‘Climate Change’ To Cause Up To 500,000 Extra Deaths A Year By 2050 Or Something

Another day, another breathless report on Doom from ‘climate change’

(UK Guardian) Climate change could kill more than 500,000 people a year globally by 2050 by making their diets less healthy, according to new research published in the Lancet.

The research is the first to assess how the impacts of global warming could affect the quality of the diets available to people and found fewer fruit and vegetables would be available as a result of climatic changes. These are vital in curbing heart disease, strokes and diet-related cancers, leading the study to conclude that the health risks of climate change are far greater than thought.

How to stop this?

“The health burden related to climate change is much bigger than we thought,” Scarborough said. But cutting carbon emissions and improving education and the availability of fruit and vegetables would reduce the number of deaths, he said.

So, certainly this would require massive government intervention for the first two. As for the latter, agriculture has massively increased over time. We keep having record crops. But, think about it: it would also require massive government to force companies to give their fruits and veggies to people, possibly on the taxpayer dime. Would they force people to eat their fruits and veggies?

Jo Nova describes it all thusly

The Lancet study in a nutshell: Take climate models that don’t work, and guesstimate what might happen to agriculture because of the climate we probably won’t get. Then use those guesses of food production in 2050 to fantasize what that means for human mortality. After all, we don’t know how many people are killed today by “4% less fruit and vege and 0.7% less meat”, but we can estimate what that dietary change will do in 2050 after a medical revolution, 35 years of plant breeding and agricultural changes. Not to mention a few more rounds of global food fads and phases of Vegan, Paleo, Atkins, and 5:2 Fasting. (But how did they factor in the mortality effect from another 2,000 episodes of MasterChef?)

Boom. As she notes, it’s not like CO2 is bad for plants

Seriously, CO2 has increased crop yields, and will continue to do so until we hit 1000ppm (or maybe 2000). Around the planet, plants grow in warm places, and shrivel up and die in cold ones. So do people. Cold kills 20 times as many people as heat does. It must take a lot of modeling to calculate “more deaths” from two good outcomes.

Of course, we have breathless freakouts from many in the media over this, such as Washington Post, Bloomberg, Phys.org, BusinessGreen,TIME, New Scientist, Carbon Brief, Reuters, Climate Home, Telegraph. Let’s not forget the Lancet’s insane statistical study claiming 650,00 Iraqi deaths at the hands of US forces, which was thoroughly debunked.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

10 Comments

Comment by bobh
2016-03-04 08:09:44

Well, old age is a terrible thing to die from, many of us would welcome a good heart attack over the endless ED prescription ads.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-04 09:02:35

Take climate models that don’t work, and guesstimate what might happen…

Yep, climate “science” in a nutshell.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-04 09:21:47

JoNova, LOL.

The Earth is warming because we’re adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This fact will continue to have increasingly significant impacts on human societies.

Return to your circle jerk.

 
Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-04 10:28:28

“The Earth is warming because we’re adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This fact will continue to have increasingly significant impacts on human societies.”

Then why have we experienced a pause in global warming in the years 1997 to 2014?

 
Comment by david7134
2016-03-04 14:55:13

If there is a CO2 connection to climate change, or whatever the issue is, then the primary generator of CO2 is the excess number of CO2 producers. That would be humans. So if we reduce the number of people, we reduce the number of CO2 producers. Now, this would occur naturally, or we could ask those that believe this junk to sacrifice themselves for mother earth.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-04 18:49:15

Hank,

You haven’t been keeping up. The “pause” has been thoroughly debunked.

 
Comment by jl
2016-03-04 19:02:41

And when we add that to the “50 million climate refugees” that were supposed to have happend by now…..oh, wait, that never happened. And neither will this.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-04 21:52:37

j,

You spend too much time reading that denier-liar at WUWT.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees stated that 36 million people were displaced by natural disasters in 2009, and about 20 million of those were forced to move for climate change-related issues.

20 million in 2009 alone. One of the ways we adapt is to move. Deniers will continue to deny.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-04 22:03:35

dave typed:

Now, this would occur naturally, or we could ask those that believe this junk to sacrifice themselves for mother earth.

Yes, all the people you hate could kill themselves. Alternatively, we could all reduce our use of fossil-fuels.

We’re hardly surprised that you prefer the death of others over reducing the amount of coal we all burn.

P.S. – Still haven’t heard from the FDA. Remember, you were going to the feds to complain that I was mean to you.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-04 22:37:56

dave,

Here’s an article that should warm the cockles of your heart:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/04/3756656/environmental-activism-dangerous/

116 environmental activists were killed in 2014.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9920 access attempts in the last 7 days.