Later in the year the usual crowd will gather in Glasgow to debate the next instalment, the sixth such report, from the IPCC. The world leaders will take time out from trying to terrify their subjects about the WuFlu to terrify them about CO2.

Already we are being told that 2021 is going to be a 'make or break' year for the climate. Just like the previous 25 such meetings which were also 'make or break'. But somehow we never break even though we never make.

So in this regards, and for all those who 'follow the science' I just thought a bit of contra data wouldn't go astray:

* This paper in the Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext) (sorry, you'll to copy-paste the link because it has brackets in the URL and the editor can't handle that) shows that deaths from what they call non-optimal temperatures kills over 5 million per year. But the vast majority of that (4.6 million) relates to deaths from cold as opposed to warm temperatures. Overall the paper shows that the warming over the last 20 years has saved about 100,000 lives per year as less people die from the cold.

* the new pause:

As at June 2021 there had had been a zero warming trend for 6.5 years according to the UAH dataset and for 7 yrs 4 months according to HadCRUT4 dataset. ie its not warming. (http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php)

* there's a crisis in the climate modelling community ....
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6437/222

So even as the models grow more powerful, they grow less accurate and even the alarmists can't hide the fact. I wonder that'll come out in Glasgow.

* lastly and most hilariously...
The temperature trend in Glasgow where the great and good will gather to tell us we're all gunna die, has been negative for this century. That is, its been getting cooler in Glasgow for the past 21 years. I suspect that won't be mentioned either.

Reality does not coincide with the climate models. But that makes no difference to pigheaded and arrogant politicians who know that most peasants will continue voting for them.

...and Greta the Great ..? How dare me !

Dear mhaze,

The paper quite clearly states:

"Our study also explored the temporal change in temperature-related mortality burden from 2000 to 2019. The global daily mean temperature increased by 0·26°C per decade during this time, paralleled with a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths. The results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce the net temperature-related deaths, although, in the long run, climate change is expected to increase mortality burden."

But I am interested as to why this particular paper caught your eye. I mean it states that death from heat of cold as a disease burden. It doesn't for instance talk about drought impact or the impact of flooding but is purely looking at "Exposure to cold or hot temperatures ... associated with premature deaths.".

As to your: "As at June 2021 there had had been a zero warming trend for 6.5 years according to the UAH dataset and for 7 yrs 4 months according to HadCRUT4 dataset. ie its not warming."

That is the kind of abusive use of statistics that you have become renowned for. Just stop already. It is idiotic.

" It doesn't for instance talk about drought impact or the impact of flooding...."

So a paper that wasn't about floods or droughts, didn't talk about floods or droughts. Could've knocked me over with a feather.

Still, I understand SR's problem here. The paper has facts he'd rather weren't mentioned so he has to find some way to avoid them.

"That is the kind of abusive use of statistics that you have become renowned for. Just stop already. It is idiotic."

Given that you've demonstrated that numbers utterly bamboozle you, I'm not surprised these statistics do likewise. It seems that any statistics that say things SR doesn't want to be true must have been abused, he just can't work out how.

Dear mhaze,

You are always good for a laugh mate.

Firstly you are intimating net positive benefit for human lives from global warming because of less lives taken by cold temperatures.

But the study does not take into account deaths from warming induced drought, or fires, or torrential flooding. They are fact you are not mentioning.

But you dipping into the good old trick of truncated trend lines to show “its not warming” is gold. Even the most ardent climate sceptics have given that rubbish away ages ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/The_Escalator_%28global_warming%29.gif

Why? Because they knew it left them with zero credibility. You are a case in point.

"Firstly you are intimating net positive benefit for human lives from global warming because of less lives taken by cold temperatures."

Nup. I wasn't intimating anything. I was outright saying that the science (you know, that thing you keep trying to convince yourself you follow) shows that in a warming world the decrease in cold deaths is vastly greater than the increase in heat deaths. That's it.

Is less people dying a net benefit?

"But the study does not take into account deaths from warming induced drought, or fires, or torrential flooding."

That's true. The study isn't about those things so it doesn't mention them. Big surprise!

But if I wanted to talk about those things I'd show you the papers showing deaths from natural disasters like drought, floods, fire etc have fallen by 99% since the beginning of the 20th century. But I don't want to inundate you with good news (which for you is bad news) all at once. Well maybe just one - deaths from drought have fallen from 77/100,000 at the beginning of the 20th century to 0.01/100,000 now.

"But you dipping into the good old trick of truncated trend lines to show “its not warming” is gold."

Well I didn't say its not warming, but if you can't deal with my actual views then make some up and pretend to mock the fantasy. The data shows there's a pause. That's all. I've previously explained to you the significance of a pause in regards to the models but clearly that went over your head or in one ear and out the other....or both.