Paul Homewood
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01822-1/abstract
Yes, they push the same lies every year to try to convince us that global health is compromised by climate change.
You only have to read the first paragraph to know that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.
Sure enough, they claim to have discovered “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:
It's the same every year – they ignore real-world data that actively suggests the opposite is true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and questionable methods to suit their agenda.
Of course, the very idea that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is absurd – but that doesn’t stop The Lancet from saying it has changed!
They begin by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but fail to mention the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased significantly. They claim that heat exposure reduces labor productivity, forgetting that productivity has increased significantly due to mechanization and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.
They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this does not come from real-world data, which is too sparse to make such a bold claim. Instead, it's all based on computer modeling.
To be fair, the IPCC also claims that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but importantly also tells us that they are unable to detect a global trend in flooding. In many places, heavy rainfall is welcomed because it relieves drought. Try telling the Indians that they got too much rain during the monsoon this summer. For those who suffered during the Dust Bowl in the United States, they would have given up their right arm for a few storms.
The same goes for drought. Apparently, 48% of the world's landmass was affected by extreme drought for at least one month last year, compared with 15% in the 1950s. But droughts last for months or even years, not a month. Using such a metric is patently ridiculous – I wonder why they do it?
As with extreme precipitation, The Lancet's studies don't use actual rainfall data, but rather computer models that can be programmed to produce whatever results you want, because the real-world data they require are common to much of the world. Said it didn't exist at all.
But where we do have actual precipitation data, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only found that while some areas are experiencing increased drought, others are experiencing less drought:
Just go on like this. There are obviously more dust storms, but again this was gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multi-model reanalysis ensemble.”
We learn that malaria is spreading due to global warming, although the number of new cases has been steadily declining, except in 2020 due to COVID-19:
But the biggest joke must be this:
The mind is incredible!
If they really cared about global health, they could use abundant or indisputable real-world data instead of their fake models.
People around the world are living longer, child mortality is much lower, and fewer people are living in extreme poverty or malnutrition. Their lives are healthier due to better access to clean water, medicines and health care. Children are getting better education and technology is changing people's lives.
Thanks largely to fossil fuels, food production sets new records year after year. At the same time, contrary to the desertification claimed by The Lancet, the earth is turning green because of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
.https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
But The Lancet is not interested in the truth, and they don’t seem to care about global health.
They just want to generate alarmist headlines to advance their net zero agenda.
Relevant
