Failed presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, attended the 28th annual United Nations climate conference (COP28) in Dubai to lie about the number of deaths attributed to climate change, focusing on issues caused by extreme heat, which experts referred to as “global boiling.
Speaking to an international audience, Clinton suggested that climate-related deaths are being meticulously tallied, indicating an ‘already high’ and growing body count.
“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate. And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat,” she said.
She referenced a European heatwave allegedly responsible for 61,000 deaths and insinuated that unrecorded. She also claimed that climate change-related deaths can be influenced by gender. According to Harvard Business Review, “We can’t fight climate change without fighting for gender equity.”
Clinton said, “I mean, even in Europe last summer, which has the ability to count and figure out what happened, they recorded 61,000 deaths because heat in Europe, we don’t have that kind of number yet from Africa, Asia, Latin America. But we know and estimate that we probably could measure about 500,000 deaths, and the majority of those are women and girls, and particularly pregnant women.”
NOW – Hillary Clinton: “We’re seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate.” pic.twitter.com/6hVv4qFB1T
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 4, 2023
According to a United Nations report, deaths from climate-related disasters have decreased by 99% from a century ago.
Also, Danish environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg said that the average climate-related death are declining.
Read his observations below:
Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters. This is even true of 2021, despite breathless climate reporting.
Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.
In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,893 — 97% lower than the 1920s average.
You hear a lot about all the deadly climate catastrophes in 2021 — the US/Canada heat dome, the floodings in Germany and Belgium, or the US February winter storm. All of these deaths are included in the graph.
Also included are the 559 dead from India (incl a February glacial lake outburst in Uttarakhand killing 234 and a May hurricane killing 198) and more than a thousand others. Many of these you probably haven’t heard about, possibly because they’re not first-world, photogenic catastrophes.
2021 is not over so the actual graph shows the likely number of dead, based on the historical ratio of climate-related deaths in Jan-Jul to the full year. This gives a preliminary estimate of 2021 climate-related deaths at 5,569 or 98.9% lower than the 1920s.
This is clearly the opposite of what you hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events are happening. The number of reported events are increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, lower thresholds, and better accessibility (the CNN effect). For instance, for Denmark, the database only shows events starting from 1976.
Instead, look at the number of dead per year, which is much harder to fudge. Given that these numbers fluctuate enormously from year to year (especially in the past, with huge droughts and floods in China and elsewhere), they are here presented as averages of each decade (1920-29, 1930-39 etc.). The data is from the most respected global database, the International Disaster Database (https://public.emdat.be/). There is some uncertainty about complete reporting from the early decades, which is why this graph starts in 1920, and if anything this uncertainty means the graph *underestimates* the reduction in deaths.
We are not well-informed when the media doesn’t actually give us an overview of the data, but instead, just inundates us with one catastrophic story after another without context.
Notice, this does *not* mean that there is no global warming or that possibly a climate signal could eventually lead to further deaths. Global warming is a real problem that we should fix smartly. But panic from bad media reporting does not help us being smart. This graph shows us that our increased wealth and increased adaptive capacity has vastly overshadowed any potential negative impact from climate when it comes to human climate vulnerability.
This is an update of my graph in my 2020 peer-reviewed article https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0040162520304157.
While the scientific community widely accepts that the Earth’s climate is changing and humans are playing a significant role, Judith A. Curry, a prominent American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, questions the prevailing narrative.
In a recent interview with New York Post‘s John Stossel, Curry presents her perspective that the “overwhelming consensus” is largely “manufactured.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” Curry told Stossel. She points to a system where scientists gain more recognition, and subsequently, more funding by promoting catastrophic scenarios.
This ‘alarmism,’ she asserted, plays a pivotal role in shaping their careers.
“There’s an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue ‘fame and fortune,’” she added.
Also, a prominent climate scientist has come forward and admitted his role in deceiving the public on “climate change.” At the same time, he also exposed the inordinate power woke editors at scientific magazines have over the careers of actual scientists.
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, wrote in the Free Press that climate science must now fit into “pre-approved narratives” to receive publication by notable scientific journals. He also revealed that he omitted a key fact regarding climate change and fires in a recent paper for one of these journals.