Is that what they call science now? Speculating about the total number of deaths in the next 84 years? Here are some facts:
“Some 363,500 people die annually from cold, while 43,700 die from excessive heat.” Even if the dooming calculations came true, the deaths from cold will still be considerably higher, and the overall death count lower.
The rest is making things up.
Seems the number of heat related deaths are much greater then you are indicating, and steadily on the rise.
It only seems so because they are making things up with models that don’t resemble reality. All you have to do is compare the deaths of similar but warmer countries, and you will find less deaths from cold AND heat. Climate models = Propaganda
Everybody, listen to this random guy on the internet and ignore Nature, on of the world’s most eminent science journals. This guy right here, he’s the shit.
OK. Let ignore common sense and believe sites with no links to the actual studies. The who is simply lying. The data I provided is from a lancet study called “Temperature-related mortality burden and projected change in 1368 European regions: a modelling study”. I only took the actual number and left out the “model” propaganda.
Also, the owners of nature.com are partners to the WEF, they have pre-defined goals. It is not that they are only interested in science.
It’s somehow common sense that the World Health Organization, a multinational organization made up by thousands of individuals is lying because of some shady agenda.
It’s somehow common sense that Nature, one of the highest cited journals in the world is also part of some Conspiracy, led by the World Economic Forum.
It’s somehow common sense that computational modelling and simulation science as a whole is just a big psyop and propaganda.
It’s somehow common sense that this one dude on the internet who is spouting 3 different conspiracy theories in one little post is …not some wingnut.
Ok buddy.
I just showed that they are lying. You just choose to believe in lies. The actual data from the who contradict the lancet study. And the nature site is so scientific they don’t even provide links to the studies so at least a few people can actually read what is true and what is false.
You showed nothing. You cherry picked data from one study. The role of big international scientific organisations, like the WHO is to combine the amassed knowledge from all the studies, and to synthesize them in coherent and actionable ways. Science is not the one data point or the one study, it’s the overall consensus in the scientific community.
