas.
Try not to expose your innate ignorance too much !!
If deaths are not a good indicator, then what is the problem with the pleasant warming we’re experiencing?
cost
What cost?
The cost of alarmist policies is very bad, I agree.
warming reduces heating costs.. is that what you mean ?
I agree with your sentiment that adapting is reducing deaths. Climate change has been blamed for more earthquakes and volcanoes so ya kinda are forced to use deaths versus climate change as an indicator.
Deaths are not a good indicator of climate change!!!
Fact. Nit. “not a good indicator” should read not an indicator, period.
So, our ability to adapt is better than climate change.
adapt a house,shop car
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but everything we make differs from 100 years ago. All things have “adapted”.
??
Shows that even if bad weather did increase, which it isn’t, the answer is adaptation. Not impoverishing the world to solve a problem that never existed.
It’s the half-runt back again!
Yes, that is true. Technology, driven by fossil fuels, is definitely saving lives. Let’s celebrate!
Nobody has said those events have declined.
Very nice Anthony.
The good news is many people don’t believe this crap anymore and non believers increase with time. You don’t hear about non believers converting ….. do you.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
You do hear it occasionally. Further investigation reveals it to be a flase-flag lie in all cases I’ve seen.
The claim of 10 cold weather deaths versus one warm weather death is a biased statistic.
Actual deaths caused ONLY by very cold or very hot weather are very small, and there are more deaths from very hot weather
The 10 to 1 statistic conflates deaths from heart attacks, strokes, Covid and influenza that have a seasonal trend, with extreme weather deaths. Some deaths are more common in cold weather. A heart patient more often dies from a heart attack in the winter, but blaming the cold weather is biased reporting.
Greenhouse warming does cause warmer winters so should benefit heart patients. But people are more often obese these days and often get little or no exercise. So how could you measure the health benefits of slightly warmer winters?
“Greenhouse warming“
There is no evidence that CO2 causes any measurable warming.
You have shown that hundreds of times.
Cold induces vasoconstriction, which causes stress to the circulatory system that can lead to cardiovascular effects, including ischaemic heart disease (IHD), coronary heart disease, strokes, subarachnoid haemorrhage and death. Prolonged cold increases the chances of this happening.
We have no Met Office definition of Cold Wave as far as I’m aware. Perhaps we in the UK need one. The best we get is “Wrap up warm”
These deaths you like to dismiss are caused by cold weather. They reduce as temperatures increase mildly.
Why do you want to ignore that? Do you not care that more people die when it is colder? Do you want these people to die, or survive?
Actual deaths caused ONLY by very cold or very hot weather are very small, and there are more deaths from very hot weather
An interesting point. If one were to consider only those casualties due exclusively to temperature, it might be correct. However, nothing is that simple. Cold and hot temperature are significant factors in related deaths and as such should be included.
If there were not significant snow, for example, I would not be out shoveling and due to the combination of cold and exertion get a heart attack, that is a cold weather related emergency.
If it were hot and I went for a long walk and dehydrated due to the combination of exertion and heat, that medical emergency is heat related.
In North America, we will accept any help. It’s cold here.
As someone who lives in the American southeast, speak for yourself.
Well, my sister lives in Alabama.I live in Colorado. I can only look at the blocking maps…
Might be a good idea to move, then?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a strong correlation between hot & cold weather events and deaths of homeless people.
After all, under both the Biden and Trudeau regimes, homelessness has skyrocketed.
How many times do you have to tell a 14 year old heterosexual that they are homosexual before they believe you?
Even if you told a 35 year old heterosexual 1000 times that they were homosexual, would it make a blind bit of difference?
In schools at a certain age, it is important to be “cool”. Once they are about 16 yo, it has been traditionally cool to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, while not having one carried a stigma of being not demanded, not successful. These days it is also cool to be considered homosexual. This relives the pressure of having a heterosexual mate, particularly for girls.
The Washington Post August 4th 2016
The U.S. Coast is in an Unprecedented
Hurricane Drought – Why this is Terrifying
Better engineering of civil works and better building codes are the main reason for much better outcomes after extreme weather events. A degree of warming since the Little Ice Age has nothing to do with it.