Yesterday Patrick Moore put out this interesting twitter post about this Lancet article: with this graphic from Bjorn Lomborg: Of special relevance to the Lancet chart described by Patrick is the anecdote I told at the end of my Better Way conference speech on 3 June 2023. It's all about the climate cult's 'messaging':
For people like me who are numerically illiterate and struggle with the most basic graphs, that sleight of hand would have gone unnoticed. Which makes me so angry. Since all the pandemic nonsense arrived I have been on a steep mathematical learning curve! Even so, I probably wouldn't have noticed the fiddling with the numbers or, if I had, wouldn't have understood that it was lying rather than it being a necessary graph thing. Thank goodness there are people who shout out when they see wrong-doing!
See what awaits us if the SNP have their way, as Harvie's proposals will collapse the housing market and spread immiseration, hypothermia and widespread social and economic disruption.
This is cultism and fraudulent dogma, waved through by generously remunerated bureaucrats.
See the hysterical reports about the fires on the Greek islands, now confirmed by the Greek authorities to have been caused by arson, but don't let that get in the way of the cataclysmic pronouncements favoured by the loudest voices.
As Professor Fenton says, the establishment is becoming increasingly blatant, let us hope desperate, in their climate change fearmongering and lies, quoting one of them as saying “We all have to lie for the greater good”.
This is worth reading, bearing as it does, on Professor Fenton's personal experience of censorship and the increasing dominance of 'right think'-aka-unquestioning compliance.
I'm yet another statistical layperson like Stuffy. This layperson ponders how global warming happened before human influence. In the order of obvious priorities we need a global "Stop Volcanic Eruptions" movement before any fossil fuel consumption reduction. There exists this erroneous homocentric thinking that nothing happens absent human influence. So I confess that I created the big bang.
Thank you for pointing out that even if the climate change bogey man really exists, things wouldn't be so bad. Other respected people have also pointed out that the solutions wouldn't help the problem anyway, even if it existed! They would only help bring in the digital slavery that is being rolled out as we speak. Global warming is not about science, but about politics -- that is, about expanding the power of private elites, using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.
If we are going to do something practical about the cages being constructed around us, perhaps we should tackle the LED lights/cameras being installed locally by councils . So called "smart cities". At least if they don't have the physical infrastructure, they won't be able to monitor us as we go out and enjoy a sunny spell!
Note the language they use when selling their plans. The key word that keeps on popping up is data and safety. They sell the concept whilst “protecting you and your data” when in actual fact it is the complete opposite.
Mr Fenton, should you not be familiar with his work, you (and your readers) might be interested in William M Briggs view of the Lancet article that is the subject of your post....
This is what the ONS said on the subject of climate-related mortality trends in the UK, in a report titled, ‘Climate-related mortality and hospital admissions, England and Wales: 2001 to 2020’:
“Over a 20-year period the estimated change in deaths associated with warm or cold temperature was a net decrease of 555,094, an average of 27,755 deaths per year (Table 1). A decrease in deaths from outcomes associated with cold temperature greatly outnumbers deaths associated with warm temperature.”
The Lancet actually say that the health burden from both extreme heat and extreme cold will INCREASE with further global warming. They actually say this. Unbelievable deception:
"Heat and cold are now established health risk factors, with several studies reporting important mortality effects in populations around the world.1, 2, 3 The associated health burden is expected to increase with climate change, especially under the most extreme scenarios of global warming."
They also claim that climate change will 'add unprecedented cold events' to health risks. There is no evidence for this claim. None whatsoever.
"As climate change is expected to increase the burden of hot days and add unprecedented cold and heat events at high risks of causing deaths, these results allow for an accurate representation of the risks caused by changes in temperature."
Yes, what a cheap trick! Thanks for telling us. I'll refer people to this article.
BTW, I went to my niece's graduation at Queen Mary a few days ago – I was impressed, although I know they didn't back you up when you were attacked for questioning the official narrative on covid.
The Lancet has been a reliable source of disinformation for far too long and is a disgrace for the few good decent courageous doctors and consultants still in existence … slim pickings but they’re now finally beginning to get there heads around the hogwash they were sold
For people like me who are numerically illiterate and struggle with the most basic graphs, that sleight of hand would have gone unnoticed. Which makes me so angry. Since all the pandemic nonsense arrived I have been on a steep mathematical learning curve! Even so, I probably wouldn't have noticed the fiddling with the numbers or, if I had, wouldn't have understood that it was lying rather than it being a necessary graph thing. Thank goodness there are people who shout out when they see wrong-doing!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/23/scotland-homes-sale-ban-swap-gas-boilers-heat-pumps-snp/
See what awaits us if the SNP have their way, as Harvie's proposals will collapse the housing market and spread immiseration, hypothermia and widespread social and economic disruption.
This is cultism and fraudulent dogma, waved through by generously remunerated bureaucrats.
See the hysterical reports about the fires on the Greek islands, now confirmed by the Greek authorities to have been caused by arson, but don't let that get in the way of the cataclysmic pronouncements favoured by the loudest voices.
Keep telling it like it is,Professor Fenton.
That they feel the need to tells lies is all we need to know about the story being spun here.
I assume the Lancet places nil value on its past reputation.
Yet other not to be trusted now.
As Professor Fenton says, the establishment is becoming increasingly blatant, let us hope desperate, in their climate change fearmongering and lies, quoting one of them as saying “We all have to lie for the greater good”.
Just look at the coordinated media fearmongering on the supposed deadly heatwave in Europe, based on a deliberately misleading study which used ground temperatures instead of the normal much cooler air temperatures, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-wasesa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting/. Sadly, most people get taken in by such mass fake news.
Note that Kamila Harris recently let slip the evil ulterior climate change agenda of depopulation: https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1679970911829491712?t=HgNH4WNw3l0mAyfhsCwjMg&s=19.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/25/curbing-censorship-will-require-a-full-scale-assault-on-the-surveillance-state/
This is worth reading, bearing as it does, on Professor Fenton's personal experience of censorship and the increasing dominance of 'right think'-aka-unquestioning compliance.
Know your enemy!
This is what is being broadcast to describe 2022
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02419-z
these people will blame deforestation on AGW - and ignore the nasty processionary caterpillar and moth that is deforesting large chunks of Europe
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2022-01-03/beware-of-the-processionary-caterpillars/64420
by eating pine trees
and is in London, eating oaks (apologies for the use of the British BS Corp)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3dnl8xjn4o
A side effect of the wrong focus - there are real problems, but there is no climate crisis!
I'm yet another statistical layperson like Stuffy. This layperson ponders how global warming happened before human influence. In the order of obvious priorities we need a global "Stop Volcanic Eruptions" movement before any fossil fuel consumption reduction. There exists this erroneous homocentric thinking that nothing happens absent human influence. So I confess that I created the big bang.
Thank you for pointing out that even if the climate change bogey man really exists, things wouldn't be so bad. Other respected people have also pointed out that the solutions wouldn't help the problem anyway, even if it existed! They would only help bring in the digital slavery that is being rolled out as we speak. Global warming is not about science, but about politics -- that is, about expanding the power of private elites, using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.
If we are going to do something practical about the cages being constructed around us, perhaps we should tackle the LED lights/cameras being installed locally by councils . So called "smart cities". At least if they don't have the physical infrastructure, they won't be able to monitor us as we go out and enjoy a sunny spell!
Note the language they use when selling their plans. The key word that keeps on popping up is data and safety. They sell the concept whilst “protecting you and your data” when in actual fact it is the complete opposite.
Mr Fenton, should you not be familiar with his work, you (and your readers) might be interested in William M Briggs view of the Lancet article that is the subject of your post....
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/47709/
Love the devious way they stick 250 on the end of the axis to fool your eye!
Disgrace MISINFORMATION!
This is what the ONS said on the subject of climate-related mortality trends in the UK, in a report titled, ‘Climate-related mortality and hospital admissions, England and Wales: 2001 to 2020’:
“Over a 20-year period the estimated change in deaths associated with warm or cold temperature was a net decrease of 555,094, an average of 27,755 deaths per year (Table 1). A decrease in deaths from outcomes associated with cold temperature greatly outnumbers deaths associated with warm temperature.”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/climaterelatedmortalityandhospitaladmissionsenglandandwales/2001to2020
That's where the numbers are.
The Lancet actually say that the health burden from both extreme heat and extreme cold will INCREASE with further global warming. They actually say this. Unbelievable deception:
"Heat and cold are now established health risk factors, with several studies reporting important mortality effects in populations around the world.1, 2, 3 The associated health burden is expected to increase with climate change, especially under the most extreme scenarios of global warming."
They also claim that climate change will 'add unprecedented cold events' to health risks. There is no evidence for this claim. None whatsoever.
"As climate change is expected to increase the burden of hot days and add unprecedented cold and heat events at high risks of causing deaths, these results allow for an accurate representation of the risks caused by changes in temperature."
The Lancet continues in it's clowny covid ways...
Yes, what a cheap trick! Thanks for telling us. I'll refer people to this article.
BTW, I went to my niece's graduation at Queen Mary a few days ago – I was impressed, although I know they didn't back you up when you were attacked for questioning the official narrative on covid.
The Lancet has been a reliable source of disinformation for far too long and is a disgrace for the few good decent courageous doctors and consultants still in existence … slim pickings but they’re now finally beginning to get there heads around the hogwash they were sold
I thought that Lancet articles were supposed to be peer=reviewed. WOnder who the "peers" were on this one??