110,000 Deaths A Year In South Asia Due To Rising Temperatures, Claims WHO
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
https://twitter.com/DrMariaNeira/status/1642916105508225026
The first thing to point out is that Dr Neira is Director of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health at the WHO.
The second thing to note is that she is telling a pack of lies.
The article in the Economist she is referring to actually says:
Between 2000 and 2019, South Asia saw over 110,000 heat-related excess deaths a year, according to a study in Lancet Planetary Health, a journal.
https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/04/02/global-warming-is-killing-indians-and-pakistanis
The Economist also want readers to think that hot weather is killing more, as the article is headlined “India’s deadly heatwaves are getting even hotter”.
But let’s now check out the Lancet study which both Neira and the Economist refer to:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2821%2900081-4
So we learn that in South Asia there have been 111K excess, heat-related deaths, but there have also been 913K cold-related ones!
And the same pattern emerges when looking at excess death ratios:
As is usually the case with these scams, the Economist floats out a figure of 110,000 deaths due to heat, but does not give a comparison with earlier decades.
In reality the study shows that excess deaths have increased in South Asia, in stark contrast to the rest of Asia. But the cause has been an increase in cold-related deaths. Changes in heat-related deaths have been minimal.
Figure 4: Regional change in annual excess death ratio between 2000 and 2019 compared with the 2000–03 average
Now why should that be?
Well, it turns out that temperatures in South Asia have actually be trending down since 2000:
And as the study points out, cooling has paralleled the increase in cold-related deaths there.
By contrast in the rest of the world, a moderate increase in heat-related deaths was more than offset by a large decrease in cold-related ones:
There is not a single reference to any of this in the Economist. It is hard to think of a more misleading article than this one.
As for Dr Neira, she has got things totally upside down; excess deaths have been rising because of falling temperatures.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Why would anyone ever give any credence to the WHO ever again after what they have put us through ?
Old advice – never trust a political organisation!
She is also bound in to the UN as well….
Another great analysis of a scam, thank you for that. The concept of Excess Deaths is a very difficult metric, in that it does not separate a slight reduction in longevity from a major epidemic killing the young of a country. For instance, Covid and flu tend to kill older people more than younger people: malaria is a killer of the young. This emotive type of argument is commonly used by pollution campaigners who talk about massive numbers dying from PM2.5, heat etc; when the evidence is that life expectancy is reduced by a few months as opposed to the general increase of life-expectancy caused by a warmer climate.
PM2.5 scare is just that.
https://junkscience.com/2023/03/pm2-5-mass-killer-or-mass-fraud/
Maybe the BBC can make use of its Telly-Tax funded army of ‘Disinformation’ sleuths to investigate & report?
I wonder how long these climate change dis-mis-information experts would remain employed at your government-run BBC if they reported on the WHO and Economist lies? Maybe if they just said it was “context” that made the reporting factual they’d be OK.
Have you EVER seen the BBC employ them when their promote the latest tax payer funded climateageddon modelled nonsense? Compare and contrast to the pitifully few times they report on the other science based side of the argument. Their pathetic fact checkers are all over it like a rash quoting any biased often unreviewed garbage or just the opinion of some green leftie as if it was empirical data.
BBC fact checkers following each other while ignoring Al Gore and John Kerry. These two lying crooks openly flew around the world in 2009 stating the Artic ice caps will melt away by 2023.
https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/status/1642239650377891844?s=43&t=YuS2tj5ihMM0Q1WiDFcggw
BBC are complicit in organised crime, don’t get involved do not pay the licence fee.
The BBC are subject to legal action in the US for being involved in censoring the media, but we won’t hear about that here as the media will censor it.
It reminds me of a joke about a coroner dictating a death certificate:
– Cause of death: COVID
– But, Doctor, he has seven deep stab wounds.
– Add: With complications.
“Do you think I’ve put on weight during lockdown?”
“You were never all that slim.”
Cause of death: Covid
Wasn’t there a bloke in UK two years ago, that died due to a fall from a ladder? Official cause of death: COVID, as he “tested” positive post mortum …
So the story goes.
Her statement is anyway nonsensical. She takes a total over a period and says that’s due to “rising temperatures”. But it’s not. It wasn’t zero at the beginning of the period so at most only a proportion of the deaths could be caused by rising temperatures. And then we learn temperatures actually fell!
She also needs to take into account the rise in the populations of those places where they reported the ‘rise’ in excess deaths. What is the actual ratio of excess death compared to increase in population?
Yes and in particular an increase in the numbers of elderly as they are who die. But the simple fact is, we have no way of knowing how many people “should” die in an “ideal” year. So it’s just playing with numbers, not science.
They are stating the sort of nonsense one spouts when all you have is narrative and agenda, and have no idea what you are talking about.
They have obviously read the menu but nothing else.
I should add that any grouping of data as they have done is almost always dubious. Why look at groups of 3 years over that time period? And the data is all over the place. In some areas cold deaths increase vastly, in others they decrease in some they move up and down. Same with heat deaths. And what on Earth is the “net change” supposed to represent? Cold deaths dar outnumber heat deaths so netting them is simply wrong – you could compare rates of change.
Surely everyone who, as an interested layperson or a professional journalist, has done some reading on the topic is aware that the teams led by Gasparini have made 2 previous studies of hot and cold mortality , under present conditions and those expected from temperatures modelled with different RCP. (They are the 2015 and 2017 papers in the bibliography from Lancet and Lancet planetary Health respectively. )
The first paper showed that moderate cold is responsible for far greater mortality than moderate warmth.
The second paper showed the benefit in increased lifespan (let alone quality of life) with global warming in all RCP models with the exception of the unfeasible RCP8.5.
Following the publication of these papers , that damn any suggestion of climate emergency wrt public health , Figueres was promoted to the governing board at Lancet and i feared that her influence would prevent any fiurther publication of scholarly papers , but it seems that I may have been unduly pessimistic (or maybe she has been kicked off ).
Names, please.
The US has had a growing drug overdose problem that got worse with the lockdowns during the pandemic. Last year alone, the drug related deaths hit 106,000. You barely hear a word about it.
It is quite notable that heat death rates are lowest by a considerable margin in Africa. That is surely evidence of genetic adaptation to the conditions. That suggest two things:
Migration to a different climate may result in greater risk of death from temperature extremes to which the migrant is not naturally adapted.
Humans are likely to evolve to cope with the climates they live in.
Population increase?
Great work.
It’s greatly dispiriting to see heavyweight journals such as the Economist be exposed as the liars and propagandists that they are.
They’re welcome to their own editorial opinions but not to selectively omit inconvenient facts and truths. Lying by omission is endemic in climate change media.
Shameful behaviour from them, but it’s now become standard MSM practice.
No one does this for free. Money must be changing hands and there is A huge amount required to perpetuate the the climate fraud. Too many institutions, too many supposed professional bodies, too many public bodies. Look no further than the left wing infestation of all of our institutions. Look at the IPCC spouting left wing, jargon filled, unsubstantiated or already debunked twaddle unquestioningly regurgitated by their willing propagandists in in the bought media.
This is a conspiracy of gargantuan proportion supported I would suggest by “stolen” or diverted public cash. Get the victims (the public in the West) to pay for their own demise. Do you think those behind this would use their own money? Ha no!
Also, no one does anything for free. Just look at the weasels who once were scientists in the Met office and also our universities producing a constant stream of climatageddon model based effluent couched every time in unscientific partisan language. These are cowardly people willing to betray their scientific training for 20 pieces of silver . You do not need Soros when you can steal public funds and direct them to do your dirty politically motivated work. Just look what the joke Biden administration in the US is doing. All of his ridiculous multitrillion dollar programs have obscurely worded sub projects directing funding to projects designed to tilt the voting balance towards the (un)democrat party.
The Economist has been like this for 20 years or more, ever since it first jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon. I stopped reading it back then as it was painful seeing the contrast between its good reporting and dissection of most issues and the absurd acceptance of bad science on climate change.
An asset management company which claims it actively promotes this agenda has been behind recent MediaWorks actions in the News Media in New Zealand. It appears. said company is based in N America.
I say no more . I allege nothing.
Totally OT
Extremely interesting video about the Miyake events. Seems like the amount of cosmic radiation is not constant but rather varies considerably.
Enjoy. https://youtu.be/2Xz-xKIHm9w
Thanks for the analysis, Paul H.
The ClimateCult™ keeps trying no matter how silly it sounds.
Of course. I hadn’t seen that article but every time I see one like that, I do a bit of digging – just for fun, so thanks for bringing some proper context to that.
This discrepancy (about 9 to 1) is consistent with the global average of cold deaths to heat deaths and precisely what I wrote about in this article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/death-by-a-thousand-degrees?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android
Dr Neira is Director of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health at the WHO. Is she a PhD scientist, with suitable qualifications to comment? …Nah, probably a mere medical doctor. Either way, she should hand back her qualifications as she is obviously unqualified to make such ill-informed comments. Please resign! 😉
Paul, excellent analysis – thank you.
These claims that heat-related deaths are rising (while ignoring the far greater numbers of cold-related deaths) are part of an ongoing strategy. I discussed it here:
‘So we learn that in South Asia there have been 111K excess, heat-related deaths, but there have also been 913K cold-related ones!’
That statement initself means nothing. Altho there can be exceedingly cold periods causing excess deaths that does not necessarily diminish excess deaths due to greater heat, so why put that in?
Cold kills more then heat.
A warmer climate will therefore reduce temperature related deaths.
It is therefore grossly dishonest for the WHO to clain that rising temperatures are killing more people.
And there is no evidence that the number of heat-related deaths are on the rise – there have always been heat-related deaths
I don’t disagree at all with your prodigious work at all only that logically that statement didn’t tell us anything, a minor point. Your output is most certainly one of importance in keeping us informed of what is happening and arming us with facts to fight and argue with.