Even If Anthropogenic Global Warming Were True - It Would SAVE Lives.

 

 

View in Browser

 

 

Global Warming Saves Lives

 

 

It is very well documented that many more people die from cold than from heat. The largest study on deaths attributable to heat or cold found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people than heat. Another study in the U.K. and Australia found that cold-related deaths in these countries accounted for more than 15 times higher mortality than heat.   The results of a new European study in The Lancet reported that cold-related deaths account for 10 times the number as deaths due to heat. But when it came to presenting the results, they pulled a graphical sleight of hand.   Chart "A" on the left is from the Lancet article. Note that the X axis at the bottom uses two different scales for heat and cold mortality. There is a five-fold difference that accentuates heat-related deaths and minimizes deaths due to cold.   Chart "B" on the right was created by the CO2 Coalition technical staff and accurately depicts the huge disparity.   Nice try, Lancet, but you have just been exposed. Warmer weather would likely save millions of lives.     Worst Drought in 1,200 Years!   A year ago, the media was hyping the so-called mega-drought in the U. S. Southwest, linking it to man-made climate change.   What a difference a year makes! Screen captures of the U. S. Drought Monitor show that the drought that would never end has indeed ended.   Who knew? Actually, we did and predicted it.

 

 

Like the information you see here? Sign up for our weekly always informative newsletter here.

 

 

 

 

American Midwest and Climate Change is our most recent in a series of state and regional reports. We are now in the process of a close look at Arkansas, Texas and Montana.   If you would like to support this initiative, Please thoughtfully consider donating either by check or online.   CO2 Coalition 1621 North Kent Street, Suite 603 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Blogger: apologies that the original draft of this criticised the wrong target. It should actually be The Lancet! My source has proffered apologies.