Doom Today: Cult Study Prognosticates 2.3 Million More Hotcoldwetdry Deaths By 2099

I’d ask who gets fired when this doesn’t happened, but, first, no one will remember this crystal ball reading in 2099, and, second, the cult will simply link all deaths to the weather, just like they did with Wuhan Flu. The talking point went out

Climate study warns of 2.3m more temperature-related deaths in Europe by 2099

Rising deaths from extreme heat will “far exceed” reductions in numbers dying from cold temperatures in Europe with climate change, researchers suggest.

A study modelling the change in deaths related to high and low temperatures found that there could be more than 2.3 million excess deaths across hundreds of European cities by the end of the century if urgent action is not taken to cut emissions.

While efforts to adapt cities to rising temperatures would not be enough to curb increased health risks due to exposure to heat, up to 70% of the excess deaths could be avoided if climate change was limited, the researchers said.

And

Dangerous temperatures could kill 50% more Europeans by 2100, study finds

Dangerous temperatures could kill 50% more people in Europe by the end of the century, a study has found, with the lives lost to stronger heat projected to outnumber those saved from milder cold.

The researchers estimated an extra 8,000 people would die each year as a result of “suboptimal temperatures” even under the most optimistic scenario for cutting planet-heating pollution. The hottest plausible scenario they considered showed a net increase of 80,000 temperature-related deaths a year.

The findings challenge an argument popular among those who say global heating is good for society because fewer people will die from cold weather.

Challenge! How did people do during the previous warm periods, which were warmer? This is what a cult study looks like.

Study projects millions of European heat deaths as world warms

Extreme temperatures — mostly heat — are projected to kill as many as 2.3 million people in Europe by the end of the century unless countries get better at reducing carbon pollution and adapting to hotter conditions, a new study says.

Currently, cold temperatures kill more people in Europe than heat by large margins. But a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine used climate simulations of different scenarios and looked at death rates in 854 cities. They found as it warms cold deaths lessen slowly, but heat deaths soar rapidly.

Yeah, those cult in/cult out computer models. These are just 3 of the dozens of articles all pushing the same fearmongering cult study. There’s zero journalistic integrity in questioning the veracity of the study, the conclusions, and that it reads as if written by activist group, not a group of scientists following the Scientific Method.

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.

Post a Comment or Leave a Trackback

18 Responses to “Doom Today: Cult Study Prognosticates 2.3 Million More Hotcoldwetdry Deaths By 2099”

  1. James Lewis says:

    This tells us all we need to know….

    A study modelling ………..

  2. JimS says:

    Aren’t these the same folk who claim the world is overpopulated? Why should they care if a couple million leave the planet?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Doom indeed.

    Google said Monday it will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” in Google Maps after the Trump administration updates its “official government sources.”

    The company also said it will start using the name “Mount McKinley” for the mountain in Alaska currently called Denali.


    Bwaha! Lolgf Losers!
    MAGA47 – Changing The World

  4. ST says:

    Who likes privacy online? If you do check out these private apps, browsers, search engines, IMs, VPNs. . . .
    https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/01/who-likes-privacy-online-if-you-do.html

  5. James Lewis says:

    Regarding the MMGW hoaxers:
    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

    • Elwood P Dowd says:

      James,

      On this, Crichton didn’t know what he was talking about. But he did write good sciency thrillers!!

      I thought his novel Jurassic Park was better than that near perfect movie!!

      A scientific consensus is based on evidence. Has it been proven that smoking causes cancer or is it a scientific consensus? It’s consensus. Theories are not proven; but they can always be falsified with new evidence.

      Atomic theory, cell theory, the theory of gravity, Big Bang, plate tectonics, Relativity etc… not proved. But all depend on scientific consensus. Why the political battle over global warming? The older, listed theories whether true or not do not impact our actions today.

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        No, consensus is meaningless. That is why the Laws of Science were formulated. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge in all subjects. Get an education.

      • James Lewis says:

        Ellie,

        No, that is a “theory.”

        To be “Scientific Theory” there are certain rules that must be met. One is that it must be testable. If it can’t be tested, just like a belief in God, it is just a belief. Another is that it must be predictable. Man Made Global Warming is not predictable. There have been numerous predictions that have failed. As for the theory of gravity, it is testable and predictable.

        History is filled with consensus based on observations. Consensus said that bleeding was a method of treating pneumonia. Ask George W how that worked out.

        You really need to read/study Popper and, hopefully, it will lead you to understand the “Black Swan” happening.

        Crichton was well educated. His point was simple. Keep politics out of science.

        And there is no consensus by the body of scientists. I give you:

        https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/more-1600-scientists-including-nobel-laureates-declare-climate-crisis

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Michael Crichton got his M.D. from Harvard Medical School.
        So he probably knew a little more about science than the Rimjob. Actually a lot more.
        LOL.

  6. david7134 says:

    Funny how Chricton extensively referenced all his written opinions. Jeff does not reference except from sources receiving money from the government which is massively biased or socialist.

    The science supports the fact that human activity has little to do with climate change.

  7. Jl says:

    Consensus-science by a show of hands. What could go wrong…?

  8. BLSinSC says:

    Given the current stupidity ruling Europe, I would guess MANY more that 2.3 million will croak due to freezing to death due to no “fossil” fuels in use! Well, that is if their current “guests” don’t do it for them!

Leave a Reply

Pirate's Cove