Original image: Man at bridge holding head with hands and screaming. By Edvard Munch - WebMuseum at ibiblioPage: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/Image URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37610298

146 Scientists Demand the World Declare a Climate Emergency

Essay by Eric Worrall

Sooo 2024 – “… The health harms of climate change are growing faster than the world’s response to them …”

Ahead of COP31, 146 Scientists Urge UN to Declare Climate Change a Global Health Emergency

“The health harms of climate change are growing faster than the world’s response to them, and in many cases even accelerating.”

JULIA CONLEY
Oct 28, 2026

With less than two weeks to go until the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP31, brings world leaders to Antalya, Türkiye to discuss the need to transition away from fossil fuels, nearly 150 international experts warned that climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions constitutes a “global health emergency” whose harms are accelerating. 

The “2026 Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change,” written by researchers at University College London and the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in The Lancet, tracks dozens of indicators that link climate change to public health, including drought, extreme hurricanes and flooding, and economic losses.

But one top indicator that planetary heating has caused a worsening public health crisis is the extreme heat that was blamed for more than 50,000 deaths across Europe this summer, and which could lead to 450,000 excess deaths in the coming months as the climate emergencyis compounded by this year’s “Super El Niño.” 

According to the report, annual average heat-related deaths have surged by nearly 36% since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, securing pledges from governments to draw down fossil fuel emissions, compared to the decade preceding the deal. 

…

Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/news/climate-change-and-public-health

Its almost nostalgic, these climate scientists trying to drum up engagement and enthusiasm for yesterday’s climate crisis.

Only globalist elites take the fake climate crisis seriously nowadays. The world has moved on, the fake artificial intelligence crisis is far more exciting.

As for world leaders turning up to that conference in Turkey, the COP31 host city Antalya is a 4 hour muscle boat ride from Latakia, Syria’s main seaport. I’m wondering how many security chiefs are having a quiet word with leaders who are considering attending.

President Erdogan of Turkey might think he has earned some consideration by engaging in diplomacy with terrorists, but that is not how this game works – there is always some splinter faction which isn’t happy. Just look at all the times Irish Republican Army splinter factions acted independently.

Of course if something bad does happen, I’m sure COP31 “President of Negotiations”, Aussie climate and energy minister Chris Bowen will save the day with his diplomacy skills.

5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
120 Comments
October 30, 2026 2:06 am

The U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advise against all travel to Turkey, https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/turkey. Thus any U.K. government representatives will be going against their own advice.

SxyxS
Reply to  JohnC
October 30, 2026 3:46 am

Those representative also went against theit own advice when they partied during Covid.

Covid and Climate are made for the plebs.The means to justify the ” You’ll Own Nothing” – ends.
That’s why not only some people but also some crisis’ are more equal.

Simon Duxbury
Reply to  JohnC
October 30, 2026 8:52 am

all travel to parts of Turkey, those parts being anywhere within 10km of the border with Syria.
Putting out misinformation like this undermines the credibility of this site.

Mr.
Reply to  Simon Duxbury
October 30, 2026 9:26 am

Well thanks for clearing this up, mate.

I had totally ruled out going anywhere near that whole shitshow part of the world for any reason at all, but now that you’ve identified that the shitshow only applies to 10km of Turkey’s border with Syria, I’m all in for a beaut summer getaway all through those wonderfully welcoming, safe and stable countries.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Simon Duxbury
October 30, 2026 10:16 am

You are the only one posting “all travel to parts of Turkey.”
You got that from the UK travel advisory link.

So how is this website putting out misinformation?

“the COP31 host city Antalya is a 4 hour muscle boat ride from Latakia, Syria’s main seaport.”

That did not state anything about all parts of Turkey.
It did not state anything about the distance from Antalya to the border with Syria.

I submit your post lacks credibility by diverting to a point for criticism that was never included elsewhere.

That there are parts of Turkey that are within 10km of the border with Syria is useful.

The derogatory comment is useless.

Michael Flynn
Reply to  Simon Duxbury
October 30, 2026 4:18 pm

It always gives me a reason to smile – 9999 m, dangerous. Move 1 m+ – not dangerous?

I suppose a warning of potential danger is good, but there will always be someone who takes the warning literally, and then complains if it turns out that bullets whistling past your ears are dangerously, regardless of how far from the “border” you happen to be.

Istanbul is positively dangerous if you walk across a busy road with your eyes closed!

Reply to  Simon Duxbury
October 30, 2026 5:46 pm

Australian Government advice (31Oct26):

Exercise a high degree of caution in Türkiye overall due to the threat of terrorism.
Higher levels apply. (my bold)

10km from the Syrian border is ‘Do not travel’ but the remainder of the country is at the level of:

Exercise a high degree of caution in Türkiye overall due to the threat of terrorism.

Stephen Ireland
October 30, 2026 2:15 am

The provision of grants from taxpayer funds is timed so that alarmist ‘scientific’ reports written by the funded ‘experts’ are publicised, by the compliant legacy press, just prior to each COP holiday for all those stressed, hard-working (read, protecting their tenure) bureaucrats.

Reply to  Stephen Ireland
October 30, 2026 6:11 am

For God’s sake stop calling it the “Legacy” press, compliment toadyism isn’t a positve fearure.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2026 7:42 am

A legacy is not necessarily positive. It is just what is left behind. Hitler had a legacy.

Harry Durham
Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2026 8:15 am

Preferred nomenclature options: Lamestream misledia, ghoulish remnants of deceased journalism, propaganda press, talking point promulgators, etc.

Reply to  Harry Durham
October 30, 2026 9:05 am

Fact checked fake news.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Harry Durham
October 30, 2026 9:58 am

I like “propaganda press”. I’m going to start using that phrase.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2026 8:58 am

“Legacy” and “Classic” are used in similar ways. (They call the original Doctor Who series “Classic Doctor Who”.)
Both words imply something new has come along, not necessarily better but new.
That makes me wonder just what is specifically is the “New Press”?
Podcast? Blogs? YouTube?
Do they have different sources than the “Legacy” press and the MSM?

gyan1
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 30, 2026 10:01 am

“Do they have different sources than the “Legacy” press and the MSM?”

Yes, they reference empirical data and use common sense rather than false narratives and spin like lying legacy propaganda outlets. The main factor is they rely on trust that they aren’t promoting falsehoods to maintain readership. 70% of Democrats trust the liars as if they were the gospel. Only 17% of Republicans trust mainstream media which includes Fox.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2026 10:25 am

The so-called “Legacy press” are simply the PC news organizations gone digital.

PC = pre-computer.

Rod Evans
October 30, 2026 2:20 am

Paraphrasing Einstein, ” Why 146, if it were true one would have been enough”….

SxyxS
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 30, 2026 3:40 am

Because propaganda always works on a quantitative basis.

Truth does not need claqueures,scare scenarios and permanent repetition.
But to establish a 2+2=5 narrative as new normal you need an army of narrators.

Interesting btw that none of these worried humanists declared a health emergency in terms of the MRNA vaccine.
Because they know this would cut them off from the money-trough they chained themselves to as Covid is the Climate Change of the WHO to help countries cease sovereignities.
But in this case even something as big as the Barrington declaration was swept under the rug.

To paraphrase Dr Charles Hoffe: ” We expected a Tsunami but didn’t had a single Covid emergency case during the first 18 month.
Only after the vaccine rollout the wave of emergency cases started to roll in. “

Scissor
Reply to  SxyxS
October 30, 2026 3:42 am

Curse the darkness.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  SxyxS
October 30, 2026 10:29 am

Power Point 101.

Bigger is better.

Which is more impressive? 1 Mbyte or data or 8 Mbits? If one does not know the specifics, one sees 1 versus 8. It is a known presentation tactic. It is used here.

Likewise 146 is more impressive because it infers and accuracy much greater than ~150.

Control the language, control the ideas.
Also Advertising 101. 🙂

Reply to  SxyxS
October 30, 2026 1:37 pm

But to establish a 2+2=5 narrative as new normal you need an army of narrators.

Or stick someone’s head in a birdcage with a rat in it. Then they’ll believe 2+2=5 or any other nonsense, or suffer the consequences. Never forget: “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength”.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  SxyxS
October 30, 2026 2:07 pm

Have the wits to separate issues. Gravely ill people began to pour into the first world hospital systems rapidly before any one single vaccine had been run through its safety checks and released for use.
Nowhere has real world experience demonstrated that the slow mild rise in temperature of the world has done anything at all like that – the evidence is to the contrary.
ALL opinions are open to checking with data.
Chalk is not cheese.

Reply to  Rod Evans
October 30, 2026 4:14 am

Bandar Log-ic. The Boolean mindset of the masses.
“We all say it, so it must be true”

Mike Larkin
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 30, 2026 6:09 pm

They’re slipping badly if they can only scrape up 146. Even a year ago they could have walked onto pretty much any university campus, stood in the quad and whistled and they would have had more just from that campus.

Victor
October 30, 2026 2:47 am

No one cares about the climate as the economic crisis gets worse and worse.
Who is paying the interest on all the loans?

Some live in shacks in shantytowns.
Others live in modern homes.
As poverty increases, more and more people are forced to live in shacks in shantytowns.

Debt held by the public hit 100% of gross domestic product for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that this is the first time the ratio has reached triple digits since 1946. Harry Truman was president in 1946, so President Trump is the first president since Truman to see the fiscal-year ratio this high. That comparison marks the date and places no blame. The Journal links the debt to decades of tax cuts, emergency spending and an aging population under both parties.

https://247wallst.com/investing/2026/10/29/trump-first-president-to-see-national-debt-hit-100-of-gdp-since-harry-truman/

Scissor
Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 3:35 am

Everyone pays in the form of inflation. The reckoning will be interesting.

Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 3:52 am

Hasn’t inflation always been with us? It’s currently 3.7% in America. I’ve seen in much worse in my 77 spins around the sun.

Scissor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 5:18 am

Yes, it’s more or less inevitable, of course our parents and grandparents lived through deflationary times, which weren’t so happy economically.

starzmom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 5:20 am

I also remember the inflation of the late 70s-early 80s. We bought a house with a15% interest rate, and inflation was running 10-11% for a couple years. Those were the days.

Reply to  starzmom
October 30, 2026 9:08 am

Jimmy Carter years.

George Thompson
Reply to  starzmom
October 30, 2026 4:59 pm

I was a Realtor-and when the interest rates finally dropped below 10%, the market went absolutely bugshit crazy. Good times. People have forgotton how bad it was.

George Thompson
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 4:57 pm

Me too.

Victor
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 7:33 am

I have seen some films about people who have become unemployed and been forced to move into shacks in shantytowns.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 11:19 am

No, you’ve seen some AI-generated tripe & can’t tell the difference between truth & fiction.

Victor
Reply to  1saveenergy
October 30, 2026 1:45 pm

The number of homeless people has begun to increase from the 2020 level, according to 2025 statistics.

The latest published count showed a small year-over-year decrease in overall homelessness. In January 2025, 745,650 people were experiencing homelessness. This was a drop of 25,830 (3 percent) from the year before and marked the first decrease in literal homelessness since 2016. However, the slight decline did little to offset the rapid rise in homelessness since the pandemic. The number of people experiencing homelessness was up 165,190 (28 percent) since January 2020.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/homelessness-declines-remains-near-record-high

Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 1:38 pm

She’s just a nature girl looking for a date.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 10:30 am

Everyone pays. That is all that needs be said.

Where does the government get the money?
Everyone pays.

Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 3:51 am

“As poverty increases, more and more people are forced to live in shacks in shantytowns.”

Examples? I don’t know anyone moving into shantytowns.

Scissor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 5:22 am

I don’t know anyone moving into them either, but most big cities are loaded with them. LA is the worst I know.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 7:03 am

In the US, very little of homelessness is caused by poverty.
Almost all of it is caused by mental illness and drug addiction.

hiskorr
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 6:52 am

Isn’t that a description of once-attractive apartment buildings in NYC that are rent-controlled into decrepitude when there is no money for repairs?

Victor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 8:13 am

Many older people cannot afford to live in nursing homes in the US.

Nursing Home Costs by State 2026

In the United States, the average private room in a nursing home is $10,104 per month or $332 per day. The average cost of a semi-private room is $9,167 per month and $301 per day. Annually, a semi-private room costs an average of $110,004 and a private room costs an average of $121,248.

Since 2016, the annual costs of both types of rooms have increased significantly. In 2016, a semi-private room cost about $82,128 per year, more than $28,000 less than in 2023. A private room cost about $92,376 in 2016, about $29,000 less than in 2023. This trend is expected to continue, with a semi-private room averaging $120,008 per year and a private room averaging $134,896 per year by 2028. Given this trend, those who are planning on entering a nursing home for an extended period of time should anticipate increases in cost in the coming years.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/nursing-home-costs-by-state

Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 8:26 am

In commy blue states like Wokeachusetts, you can, if poor enough, get an apartment in a “senior housing” building. Some are state owned and managed and some are federal. You don’t really live in a nursing home, you die there. In Wokeachusetts, the state will cover the cost for a nursing home- then when you pass, they’ll grab your estate. So, you need to plan ahead in case you’re low income and turn over much of your estate 5 years before your termination.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Victor
October 30, 2026 3:52 am

Using this logic of the Left, improving the health of the elderly allows them to live longer. This means the death rate will actually increase when they finally die. This means that the best way to improve death statistics is to prevent the elderly from obtaining improved health.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Johnson
October 30, 2026 5:25 am

That’s basically the model.

Harry Durham
Reply to  Tom Johnson
October 30, 2026 8:23 am

That is so yesterday. Now the left is promoting ‘assisted suicide.’ It took awhile, but you have to admire their thoroughness. The entire spectrum of life is covered. Abortion on demand up to and after birth, euthanasia for useless aged CO2 sources, and mothers now cheered for killing any children who are too much of a hindrance to living the desired lifestyle. Cradle to grave options for elimination. Or, in leftist speak, that’s “security.”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harry Durham
October 30, 2026 10:33 am

Yup.

Art Slartibartfast
October 30, 2026 2:48 am

Which 146 scientists? Can anyone point me to the list? Google search just sends me around in circles.

Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
October 30, 2026 3:15 am

Go to
http://www.thelancet.com
then click on the box to take you to “The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change”, then click on “the latest report”.
That has a list of all 146.

I used DDG, Google is a waste of time.

Reply to  Oldseadog
October 30, 2026 3:54 am

How many are real scientists- rather than social scientists?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 4:40 am

They are SINOs.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 5:16 am

Joseph, Good Question. Here is Grok’s answer: Approximately 18 geoscientists (broadly defined as specialists in earth, atmospheric, oceanic, geological, meteorological, or hydrogeological sciences, based primarily on institutional affiliations and known expertise).
The 2026 Lancet Countdown report is a large multidisciplinary collaboration (146 authors). Most authors are in public health, epidemiology, economics, policy, energy systems, or related fields. The geoscientists are identifiable mainly through affiliations in geology, earth-system science, atmospheric science/meteorology, marine meteorology, hydrogeology, and related earth-science departments or agencies (e.g., meteorological institutes, NASA Goddard, WMO, Bureau of Meteorology).
Clear geoscientists from the author list

  • Belén Benitez Martinez — Laboratoire de Géologie, École Normale Supérieure, Paris (geology)
  • Mitchell Black — Australian Bureau of Meteorology (meteorology)
  • Prof Wenjia Cai — Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University
  • Sara Basart — World Meteorological Organization (atmospheric science/aerosols/dust modeling)
  • Armel Castellan — World Meteorological Organization (atmospheric sciences/meteorology; prior Environment and Climate Change Canada meteorologist)
  • Patricia Castellanos — NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (atmospheric modeling, aerosol assimilation/optical properties)
  • Risto Hänninen — Atmospheric Composition Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • Evgeny Kadantsev — Atmospheric Composition Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • Rostislav Kouznetsov — Atmospheric Composition Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • Prof Mikhail Sofiev — Atmospheric Composition Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • Andreas Uppstu — Atmospheric Composition Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • Prof Mark Maslin — Department of Geography, University College London (Earth System Science / physical geography / paleoceanography; geology-inclusive background)
  • Prof Celia McMichael — School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne
  • Prof Matilde Rusticucci — Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Universidad de Buenos Aires
  • Peng Xian — Marine Meteorology Division, US Naval Research Laboratory (aerosol/atmospheric science; Earth and Environmental Sciences training)
  • Prof Mohammad Shamsudduha — Hydrogeologist (groundwater science), University College London (Risk and Disaster Reduction); member of the International Association of Hydrogeologists and AGU
  • Daniel Tong — College of Science, George Mason University (atmospheric science, air quality, aerosols/dust)
  • Prof Dominic Kniveton — Department of Geography, University of Sussex (climate and geography)

These are the strongest matches based on the published affiliations in the Lancet article and supporting professional profiles. A few borderline cases (e.g., climate-health researchers whose primary training or current role is more epidemiological or social-science oriented) were excluded to keep the list focused on core geoscience expertise. The exact number can shift slightly with a narrower or broader definition of “geoscientist.”

Scissor
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 30, 2026 5:35 am

Ecology and Environmental Sciences are basically communist training grounds.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 5:54 am

Not me Scissor. I am old school 1974 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6539-3306

Scissor
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 30, 2026 6:13 am

Today.

I remember old school values. They basically disappeared with the slide-rule.

Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 6:58 am

In high school in the mid ’60s, I thought I was cool by wearing a slide-rule on my belt. But the chicks preferred the guys wearing their football jacket. 🙂

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 11:13 am

I still have most of my slide rules. Yup – right here in my top desk drawer – Post Versalog. It took me awhile to remember how to use it. I used a cheaper one in 3rd grade to cheat on my math tests. Before the end of the year, I memorized the basic multiplication table and confessed to Miss Fox that I’d been cheating. She said she knew – that she was so impressed I could use it she allowed it – but appreciated that I’d confessed!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 1:44 pm

I was in high school in the mid ’70s and the slide rule had gone the way of the Dodo by then. My dad, however, was an old school engineer and was still using a slide rule.

George Thompson
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 6:03 pm

Sadly.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 10:56 am

Basically. I still recall my statistics professor preaching to us the end was nigh because we had run out of oil (1972 Fall – 1973 Spring – my freshman year of college). The HP 35 calculator came out that year. I don’t remember seeing one that year, but I couldn’t afford it anyway.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 2:50 pm

Yep, I used that at school too. Follow me on X at #OldGeaser #SlideruleNerd 🙂

George Thompson
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 30, 2026 6:05 pm

1971, and a slide-rule.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 10:34 am

Today, yes.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 30, 2026 6:55 am

“Most authors are in public health, epidemiology, economics, policy, energy systems, or related fields. ”

Which means they know next to nothing about climate change other than what’s in the MSM which of course is almost entirely nonsense.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 8:44 am

How many are PPE?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 30, 2026 8:46 am

I don’t know what PPE is. Acronyms never stick to my brain. 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 10:35 am

Where I work, PPE is personal protective equipment.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 11:56 am

I recall that PPE means political science 101, philosophy101, and economics 101.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 10:18 am

Allow me to strengthen your point. Out of 71 institutions, which Lancet refers to, only 23 (approx. one out of three) relate to the health/medicine domain. Which means that the experts that are affiliated with the other 48 institutions know next to nothing about health/medicine, at least no more than laymen. Thank you. 

Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
October 30, 2026 9:15 am

Anybody know how many are members of “The Union of Concerned Scientist”?
(Is one of the 146 named Kenji?)

hdhoese
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
October 30, 2026 6:00 pm

If I was in the right place for their report, many of their 397 references were greatly self published by Lancet. So I checked this one, would cost $39.99. I would think that my attributabing would require their retraction.
Callaghan, M, C. F. Schleussner, and S. Nath. 2021. Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11:966-972. From their abstract.
“….Here we use the language model BERT to identify and classify studies on observed climate impacts, producing a comprehensive machine-learning-assisted evidence map. We estimate that 102,160 (64,958–164,274) publications document a broad range of observed impacts…..While gaps remain on confidently attributabing climate impacts at the regional and sectoral level, this database illustrates the potential current impact of anthropogenic climate change across the globe.” I had an uncle name Bert who would have been offended.

lumariani
October 30, 2026 3:35 am

I would like to draw your attention to a scientific paper in which we have sought to bring a more rational perspective to the subject of the climate crisis—a topic often approached in a demagogic manner, without regard for the data. The article is available free of charge; here is the reference:

Alimonti G, Mariani L, 2025. Quantifying the climate crisis: a data-driven framework using response indicators for evidence-based adaptation policies, Environmental Hazards, DOI: 10.1080/17477891.2025.2571708

Scissor
Reply to  lumariani
October 30, 2026 3:48 am

It’s interesting that the IPCC acknowledges “climate crisis” is a media term.

Reply to  lumariani
October 30, 2026 3:55 am

Can you summarize it for those of us too lazy to look it up? 🙂

JonasM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 30, 2026 1:04 pm

AI Summary:
DOI 10.1080/17477891.2025.2571708 — Article SummaryTitle: Quantifying the climate crisis: a data-driven framework using response indicators for evidence-based adaptation policies

Authors: Gianluca Alimonti (INFN & Università degli Studi, Milano, Italy) and Luigi Mariani (Università degli Studi, Brescia – Dicatam, Brescia, Italy)
Journal: Environmental Hazards

Publication year: 2025

Abstract & Key PointsThe paper addresses the concept of “climate crisis”, which has been widely used in media and politics but lacks a critical, consistent definition. The authors argue that without precise metrics, the term can be misused — either alarmist or overly optimistic
.
Proposed Framework

  • Response Indicators (RINDs): A set of objective, measurable indicators based on the IPCC AR6 Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) .
  • Methodology: Mann–Kendall trend tests applied to RIND time series to detect statistically significant worsening trends
  • Findings: In most studied contexts, indicators did not show statistically significant worsening trends, challenging generalized “crisis” narratives .

Policy Implications

  • Advocate for annual updates of indicators to create an evolving “crisis index,” similar to how economics moved from qualitative to quantitative crisis definitions (e.g., recessions defined by GDP quarters)
  • Emphasize localized, data-driven adaptation strategies over blanket terminology Link “crisis” to measurable benchmarks to guide policymakers toward targeted interventions

SignificanceThis work promotes scientific reliability in climate discourse by:

  • Replacing vague qualitative claims with quantitative metrics.
  • Encouraging regional specificity in climate policy.

Providing a transparent, replicable framework for monitoring climate impacts Full text access: The article is available via the publisher’s site and the open access link provided in the DOI record

https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/d350bd50-bb81-4cfe-88e8-8368159c2f3d/TENH_A_2571708.pdf

Reply to  JonasM
October 30, 2026 2:39 pm

“Providing a transparent, replicable framework for monitoring climate impacts”

hmmmm…. but I’d think you can’t definitively link slight changes in temperature to specific “severe weather events” (my quotes). So, you can’t necessarily say what the impacts are, except theoretically based on models. I’m not a scientist – just trying to pretend I can think like one. 🙂 I’m also trying to understand how a framework can be replicable. In a lab environment, you can attempt to replicate previous research. Oh, well, I suppose I can go read that item. 🙂

Alan Welch
October 30, 2026 3:42 am

Looked at the list of 146 authors. A bit worrying – no Mickey Mouse

2hotel9
Reply to  Alan Welch
October 30, 2026 3:52 am

Really? Who is paying them? Oh, yea, that fact is hidden.

2hotel9
October 30, 2026 3:50 am

No actual proof, just more caterwauling&gnashing of teeth over nothing.

strativarius
October 30, 2026 4:15 am

146 Scientists Urge UN to Declare Climate Change a Global Health Emergency

Is that all?

The United Kingdom has 18,299 scientists on the 2026 single-year Top 2% list, up 1.0% from 18,124 in 2025.
https://topscinet.com/countries/united-kingdom/

That’s just the UK…

Russell Cook
Reply to  strativarius
October 30, 2026 8:24 am

Meanwhile, Clintel, founded in The Netherlands by geophysics professor Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok, has its own World Climate Declaration (which now has 2,081 signatories as of today) saying there is no climate emergency.

rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 4:16 am

I will never understand why people are happy cutting trees, drilling for oil, digging for coal, and raising windmills to generate electricity when we have had cheap, clean and reliable nuclear power available for decades.

AI tells us …

The horse-to-automobile transition is often cited as one of the fastest infrastructure revolutions in history:

  • Electricity replacing gas lighting: several decades.
  • Horses replaced by automobiles in cities: roughly 10-20 years.
  • Animal farm power replaced by tractors: roughly 30-40 years.
  • For a city resident in 1895, horses were everywhere. By 1925, many American cities had been transformed into largely motorized environments. That’s a dramatic change within a single generation.
Scissor
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 5:44 am

You seem to be mainly addressing electrical energy, but in a broader sense, we need material and energy, not just energy. Fossil fuels provide both economically. Nuclear energy does not.

As an aside, the first time I visited mainland China, farming was still mostly animal powered, and most of those animals were humans. The main mode of transportation for people in the cities was bicycles (and shitty ones at that).

It took the communists there about 100 years to catch up to the West.

rovingbroker
Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 7:43 am

“You seem to be mainly addressing electrical energy, but in a broader sense, we need material and energy, not just energy. Fossil fuels provide both economically. Nuclear energy does not.”

Yes. I am talking only about electrical energy. Material? What does “material” have to do with generating electrical energy?


Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 10:40 am

What does “material” have to do with generating electrical energy?

Um, material is needed to construct the generators, regardless of type or fuel.

Then there is energy for transporting those materials to the construction site.
Also for transporting fuel to where it is needed and getting the fuel out of the ground.

Reply to  Scissor
October 30, 2026 8:47 am

Saw many BYDs in the Western Baltics, and one in England.

starzmom
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 6:49 am

Horses are messy. Ask anyone responsible for keeping a barn clean.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  starzmom
October 30, 2026 10:40 am

Ask anyone who had to keep the streets clean, pre-automobile.

starzmom
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 30, 2026 11:29 am

They are dead now. But I still clean a barn occasionally.

cgh
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 30, 2026 12:13 pm

Agreed, strongly. In 1900, transportation in London, England was by horse-drawn transport. Moving it all was a population of approximately 300,000 horses. This horse herd produced approximately 7,500 TONS of manure every day. All of it was simply shovelled into the Thames River. By sitting on the streets, it was contaminating city water supply. As a result, London would suffer a cholera epidemic about once per decade.

The environmental and health damage done by horse transport was enormous in all nations everywhere. All of this microbial pollution was largely eliminated by the replacement of horses by motor vehicles using fossil fuels. It was now possible to have safe drinking water in large cities.

This is only the mere beginning of the benefits of eliminating horse transport. The implications for food production and land use were equally enormous.

Reply to  rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 2:13 pm

About 80% of all energy use is thermal energy. The heavy industries and heavy transport systems will always enormous amounts of FF and this will never change for the foreseeable future. For example, metal smelters, steel rolling mills, and foundries will always use large amounts of FF. Firetrucks and garbage trucks will always use FF.

Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2026 4:17 am

The wild climate claims of the cuckoo climate caterwaulers are growing faster than the world’s response to them, and in many cases are even accelerating.

Scissor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2026 4:21 am

Reminds me of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15PV7qn8Phg

In any case, I doubt that the Milwaukee Brewers win a World Series without climate change.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2026 8:48 am

Is there a hockey stick in there? Maybe we’re reaching a tipping pont?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 30, 2026 1:18 pm

We should ask Mikey. He’s the expert.

RogerT
October 30, 2026 4:23 am

And at least 7,000 climate “scientists” don’t (estimates vary, that’s the lowball, could be as high as 20K).

Reply to  RogerT
October 30, 2026 4:41 am

Right, whatever happened to the 95% “consensus”?

1saveenergy
Reply to  johnesm
October 30, 2026 11:29 am

They both went home (:-))

October 30, 2026 4:54 am

The “2026 Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change” link brought me to “The 2026 Global Report of the Lancet Countdown”

I discovered Helen Clark, former Prime Minster of New Zealand, is the Chair of the Lancet Countdown Board. She must be well qualified and experienced for this role. After graduating in Political Science she spent nearly her whole working life in politics. Her husband, is a sociologist who specialized in medical sociology and worked at university medical schools. It seems that they are particularly interested in statistics and how these validate their climate claims about health matters.

I doubt any of the 146 experts from 71 collaborating institutions, who worked on the report, are aware of the work of the late Douglas Altman. Altman, a professor of statistics in medicine at the University of Oxford, waged a long-running campaign to improve the use of statistics in medical research.

In 1998 Altman described the problem as follows:
“The majority of statistical analyses are performed by people with an inadequate understanding of statistical methods. They are then peer reviewed by people who are generally no more knowledgeable. Sadly, much research may benefit researchers rather more than patients, especially when it is carried out primarily as a ridiculous career necessity.”

Since Altman wrote this the standards in scientific and medical journals like The Lancet have fallen precipitously. A glimpse at the list of contents reveals various articles that have little to do with actual medicine but an ideological and political motivation. Meanwhile in most western countries state provided healthcare standards keep falling resulting in many preventable deaths. The Lancet needs to get its own house in order and not wander into the sciences studying climate that they have limited or no knowlege of.

Bill Toland
October 30, 2026 4:58 am

Anybody declaring that there is a climate emergency is by definition not a scientist.

Nevada_Geo
October 30, 2026 5:00 am

QUESTION FOR GEMINI AI:
“146 climate scientists are flexing their authority. How many climate scientists are there on planet Earth?”

ANSWER:
Determining the total number of “climate scientists” depends on how narrowly the field is defined, as climate science integrates atmospheric physics, oceanography, paleoclimatology, geophysics, satellite meteorology, and ecological modeling.
Estimates of the active global population of climate scientists range across several tiers:

  • Core Actively Publishing Climate Researchers: ~10,000 to 20,000. Bibliometric studies analyzing authors of peer-reviewed literature in atmospheric sciences, oceanography, and climate dynamics typically track a core pool of roughly 10,000 to 15,000 actively publishing primary researchers worldwide.
  • Broader Earth & Environmental Science Community: ~50,000 to 100,000+. When expanding the criteria to include broader Earth scientists, geologists, hydrologists, and environmental scientists who regularly contribute to climate-related research, regional modeling, or observational networks, the count expands significantly. Major professional bodies like the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and European Geosciences Union (EGU) combined represent over 80,000 members across these disciplines.
  • IPCC Network & Assessment Contributors: ~3,000 to 4,000. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on a curated network of roughly 3,000 to 4,000 core authors, review editors, and primary contributors per assessment cycle.

Put in context, the 146 authors on the recent Lancet Countdown report cited in the WUWT article represent a very small subset—roughly 1% to 1.5% of the core actively publishing climate research community, and a negligible fraction of the wider global geosciences field.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nevada_Geo
October 30, 2026 10:43 am

You will not find that in the Lancet Countdown report. Not scary enough.

October 30, 2026 5:35 am

Eric, your sacasm is so thick, it needs a bucket shovel.

“Of course if something bad does happen, I’m sure COP31 “President of Negotiations”, Aussie climate and energy minister Chris Bowen will save the day with his diplomacy skills.”

Mr.
Reply to  Brad-DXT
October 30, 2026 9:40 am

Bowen being anywhere is an instance of “something bad having happened” there.

Fundamentally, all intelligence will have left the building.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Brad-DXT
October 30, 2026 10:44 am

Yes, but I find it warrented.

SamGrove
October 30, 2026 5:38 am

100% of 146 scientists declare a climate emergency.

strativarius
Reply to  SamGrove
October 30, 2026 6:45 am

The UK alone has 18,299 scientists or more. Ergo, 146 scientists represents ~0.79% of the total number.

The key to the left’s success is always voter apathy. For example,the leader of Britain’s largest Union (Unite) was elected on…

Turnout at the election was approximately 10 per cent. 

Ninety percent didn’t even bother to vote. Sadistiq Khan was elected with a turnout of 40%. They play the game and the opposition needs to get its act together.

SamGrove
October 30, 2026 5:39 am

–
Is that how you do it?

October 30, 2026 7:05 am

Instead of freaking out, they should just read the following paper. Discussion closed, once and for all: Cohler, J.; Legates, D.R.; Soon, F.; Soon, W. A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions. Sci. Clim. Change 2025, 5(1), 13–28. 
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18259786. CO2 has a dwelling time of 3.5 – 4 years and is rapidly taken up in Earth’s carbon cycle. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are negligible, compared to Earth’s vast carbon cycle. One doesn’t even see a human signal: no 12C to 13C isotope variation, no drop during Covid in the Keeling curve, nothing.

rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 7:29 am

“Ahead of COP31, 146 Scientists Urge UN to Declare Climate Change a Global Health Emergency”
I asked Copilot AI, “146 out of how many scientists?”

According to the U.S. National Science Foundation, the number of people in science and engineering occupations is on the order of 7 million in the United States.

Compared to 7 million science and engineering workers, 146 people would be about 0.002%.
Compared to 25 million people with science/engineering degrees, 146 would be about 0.0006%.
Compared to 36 million STEM workers, 146 would be about 0.0004%.

Scientific claims stand or fall on evidence, not on head counts.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 30, 2026 12:57 pm

But, but, but, these 146 are the ones that KNOW and we should blindly trust them.

Is a /sarc needed?

Jeff Alberts
October 30, 2026 7:30 am

You’ll notice they NEVER mention the much higher number of cold deaths when proclaiming catastrophe from heat.

October 30, 2026 8:18 am

What percentage of these scientists would lose their funding if/when the “climate emergency” is recognized as the nothing it is?

Sparta Nova 4
October 30, 2026 10:10 am

A point of curiosity.
How much has average life expectancy increased in the past decade or so?

The point of the question is: How much of the stated 36% due to people getting older and, perhaps, age demographic shifts?

Denis
October 30, 2026 10:58 am

Population is up since 1931 and the publication of 100 Authors Against Einstein so I suppose 146 against CO2 is par.

Westfieldmike
October 30, 2026 11:53 am

They seem to be getting more desperate the longer the planet refuses to die.