Climate change is already causing damaging effects on health worldwide – The Lancet
By Paul Homewood
The Lancet is back on the climate change bandwagon again with this latest report.
Climate change is commonly discussed in the context of its future impact, but the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change by Nick Watts and colleagues, published on Oct 30, exposes the urgency for a response as environmental changes cause damaging effects on health worldwide now. The comprehensive Review describes the first results of a global initiative, which will annually report on indicators of climate change and its effects on health. One alarming finding is how rising temperatures have influenced the transmission of infectious diseases. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus has increased since 1990, with tangible effects—notably, the doubling of cases of dengue fever every decade since 1990.
The report shows a 46% increase between 2000 and 2016 in the frequency of extreme weather events. The disparity in the resulting economic losses is clear, with proportional costs in low-income countries almost double to those in high-income countries (average annual loss US$1·45 vs $2·65/$1000 gross domestic product in high-income vs low-income countries). Strikingly, 99% of losses in low-income countries are uninsured, destroying people’s homes and crop land, taking away livelihoods, and turning the story from economics to health, and the crisis from environmental to humanitarian.
With the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, plans to develop one of the world’s largest coal mines in Australia, and uncertainty surrounding the effects of the European Union losing the UK, its leading advocate for ambitious climate change policy, it is easy to feel discouraged about the future of climate change. However, many countries are leading in their own ways: France has committed to completely phase out coal power by 2023, one in five cars sold in China are to run on alternative fuel by 2025, and Sweden’s Climate Act is a commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
The message of this report is clear: urgent action is needed now. The foundations have been laid, but the past 25 years of inactivity have not been without consequence. Now is the time to build on the small achievements made by some countries and perpetuate engagement to reach political consensus in the race against anthropogenic climate change.
http://thelancet.com/climate-and-health?dgcid=etoc-edschoice_email_Nov4
Their apocalyptic findings are centred around these themes:
Indicator 1.2: Health effects of heatwaves
This indicator reports that between 2000 and 2016, the number of vulnerable people exposed to heatwave events increased by about 125 million, with a record 175 million more people exposed to heatwaves in 2015. The health impacts of extreme heat range from direct heat stress and heat stroke, to exacerbations of pre-existing heart failure, and even an increased incidence of acute kidney injury from dehydration in vulnerable populations. Elderly people, children younger than 12 months, and people with chronic cardiovascular and renal disease are particularly sensitive to these changes.
Our definition of a heatwave is a period of more than 3 days during which the minimum temperature is greater than the 99th percentile of the historical minima (1986–2008 average). This metric therefore focuses on periods of high night-time temperatures, which are crucial in denying vulnerable people vital recuperation between hot days. Heatwave data were calculated against the historical period 1986–2008. The population for the exposure calculations was limited to people older than 65 years (as this age group is most vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves), and data were obtained on a per country basis from the UN World Population Prospects archives for each year considered.
The highest number of exposure events was recorded in 2015, with about 175 million additional people exposed to heatwaves (figure 2). Over time, the mean number of heatwave days experienced by people during any one heatwave (exposure-weighted) increases at a much faster rate than the global mean (area-weighted) number of heatwave days per heatwave (figure 3) because of high population densities in areas where heatwaves have occurred.
Nowhere in the Executive Summary can I find any mention of changes in cold weather extremes. (It may be in the detailed paper, but how many people read that?)
And there is certainly no mention of the fact that cold kills far more people than heat.
What makes this omission even worse is that it was a study published in the Lancet itself in 2015 that found that:
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
And this did not only apply to cold climates, but hotter countries too.
In any event, the claim that more people are exposed to heatwaves is highly misleading, because of their definition of what a heatwave is.
In reality, these people have always been exposed to extremely hot weather, even if it might be a fraction of a degree hotter than now.
The real answer is to provide the inhabitants of countries particularly vulnerable to hot summers with access to reliable and affordable energy, air conditioning, clean water, medical services and the rest.
Indicator 1.3: Change in labour capacity
This indicator reports that global labour capacity in rural populations exposed to temperature change is estimated to have decreased by 5·3% from 2000 to 2016.
Higher temperatures pose profound threats to occupational health and labour productivity, particularly for people undertaking manual, outdoor labour in hot areas. This indicator shows the change in labour capacity (and thus productivity) worldwide and for rural regions specifically, weighted by population (appendix p 18). Loss of labour capacity has important implications for the livelihoods of individuals, families, and communities, especially those relying on subsistence farming.
Estimation of labour capacity is based on wet bulb globe temperatures, as described by Watts and colleagues. We estimated change in outdoor labour productivity as a percentage relative to the reference period (1986–2008) (figure 4). Labour capacity is estimated to have decreased by 5·3% between 2000 and 2016, with a dramatic decrease of more than 2% between 2015 and 2016. Although there are some peaks of increased labour capacity (notably in 2000, 2004, and 2008), the overwhelming trend is one of reduced capacity. These effects are most notable in some of the most vulnerable countries in the world (figure 5).
This is just another of those ridiculous statistical models, which can be used to prove whatever you want.
If we take two of the countries highlighted as problem areas, India and Brazil, we find that the value of agricultural production (at constant prices) has risen in leaps and bounds since 1960, a warmer climate or not.
These are the real facts, not some imagined loss in labour productivity.
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
Indicator 1.4: Lethality of weather-related disasters
This indicator reports that the frequency of weather related disasters has increased by 46% from 2007 to 2016 (compared with the 1990–99 average), with no clear upward or downward trend in the lethality of these extreme events.
Weather-related events have been associated with more than 90% of all disasters worldwide in the past 20 years. As expected, considering its population and area, Asia is the continent most affected by weather-related disasters. 2843 events were recorded between 1990 and 2016, affecting 4·8 billion people and killing 505 013 people. Deaths from natural hazard-related disasters are largely concentrated in poor countries. Crucially, this must be understood in the context of potentially overwhelming health impacts of future climate change, worsening profoundly in the coming years. Indeed, the 2015 Lancet Commission estimated that an additional 1·4 billion drought exposure events and 2·3 billion flood exposure events will occur by the end of the century, showing clear public health limits to adaptation.
Disaster impact is a function of hazard and vulnerability, with vulnerability from a climate change perspective sometimes defined as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This indicator measures the ratio of the number of deaths to the number of people affected by weather-related disasters. Weather-related disasters include droughts, floods, extreme temperature events, storms, and wildfires. The health impacts of weather-related disasters expand beyond mortality alone, including injuries, mental health impacts, spread of disease, and food and water insecurity. Data for the calculations for this indicator come from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). Here, in line with the EM-DAT data used for analysis, a disaster is defined as either: (1) ten or more people killed; (2) 100 or more people affected; (3) a declaration of a state of emergency; or (4) a call for international assistance.
Between 1994 and 2013, the frequency of reported weather-related events (mainly floods and storms) increased substantially. However, this trend might be partially accounted for by information systems having improved in the past 35 years, and statistical data are now more available because of increased sociocultural sensitivity to disaster consequences and occurrence. From 2007 to 2016, EM-DAT recorded an average of 306 weather-related disasters per year, an increase of 46% from the 1990–99 average. However, owing to impressive poverty reduction and health adaptation efforts, this increase in weather-related disasters has not yet been accompanied by any discernible trend in number of deaths or in number of people affected by disasters (or in the ratio of these two; figure 6). Indeed, separating out the disasters by the type of climate and weather hazard associated with the disaster, we found a significant decrease in the number of people affected by floods worldwide, equating to a decrease of 3 million people annually. Importantly, best available estimates and projections expect a sharp reversal in these trends in the coming decades, and it is notable that mortality associated with weather-related disasters has increased in many countries, many of which are high-income countries, illustrating that no country is immune to the impacts of climate change.
This claim is based solely on the EM-DAT database of disasters, which I have already taken to the cleaners here.
As even the Lancet admit, “however, this trend might be partially accounted for by information systems having improved in the past 35 years, and statistical data are now more available because of increased sociocultural sensitivity to disaster consequences and occurrence.”
This alone should invalidate any conclusions they have arrived at. And if more evidence was needed, their Figure 6 surely provides it:
On the top graph, the red plot of occurrences takes a huge upward step change after 1998, since when it has stabilised. Yet there appears to be no trend in numbers of deaths or people affected.
This is strong evidence that all we are seeing is an increase in the numbers of extremely minor occurrences, which affect only a small number of people. In other words, exactly the sort of disasters which previously went unreported.
Indicator 1.5: Global health trends in climate-sensitive diseases
This indicator reports that global health initiatives have improved the health profile of populations around the world—a trend that unmitigated climate change is expected to undermine.
Disease occurrence is determined by a complex composite of social and environmental conditions and health service provision, all of which vary geographically. Nonetheless, some diseases are particularly sensitive to variations in climate and weather and might therefore be expected to vary with both longer-term climate change and shorter-term extreme weather events. This indicator draws from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2015 mortality estimates to show trends in deaths associated with seven climate-sensitive diseases since 1990 (figure 7).
These disease trends reveal worldwide increases in dengue mortality, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, Latin American, and Caribbean regions, with some peak years (including 1998) known to be associated with El Niño conditions. Beyond climate, likely drivers of dengue mortality include trade, urbanisation, global and local mobility, and climate variability. The association between increased dengue mortality and climate change is therefore complex. It naturally follows that an increased spread of the disease resulting from climate change will be an important contributing factor in the increased likelihood of an associated increase in mortality.
Again, the study highlights the likely drivers of dengue mortality – trade, urbanisation, global and local mobility.
Prof Duane Gubler is one of the world’s leading experts on vector-borne diseases. In 2011, he published a paper, Dengue, Urbanization and Globalization: The Unholy Trinity of the 21st Century, which had this to say:
Abstract
Dengue is the most important arboviral disease of humans with over half of the world’s population living in areas of risk. The frequency and magnitude of epidemic dengue have increased dramatically in the past 40 years as the viruses and the mosquito vectors have both expanded geographically in the tropical regions of the world. There are many factors that have contributed to this emergence of epidemic dengue, but only three have been the principal drivers: 1) urbanization, 2) globalization and 3) lack of effective mosquito control. The dengue viruses have fully adapted to a human-Aedes aegypti-human transmission cycle, in the large urban centers of the tropics, where crowded human populations live in intimate association with equally large mosquito populations. This setting provides the ideal home for maintenance of the viruses and the periodic generation of epidemic strains. These cities all have modern airports through which 10s of millions of passengers pass each year, providing the ideal mechanism for transportation of viruses to new cities, regions and continents where there is little or no effective mosquito control. The result is epidemic dengue. This paper discusses this unholy trinity of drivers, along with disease burden, prevention and control and prospects for the future.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317603/
In an earlier paper, Gubler also described how the principle mosquito vector, A. aegypti, had been almost eradicated from large parts of Central and South America in the 1950s and 60s, following the instigation of proper mosquito control.
Sadly, this eradication programme was discontinued in the early 1970s, with the result that by the 1990s A. aegypti had nearly regained the geographic distribution it held before eradication was initiated.
If climate plays any role at all in the spread of dengue fever, it is very much a bit part.
Indicator 1.7: Food security and undernutrition
Isolating the impact of climate change on health through the indirect impacts on food security is complicated because policies, institutions, and the actions of individuals, organisations, and countries strongly influence the extent to which food systems are resilient to climate hazards and adapt to climate change and whether individual households are able to access and afford sufficient nutritious food. For example, with respect to undernourishment, vulnerability has been shown to be more dependent on adaptive capacity (such as infrastructure and markets) and sensitivity (such as forest cover and rain-fed agriculture) than exposure (such as temperature change, droughts, floods, storms). In view of the role human systems have in mediating the links between climate, food, and health, the chosen indicators focus on abiotic and biotic indicators and population vulnerabilities, considering both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Undernutrition has been identified as the largest health impact of climate change in the 21st century.
As has already been pointed out, agricultural production has increased massively in recent decades.
Undernutrition, where it exists, has nothing at all to do with climate change.
Indicator 1.8: Migration and population displacement
This indicator reports that climate change is the sole contributing factor for at least 4400 people who are already being forced to migrate, worldwide. The total number of people vulnerable to migration might increase to 1 billion by the end of the century without significant further action on climate change.
Is this really the best they can come up with? Seriously?
CONCLUSION
This study, which is the work of 63 authors, runs to 50 pages long. Yet all it can come up with is that summers are a fraction of a degree warmer than 30 years ago, and that sea levels are a few inches higher than a century ago.
Yet they claim that climate change is already causing damaging effects on health worldwide.
Needless to say, the study goes to great lengths to tell us all that we should all stop using fossil fuels, pay carbon taxes and rely on renewable energy.
At its heart, this is not a serious study, but simply a political document prepared to twist the facts to suit its preconceived agenda.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The BBC promoted this propaganda story on yesterday’s ‘Inside Science’ programme on Radio 4.
“Adam Rutherford [yes that alarmist propagandist] talks to researchers on a major global study that aimed to quantify how climate change has already damaged the health of millions of people. Hugh Montgomery is the co-chair of the Lancet Countdown report and says that climate change is the largest single threat to global health. Climate scientist Peter Cox talks about his stark findings on the increase in the number of vulnerable people exposed to heat waves between now and the turn of the century.”
You can listen to it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09bxkf2
PS This paper wouldn’t be published just in time for COP23 would it? Or is that just being cynical?
Only I can say that, count yourself severely reprimanded.
😉
Give us a few million in grant money. Honestly now, here is the crux of the whole story
“however, this trend might be partially accounted for by information systems having improved in the past 35 years, and statistical data are now more available because of increased sociocultural sensitivity to disaster consequences and occurrence.”
There is a massive affect of Climate Change on Health and it is the Direct Opposite of what they are suggesting.
Trillians have been and will be wasted trying to control a Non Problem.
As you say that money should have been used on improving Health, Water, Cheap Electricity and eradicating the Mosquito threat of both Malaria and Dengue fever
Shame on them.
Exactly, the real world case could even be that if the health benefits of pollution reduction are so great, less needs to be spent on the NHS and more on pollution reduction scams.
Guess who would lose out ….. and it’s not cur Phil Greedy or Mike Cashley etc.
The day WAS that Lancet was respected for its objectivity and balanced reportage. Obviously, it is now yet another strident, trash..mouthpiece for the Alarmist Hysterics who have hi..jacked its Edoitorial Board.
Ben Pile ran a series of tweets with a critique, starting here
Perhaps the Lancet and all 65 of its contributors to this report should consult Steve Koonin on the need for unbiased scientific objectivity, as reported by Judith Curry on Climate etc.
PS
And as per Paul’s comment, my first reaction to this, as soon as I started reading it, is that it’s about Global Warming, not Climate Change, so why don’t they say that?
That single lack of fundamental objectivity consigns the whole report to nothing more than nonsense, even before one gets to the glaring, distorted inaccuracies. But these idiots are convinced that hiding behind the climate change term is sufficient objectivity.
Disgusting political distortion from people who should know better.
Has anyone written to the Lancet to point all this out?
While we are talking about propaganda : Sadiq on air pollution
That’s JHB’s reply to Sadiq’s dramaqueening
Loadsa more dosh for Sadiq to spend on more useless, and largely unoccupied, cycle lanes that are slowly strangling London.
I travelled along Embankment through Lower Thames Street up to Tower bridge recently at 10pm. It was like the 5pm rush hour used to be. But the cycle lane, which takes up an entire lane of the old layout, had about half a dozen cyclists in the 45 minutes I was in the queue.
We are being governed by minority pressure groups nowadays, which isn’t democracy.
And an SNP MP stood up the other day in the HOC and demanded something be done about parents tickling their own children because it exposes them to paedophilic grooming in later life……….I kid you not!
Well said:
“We are being governed by minority pressure groups nowadays, which isn’t democracy”
the one which worries me greatest, is the cult of death, that’s a very big sock to their puppets.
Hasn’t he banned wood burning stoves yet?
@Ian: “Hasn’t he banned wood burning stoves yet?”
He doesn’t need to seeing as he failed to pant the 2,000,000 trees he promised to plant. Wood burners will run out of fuel.
Khan is a disgrace to the City, the Country and the role of Mayor. He comes across as a wannabe thug with pretensions of being a powerhouse. But as he is only acting up for his ethnic supporters and not the whole of London, he cares nothing.
Nothing about any reductions of deaths from hypothermia, which kills orders of magnitude more than heatstroke then?
Another scare off the production line: living east of Peterborough could be bad for you – one of these days…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5045953/Lincolnshire-submerged-Peterborough-seaside-city.html
oldbrew
I really don’t get the Mail (in more ways than one, I only read articles I’m pointed at by the likes of you guys) one day it’s condemning the AGW lunacy, the next, it’s promoting the insanity.
Led the 5pm News on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, leading onto the presenter making it the lead topic. It originates of general Guardian PR job and a specific article
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/03/lincolnshires-coast-and-farms-will-sink-with-3c-of-warming.
* Anyone who knows Skegness & the Lincolnshire coast knows that the sea gets further away each year due to silt coming in from East Yorkshire.*
In the last 500-1000 years vast areas of marshes were drained.
That map appears to show the same areas getting wet in 200-300 years time.
@John Ray has done a debunk of the Lancet dramaqueening PR today
https://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-lancet-countdown-on-health-and.html
As you say, Paul, this is The Lancet up to its same old propagandist tricks. It recalled an episode in the run-up to Cophenhagen in 2009, when the BBC announced that the biggest global threat of the 21st century, according to a leading medical journal”. This was a study published in The Lancet warning that global warming was already creating “mass=migrationa”. The BBC quoted an author of the study saying that the Indian government was building “a seven-foot high double thickness razor-wire 4,500 kilometre fence along the entire frontier with Bangladesh, and it’s there to keep out climate migrants”.
The Lancet’s editor told the BBC that this paper should be taken to every climate conference, beginning with the one due to start shortly in Copenhagen. But the Indian government issued an angry statement to say that the fence was nothing to do with climate migrants, Its sole purpose was was to keep out drugs and arms smugglers, terrorists and economic migrants. This correction was not reported by the BBC.
Incidentally I have a short item in my sadly truncated column in this Sunday’s Telegraph based, alas unacknowledged. on your blog, picking apart the hysterical “fake news” being peddled by the BBC this week over that 2016 spike in global CO2 caused by a record El Nino. As usual, Paul, many thanks for your good work!
Christopher, thank you for your good work in the Telegraph. I only take it on Sundays for your column primarily and I always start with you. It is tragic that they are edging you out. Why?
Keep banging the drum on climate. (Not keen on your semi-Brexit position though, do it properly like we were in the ’60s).
Look forward to reading it – you’re the only reason I buy the ST :0)
Me too
Christopher
Thank you for all your work.
I know I need help but I still like to read the printed word and crosswords are also a comfortable distraction, for my sins I still purchase the DT and Sunday’s effort, I was appalled at where they moved your column but not that surprised and Northy had warned us.
What a team, Booker and North, I may not see totally eye to eye with everything [the fault is all mine] but in my estimation , simply unsurpassed and not half bad prose either.
Christopher,
As a resident of the “Dry Side” of Washington State — not the Left Side — I only see your view when someone, such as Paul, posts it.
We do get the Wall Street Journal, both print and on-line. Perhaps, they might agree to print your essays in their Opinion section. The WSJ frequently has material from Bjørn Lomborg and others that believe about some things and disagree about others.
Give them a call.
Thanks,
John
– – – –
I had missed the entire thing about the wall in India, with Bangladesh.
Thanks for that tip.
You beat me to the gag about installing more air-conn! Actually that dumps more heat into the environment and demands more energy … etc!
It is inconceivable that fractional mean temperature change can have such an effect given the full operating range.
I am your doctor, trust me?
On this subject I respectfully request a second opinion because the solutions projected by the article could undo many of the benefits mankind has devised for its wellbeing.
Masses of hysterical climate propaganda launched just in time for COP 23. Pathetic but entirely predictable. Imagine my surprise!
While they say “look over there at heatwave deaths”
In London a BBC5Live prog has just highlighted an issue with coldwaves.
In London District Heating schemes are being forced, as developers see them as a magic way around Green planning laws that require new apartment developments to be zero carbon.
You end up with a communist style system that costs the flat tenant a fortune and breaks down.
Pensioner have died who might not have.
My notes over on BH Forced Green heating measures are already causing damaging effects on health ..and wallet
(a reference to Lancet title)
Proper mosquito control = DDT?
Unfortunately, maybe tragically, the Trump administration has allowed this to be released;
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
It’s not supported by the White House which has come back with ‘climate is always changing’ , ‘we need rigorous scientific discussion and debate’…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41868878
The draft was made public before The Donald took office.
It is an Obama-cult document and of no interest other than historical reference.
Lancet’s previous global warming alarmist report was rebutted by Dr D Weston Allen – here
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/the-lancet-commissions-health-and.html
A doctorate awarded in Medicine from a UK university is not what it was even when compared to 25 years ago and I have that from someone who speaks from authority, is a GP himself and a couple of near acquaintances – mates who are Medics.
I once thought that, the Lancet was a serious publication and here I repeat and emphasize the word – ‘once’.
First story on this weeks BBC inside science
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09bxkf2
Latest books and documentaries.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
My website is
The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
http://www.drtimball.com
Awaiting court decision in Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in Supreme Court, in Vancouver, BC
I take it that no one will be surprised to see a familiar figure involved :
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31667-7/fulltext
“The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is meeting these needs… By providing annual data across a range of indicators, the Lancet Countdown will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.
The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.
We declare no competing interests” (! – my response) .
WSJ counter that BBC line on Trump/Climate
Reposted here..scroll down a bit
https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/11/03/open-thread-friday-11/comment-page-2/#comment-878554
Paywalled link
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882
Hi Paul,
Here in New Zealand the Royal Society NZ has just released Human Health Impacts of Climate Change for New Zealand. We at the Climate Conversation Group are collaborating with the NZ Climate Science Coalition to analyse this deceptive, pessimistic treatise.
In support, a few days ago I posted this analysis showing, using NIWA’s official temperature record, that NZ has experienced a 19-year hiatus in warming, just as the globe has. Yet, remarkably, our public climate scientists were all that time bleating the IPCC line that we’re warming, we’re all going to die and we must give up our addiction to hydrocarbons. They, in cahoots with the Royal Society, were misleading the government and the people of New Zealand.
Later today I will post a more accessible summary of the Health Impacts report, so watch this space.
Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no reference to this:
Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study
Interpretation
Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold. The effect of days of extreme temperature was substantially less than that attributable to milder but non-optimum weather. This evidence has important implications for the planning of public-health interventions to minimise the health consequences of adverse temperatures, and for predictions of future effect in climate-change scenarios.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/abstract
Cold kills?
It’s never been in any doubt, cold is a menace but warming is BENEFICIAL….I bet that, even the Lancet could work that out if they set their minds to it.
Er, oh but!! their [minds] are set to GREEN these days…………………….
This tells it all about the Red Meds:
Away with the red faeries and thus pumping out climate Marxist GIGO comes as no great surprise – good grief what a shower.
Unless they can provide a list of names of people killed by climate change, they are lying.
‘France has committed to completely phase out coal power by 2023, one in five cars sold in China are to run on alternative fuel by 2025, and Sweden’s Climate Act is a commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.’
Blah blah blah. Pigs will fly in 2045.
The Lancet is compromised as a reputable medical journal on many counts including its flawed stats on the Iraq war deaths.