Friday, April 12, 2024
HomeNewsIt gets hot in summer – who’d have thought it?

It gets hot in summer – who’d have thought it?


ENGLAND needs a National Strategy to deal with the occasional hot day we get from time to time, according to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change. The stated purpose of this London School of Economics body is ‘to accelerate the transition, and remove obstacles, to a sustainable, inclusive and resilient world’.

According to a hysterical report by Sky NewsEngland is not ready to respond to extreme heatwaves this summer and ministers must implement a national strategy, researchers have said. In addition to excess deaths, they are warning of economic shocks and a “breakdown in public services” should the country experience more very high temperatures either this year or in the future.’

Strange! I don’t recall the country falling apart last summer, when millions were out and about enjoying the sunshine.

The call coincides with the announcement by the Met Office along with the busybodies at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) of the launch of a colour-coded ‘Heat-Health Alert’ system this summer. 

Apparently they think the public are unable to understand a weather forecast. No, the real plan here is to bombard the public with Heat Alerts every time we get a bit of sunny weather to ramp up the global warming scare. According to the Met Office: ‘The updated health alerts will be complementary to and run alongside our UK wide National Severe Weather Warnings and will play a pivotal role in helping save lives, protect property and the economy as we all work to tackle adverse weather and climate change going forward. It is only by working in close partnerships with organisations like UKHSA that effective action can be taken when it matters.’

Again the meme of ‘saving lives’ appears. The UKHSA even claims that the number of excess deaths in people aged 65 and over during five ‘heat periods’ last summer in England was 2,803. Yes, precisely 2,803, not 2,802 or 2,804!

It is time to put this lie to bed for once and for all. According to the official data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the number of deaths was at its lowest in summer last year. It is cold that kills, not heat.

The ONS published a full analysis last October of the effect of the heatwaves last summer on deaths, and concluded: ‘Each heat-period peak, most notably that on 19 July 2022, was followed by a fall in deaths to below the average over the following days; this suggests a short-term mortality displacement, where deaths among vulnerable individuals are ‘brought forward’ to within the heat-periods.’

In other words, the death toll did not increase during the summer; instead people died a few days earlier than they would have otherwise. The proof of the pudding lies in the July data, about which the ONS comment: ‘The 2022 heat-period with the largest number of excess deaths was the second heat-period (10 to 25 July), with 2,227 excess deaths (10.4 per cent above average).’ Yet when we look at the full death stats for July, we find that they were actually slightly less than June, on a daily rate basis, and much lower than April and May.

There is no evidence therefore that more people are dying in England because of hot summers

And if we are to have yellow alerts for a nice sunny day, what about amber alerts for April showers?

Climate change through the Telegraph looking glass

THERE used to be a time when the Telegraph’s business journalists knew what they were talking about.

Jeremy Warner is the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, and claims to be one of Britain’s leading business and economics commentators. It is hard to imagine why he thinks that after the latest piece of drivel he wrote this week.

In his article titled Let’s worry about climate change, not the supposedly existential threat of AI’, he wrote: ‘Whatever one’s views about the origins of climate change, we do at least know that global warming is a real and present danger. We don’t yet know that about AI.

‘For real-life evidence of the already highly destructive nature of climate change, you don’t need to be guided by the counterproductive bleatings of Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Ask the insurance industry instead.

‘The average payout in claims over the first 10 years of the century was in the order of $50bn (£40bn) per annum. Since then, it has doubled to $100bn, and in 2022, it was an all-time record of $132bn.

‘Part of the explanation is inflation, together with growing instances of shoddy workmanship in construction.

‘But the overwhelming cause is climate change. Extreme weather events have grown steadily more frequent and destructive.

‘The trend is undeniable, and if maintained will soon render large parts of the world uninsurable against wildfires, floods and hurricanes, if not outright uninhabitable.

‘What we also know is that globally, emissions are still going up, not down, so it is highly likely that these trends will persist, and possibly accelerate.’

The reason for rising insurance claims is population growth in vulnerable areas such as Florida, along with the fact that we all have more ‘stuff’ nowadays. It has nothing to do with climate change. As societies become wealthier, we build bigger houses, own more cars and boats, and fill our homes with more goodies. On top of that, we have much more infrastructure around us. Consequently when a weather disaster strikes, economic losses are much higher than in the past.

Professor Roger Pielke Jr is one of the world’s leading experts in this field, and he has proved conclusively that when measured as a proportion of GDP (the only proper way to do it) economic losses from weather disasters have actually been declining:

To make his point, Pielke notes that US hurricane losses historically comprise more than 60 per cent of ‘global’ disaster losses, not because US hurricanes are any worse than elsewhere, but because the US is a rich country.

As he also points out, even the IPCC admit that there is very little evidence to support the claim that weather is becoming more extreme.

Surely a ‘leading economics commentator’ should know all this?

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.