The Overlooked Benefits of a Warmer Planet
Since 1975, our planet has warmed by about two-thirds of one degree centigrade. Before that, for 35 years, the Earth was cooling. It is a fascinating fact that almost no one ever mentions that 1972 was when the campaign to halt acid rain began and the removal of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from our atmosphere, which had a heating effect on our climate – SO2 acts as a precursor for water droplets to form, and increased cloud cover follows this process, which causes additional rays from our sun to be reflected into space. Less SO2 meant fewer clouds and a warmer climate.
Even more baffling are the current efforts to replace some of the SO2 that has been removed, particularly in our stratosphere. On January 9th 2024, an article in the Washington Post described a firm named Make Sunsets releasing weather balloons filled with sulphur dioxide and helium in a project designed to seed our stratosphere with SO2. This company accepts donations from mostly climate activists who want to cool our planet and uses these proceeds to fund its efforts. And, as the Post reported, nature does this already. For example, “After Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, sending 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide spewing into the atmosphere, global temperatures fell by about one degree Fahrenheit the following year.” Further complicating this Gordian Knot is the fact that these new efforts may not follow the five principles contained in the Oxford Principles of Geoengineering. The story in the Post quoted an expert in solar geoengineering governance and law named Jesse Reynolds, who said, “I looked at the five Oxford principles, and [Make Sunsets is] acting in a way that’s consistent with none of them.” Ergo, as these efforts expand, there may exist added dangers. Make Sunsets has received equity investments from two venture capital firms, a total of $750,000. As Mr. Reynolds said, “This is the ‘move fast and break things’ worldview.”
Since 1970, when the fight to limit global warming was started by the World Economic Forum (WEF), and after the First World Climate Conference was held in 1979, climate scientists have been in continuous high dudgeon without ever a single mention of the impact of pollution abatement as a possible cause of the current warming. Even worse, these pro-climate change researchers have produced an almost never-ending stream of forecasts and predictions of coming climate catastrophes — floods, droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, famines and the spread of tropical diseases. But almost no one has tested these claims of coming cataclysms against the historical statistics. We have 50 years of hard data today, yet these foreseen calamities have yet to happen. Indeed, since 1920, the number of recorded deaths attributable to climate disasters has declined by over 95%. However, climate change advocates insist that extreme weather events are increasing and that this is an early warning that, if followed, will save countless lives. Regardless of these endless predictions of coming doom, human mortality attributable to climate change has sharply declined.
Plus, the current warming is itself saving thousands of people from premature death every year. Our warming planet has so far been a major benefit to everyone.
Since 1988, when Jim Hansen testified before Congress, we have been urged to believe that we face a coming climate catastrophe. But 35 years later we learned that the increase in the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, along with the resulting temperature rise, has to date only improved things on our planet. The Earth is greening and thousands of lives worldwide are saved yearly. The Earth is greening and our deserts are blooming.
Turning to lives saved, a recent study published in the Lancet and done at Monash University showed that today, warmer temperatures save thousands of lives worldwide every year. This study found that “the global heat-related excess death ratio increased by 0·21 percentage points (0.13–0.31), leading to a net reduction in the overall ratio.” Ever since the Crimean War and the continuing research begun by Florence Nightingale, we know that warmth saves lives while cold kills many more people. In other words, the current warming is saving eight lives for every life that is lost due to premature death attributed to temperature.
Therefore, there is no current need to halt the burning of fossil fuels. The warming associated with climate change is so far saving thousands of lives every year, greening our planet and shrinking our deserts. But some experts insist that increases in droughts, wildfires, mass starvation and rising sea levels are just some of the consequences of our warming planet that are already occurring, but the hard data say otherwise.
- Droughts: According to the UN, droughts over the last 50 years have averaged only 13,000 deaths annually.
- Wildfires: NASA’s satellite observations found that the number of wildfires has declined, and the vast majority are attributable to human actions (arson, etc.) Deaths due to wildfires have typically been extremely low. Plus, as noted, total deaths from all climate disasters have declined by over 95% over the last 100 years.
- Mass starvation: The number of famines worldwide has sharply declined since the 1960s. Most famines are attributable to armed conflicts (wars and civil wars).
- Rising sea levels: According to NASA’s satellite data, sea levels have risen by only 100.1 mm since 1993, i.e., by just four inches over the past 30 years. The most recent scholarly study from the NASA satellite data found that 50% of the sea level increase on the East Coast of the U.S. was due to subsidence (heavy structures built near the water line are causing the land to sink.)
In 1988, James Hansen advised us that untold climate catastrophes were on the immediate horizon, and for 35 years he has been only wrong.
Like it or not, the moderate warming seen to date has saved countless lives.
Richard Burcik is the author of two short books, The DNA Lottery and Anatomy of a Lie.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And the moral of the story is, let’s just leave the earth well alone and let it get on with what’s its been doing for millenia!
No species has ever needed to adjust the planet for its own comfort, plants and creatures just adapt to their new surroundings, and so should we!
The other moral of the story is that there is still a lot of work to do to dispel the idea that there is a “temperature of the planet”.
Quick question. What’s the temperature of the planet right now, this instance? Or at 12pm GMT yesterday?
Temperature of the planet – what a load of b*ll*cks.
OT…..BBC 4. Increasing Bird Flu in Cattle. Is this the next step in the war on meat?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/avian-h5n1-influenza-disease-x-bio-pharmaceutical-complex/5854424
Well Ron, look what I found.
One doesn’t realise the extent of the vaccine racket until one considers that all livestock and animals are vaccinated. And not just once or for just one disease.
The world produces 75 billion chicken and 2 billion pigs, sheep and cows a year.
How did any of these animals make it to the 20th century and avoid extinction without vaccines to protect them is a complete mystery…
“Since 1975, our planet has warmed by about two-thirds of one degree centigrade.”
I’m still not really sure what this statement means or could possibly mean.
It means diddly squat tof.
Forty nine years? How long has this planet been whizzing through space?
Muppets!
“It means diddly squat”
I’m waiting for someone cleverer than I am to explain it 🙂
An average calculated from temperature readings of some set of different kinds of thermometers in 1975 was about ⅔ of a degree centigrade lower than an average caluclated from a different set of a different different kinds of thermometers calculated in 2024? And that’s leaving the issue aside that these different readings from different sets of different different kinds of thermometers (in differing location) were also ‘adjusted’ in different ways.
Different measurements taken from different devices at different times differed?
You probably have to be MTF to believe that this cannot have made a difference.
Climate change ‘science’ is really its own satire.
“Climate change ‘science’ is really its own satire.”
Indeed, as are many things.
Hopefully the author of this article knows what he means by it. Where does his data come from? How was this calculated? What does it mean? For example, is this figure weighted by population – if not then it seems completely useless. Even if you weight it by population, you need to consider where things grow as well as where people live, and the effect from unpopulated parts. You also need to take into account outlying years where the temperatures where very high (or low) – 50 years is quite a short time in the history of the planet. Even if the figure is “accurate”, what are the implications?
Even if the figure is “accurate”
It is accurately what it is and isn’t anything else. And with this, I really mean nothing else. Especially not a property of anything which exists in the real world. This whole calculation is already completely bizarre for one year and calculating several of these bizarrities in order to make statements about their numerical relation to each other is truly meta-bizarre.
NB: I’m not just playing around with words, I’m trying to render my impression of this into words which reflect it more accurately than the mundane Doesn’t make any sense.
The problem is that people on “our side” of the argument use these terms too as if they actually meant something. You can’t argue against their fantasy world by diving right into the fantasy with them.
Indeed. It’s like “transgender woman”, “biological man”, “covid case”, “covid death” – all terms invented and used to confuse and corrupt.
It’s important to understand that the so-called global temperature is literally a made-up number: It’s created by the people who want to use it based on input numbers which are already completely under their control. As Scott Morrison has uncovered here, they’re making statements suggesting an accuracy of two decimals based on measurements by devices whose margin of error is two order of magnitude¹ larger. The so-called temperature rises are all in the range of ‘natural’ measurement errors. Unless this so-called warming exceeds the margin of error, it’s just a noise statistic. And that’s impossible because this would mean statistical warming >5⁰C, probably rather >10⁰C and according to climate change theory, we’d all be dead long before we could accurately measure so-called global warming. The theory is designed such that it cannot be proven with our present technical means. Therefore, it rests on consensus, ie, a shared belief about something we cannot know. ¹ In the decimal (arabic) numerical system, each digit position represents and order of magnitue, eg, 347 is 3 times 100 plus 4 times 10 plus 7 times 1. The orders of magnitude themselves are powers of 10. Claiming that temperatures has risen by ⅔ of a… Read more »
“I’m trying to render my impression of this into words which reflect it more accurately than the mundane Doesn’t make any sense.”
You have succeeded!
As I have been saying for about 15 years. The temperature record of earth is a dogs breakfast of adjusted and manipulated data that has been fiddled about with more times than a prostitutes knickers.
It is what climate officialdom claim the global average temperature has been. But if we put aside the problem of averaging when it comes to temperature for a second, the temperature has risen from about 1860, which is when a cold period stopped (the little ice age) but half of that warming happened before we were emitting much in the way of CO2 from industrial activities and could therefore not have been caused by us. So the world had started to warm before we started to allegedly warm it. That warming was clearly natural and these natural forces have clearly suddenly not stopped, so it is unknown how much or if any of this alleged warming was caused by humans. And infact the IPCC itself say they cannot at this time see a human signal in the data. —-“So where exactly is this “climate crisis”?
Indeed
“But if we put aside the problem of averaging when it comes to temperature for a second”
I struggle to put it aside when even people on our side talk about a “global temperature”.
The issue isn’t the warming it is the coming drastic reduction in agricultural productivity in countries 45 degrees above the equator. The point its that this is going to be very rapid and be in full flow within four years and we don’t have the planning or foresight or even an economic system that is capable of responding to this. Our eltes know this well hence their behaviour in the development of growing sites in erstwhile arid parts of the world and the construction of mysterious dams. In this country we are going to have to get used to a much wetter and damper climate. I know this isn’t good news but the last two years have been the wettest since records began. Try to see the gloom and rain and damp as tools for character building. The fine old English art of taking the piss is largely a result of the weather I expect
“The issue isn’t the warming it is the coming drastic reduction in agricultural productivity in countries 45 degrees above the equator. “
Can you tell us more about this? Exactly what productivity will be reduced, and by how much, and why?
“In this country we are going to have to get used to a much wetter and damper climate”. ——- The most important thing you should realise when you make claims about what might and might not happen in the future is that those are speculations and assumptions from climate models and that those models have so far all been wrong. Not just wrong but very wrong. Climate models assume a lot of things and don’t include many of the parameters, either because they are not fully understood or because they are unknown. You should not assume that climate modelling represents some kind of scientific truth. Models are not science and they are not evidence of anything.
The person who thumbs down my comment clearly disagrees with me and thinks models are indeed some kind of scientific truth. For some reason they think putting assumptions speculations and guesses into a computer model is “science”. ——–I notice they don’t tell me why I am wrong about that though.
“warmth saves lives while cold kills many more people”
Warmer weather also saves money on heating, which is a huge cost these days, and as poverty is a major cause of illness and premature death, warmer weather would mean less poverty and therefore less ill-health and fewer deaths.
Warmer weather would also, ironically, mean a reduction in carbon emissions because of the consequent reduction in the need for heating: “The energy used to heat the spaces we live and work in is one of the highest contributors to our individual carbon footprints. Globally, heat accounts for nearly half of all energy consumption and 40% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.” https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201116-climate-change-how-to-cut-the-carbon-emissions-from-heating I’ve never heard any ‘global warming experts’ trying to explain this contradiction in their theory: The cooler the climate, the more heating we need. The more heating we need, the more carbon is emitted. The more carbon emitted – according to global warming theory – the more global warming occurs. The more global warming occurs, the less heating we need. The less heating we need, the less carbon is emitted. The less carbon is emitted, the less global warming occurs. The less global warming occurs, the more heating we need. The more heating we need, the more carbon is emitted. The more carbon carbon is emitted, the more global warming occurs. The more global warming occurs, the less heating is needed. The less heating is needed, the less carbon is emitted… And on and on it goes in… Read more »
The solution is to buy global warming alamists something nice they can send their times with, eg, a set of wooden horses, and politely ask them to stop making such an awful noise.
We crave for it because we lack it for about nine months of the year. There are time when populations from large areas of the world are forced to move to more hospitable climes. Human interventions that attempt to obviate natural cycles are destined for disaster in my view. The natural cycle might say, how dare you try to stand in my way. And then it might give you a swipe around the face. There is a certain humility that comes with knowing the extent of your own understanding. Of course they are trained to ignore it because it implicit in the idea that everything that can be known can be observed by the senses. There are no logical grounds for this conceit.
It is a bit like what Kant said about human virtue – that it is inherent in its ontology that there will always be exactly the same amount of goodness and wickedness in the world, that it can’t be otherwise. The issue is in practical terms, which bits are going to get warmer and which bits are gong to get colder, along with other changes. You shouldn’t assume that this warming just means that we all feel a bit more cosy and don’t have to put the heating on so much. It has to do with a breakdown that has already started happening in terms of supply chains and massive weather changes in Asia and the effects on coomidity prices – olive oil, coffee and cocoa for example.We don’t have the luxury of talking about these crises as if they are hyopetheticals because they are nascent now. Sadly western countries survive on a confidence trick – tell everyone that everything is fine until the last minute and then scarper and leave them to it. All of this political distraction. It is simply a game of keeping the charade going on long enough so that they can get away with all… Read more »
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-climate-cold-truth/5854501
I have not watched this yet but it may have some value.
We are moving into damp and cold times. Can you keep your seed going in these times? We shall see. My advice is just breed and I don’t care who you breed with. Just keep dropping them out one after the other. Become a living example of defiance to their agenda.
Start to form ‘Muddy Groups’ – those who acknowledge the muddiness and soddiness of the times we are moving into and be at the forefront. In terms of clothing – maybe Wellington boots and waxed jackets and perhaps reconisderation of the crops grown in this country. Most importantly is the rediscovery of the tavern or the place out of time where you can capture a bit of the magic that makes life worthwhile.Just a monent out of time. Because if you carry on with the current trajectory it just leads to human misery and capture. We must go back to the old even if it means less money. Singing the old songs and recognising what we took for granted.
We all need to give credit to the Daily Sceptic for continuing to have articles that question climate change DOGMA. I can see very few other places where this happens almost on a daily basis as it does here. ——-So let’s remember when people hurl abuse at all the “deniers” for daring to question this politicised junk science, that in science you question everything. In science (if that is what it is meant to be about) scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin. The fact that the climate change establishment don’t want any of their dogma questioned reveals something very important. ———-It isn’t and never was about science.
The “temperature anomaly” which is what is used in the climate change so called science, is not the same thing a “temperature”. People might get the impression that there is a number called the global temperature that can rise or fall or stay the same. Nope. “Temperature Anomaly” is how periods compare to a selected 30 year period. If a temperature today is higher than the average of that 30 year period it is claimed the temperature has risen. But it only means the temperature anomaly has risen —–The problem with this is that if you choose a different 30 year period your result will be different. Averaging when it comes to something like temperature is problematic, because temperature isn’t an amount of anything, it is just a condition, and some things lose their meaning when you average them ——Temperature is one of those things.
Only stats or opinions/feelings that show that human-caused climate change is a disaster are allowed in most of the media.