{"id":388487,"date":"2025-07-12T19:20:27","date_gmt":"2025-07-12T17:20:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388487"},"modified":"2025-07-12T19:20:28","modified_gmt":"2025-07-12T17:20:28","slug":"the-seven-day-instant-european-heat-death-study-who-needs-data-just-model-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388487","title":{"rendered":"The seven-day instant European heat death study \u2014 who needs data? Just model it!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From JoNova<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Jo Nova<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Burn more oil and coal, save lives and never ever apologize<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s been a hot ten days in Europe and the Blob-Propaganda Machine is running full tilt. A rapid \u201canalysis\u201d invented a number of excess deaths\u00a0faster than junk science has ever been done before<\/a>. So, teeth can be gnashed appropriately, never mind about peer-review, who needs that? Thus, extreme heat was said to have killed 2,305 people across 12 cities\u00a0\u2014 2,305! And with Coupled Voodoo Models we can \u201cshow\u201d two thirds of those deaths were because of fossil fuels and \u201cClimate ChangeTM<\/sup>\u201c! This study, note, has not even been published, it can\u2019t be using real data from the event \u201cseven days prior\u201d (June 23 to July 2, 2025<\/a>) because that won\u2019t be published for weeks or months. It\u2019s all guesstimated from past deaths in other years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One *handy* thing about rapid analysis like this is that it\u2019s also \u201ctoo fast\u201d to see if the excess deaths were followed by a lower death rebound, which often happens after heat-waves.  A few hot days in a row generally take those who are about to die in the next six weeks anyway, so after the peak, comes the drop. It\u2019s rather darkly known as harvesting <\/em>future deaths. Good studies use at least a 21 day lag, but crass publicity-science-stunts don\u2019t even wait 21 days to hit the news stands. Maybe they \u201cguessed\u201d that too in the assumptions? Who can tell? Maybe they\u2019ll add it in and adjust the numbers later \u2014 after the media hype?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Grantham Institute at least has a PDF paper out for a UK heat wave they forecast<\/em> would kill 570 people<\/a> last month. (And at least that was called a \u201cforecast\u201d so everyone knew they were just guessing).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, if the sole purpose of junk-science-academia is to promote government tax and spending plans, then we wouldn\u2019t want to do a careful analysis and find that 1,500 people weren\u2019t really excess deaths we could blame on fossil fuel induced warming, or that by the same reasoning probably 15,000 Europeans were saved last winter. Shh!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complete sell out of university and legacy-media is there for all to see. All it takes is for one professor, or one journalist to do five minutes of research (or a read a blogger for free) and show what we all know \u2014 that if global warming kills anyone in summer, by the same reasoning it would save ten every winter.<\/em> Around the world Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year. (Zhao et al)<\/a>.  Where are the headlines for the people the Greens don\u2019t care if they kill in winter each year?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
New York Times<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0Climate Change News<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Politico<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Climate Change saves ten times as many lives every winter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s rare in medical science to have unequivocal research. But this is one of those moments. Studies of 74 million people show the same pattern everywhere; in terms of the climate nothing is more deadly to humans than winter<\/a>. (See Gasparrini et al).  For every summer heat wave death, at least 6, 10 or even 20 people die due to cold weather in winter. The largest study across 13 countries found cold deaths were twenty times more common than heat deaths. Look at the scary blue bars below, it\u2019s moderate cold coming to get you!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Gasparrini et al. (2015)<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In richer European cities, with gas stoves and coal fired power stations *only* ten times as many people will die of the cold<\/a>. (Mazzelot et al)  Even in warm sunny Brisbane, Australia, six times as many people die in mild cold weather as in the heat of summer.  (Cheng et al).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lancet was so desperate to whip up alarm, they stooped to stretching half the axis to make the pitiful few heat deaths look worse.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remember this graph? The one on the left made it through peer-review and expanded deaths on the \u201cwarm\u201d side. The graph on the right is the real proportion of cold deaths to warm ones.  And the Lancet published the big 74 million deaths study in 2015. They knew. They knew!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Thanks to Patrick Moore https:\/\/twitter.com\/EcoSenseNow<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In reality, man-made climate change probably killed no one, but fossil fuels made life possible for 500 million people in Europe all year round. The icing on the cake of civilization is that airconditioners save 20,000 lives in USA <\/a>each year (as long as you can afford to run them). As it got hotter in Spain last century, less people died.<\/a> Thank air conditioning and electricity.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related posts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n