Climate change is no worse than diabetes, so why all the fuss?

Call me a benighted sceptic, but I’m not yet convinced that global warming is really going to carry on heating up the planet as much as most (though not all) climate scientists say it is, and that the recent warming isn’t part of some more ordinary climate cycle following on from the ‘little ice age’ or similar.

But let’s give the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the benefit of the doubt and go along with its predictions for a warming climate. What is the prognosis?

Tom Chivers on UnHerd has taken a look at the forecasts produced by the United Nations and other mainstream bodies and his findings are eye-opening. The World Health Organisation, for instance, has predicted that the result of climate change will be around 250,000 additional deaths each year up to 2050. The Climate Impact Lab, less conservatively, puts that figure at around 1.5 million extra deaths each year up to 2100.

That may sound a lot. But as Chivers notes, in fact it’s fewer than result from diabetes, and almost half of what result from obesity. In other words, certainly regrettable, but hardly cataclysmic.

Furthermore, while poorer countries will be worst affected, they will still be better off than they are now because of continued economic growth and technological improvement. So it’s a matter of things improving more slowly for them (and for all of us) rather than actually getting worse.

On the other hand, what would be the impact of the drastic measures required to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, of the kind the government has recently signed us up to, and Labour voted this week to make even more extreme? It’s hard to say, but given that economic growth in developing countries is one of the main drivers of both emissions and improving living standards, there’s obviously going to be a big trade off.

Given, then, the relatively small anticipated impact of climate change on human life expectancy, is all this costly greenery really worth it? Why not just adapt and mitigate?

And that’s if you accept the IPCC’s predictions. If, like Ole Humlum, you think it’s all somewhat exaggerated anyway, then things start to look even rosier.

There are I am sure some sensible things humans can do to improve the sustainability of our habitation of the planet. But, even on the basis of the alarmists’ own predictions, drastically reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t one of them. Isn’t it time the alarmists – not least the hierarchy of the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church – paid closer attention to the science and got a sense of proportion?

First published on Rebel Priest


5 thoughts on “Climate change is no worse than diabetes, so why all the fuss?

Add yours

  1. ‘While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease’ Genesis 8:22


  2. The effects of our commercialised efforts to deal with Climate change will indeed make things worse. The pust towards making everything electric, for instance seems to assume that there is no environmental cost in doing so. But having electric cars and machines means massive extension of the National Grid. This will mean the production, use and escape of copious amounts of greenhouse gasses required to cool the switches etc of the network. It will also requiring the mining and treatment of rare metals. And so the story goes on. If we really want to change things we need to go back to basics and come up with a proper plan. History shows that mans efforts to put things right usuallly end up making them worse.


  3. It is even rosier than that. there is in fact no problem at all. the climate stopped warming in 1998.
    The warmists know this hence the scandal at the university of East Anglia and “hide the decline.”

    The theory of man made global warming is in fact a scientific theory. That does not make it true but it dos make it falsifiable, because it makes predictions about what should be the case if the theory is true. And these things can be established not by circular reasoning, hysterical pleas but by empirical observation.

    There is no hot spot in the atmosphere comprised of all the water vapour produced by the feedback loop required for global warming to be dangerous. And ice cores show that as sea water released CO2 when warmed, then temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 rises so is not caused by them.

    These two plain facts are enough to blow the theory apart.

    The threat to mankind these days is the hysteria coming from a total delusion and in fact the cyclic nature of climate shows we are about to enter a cooling period


  4. There’s climate change and there’s a panic.
    Critics of the IPCC seem to suggest the reverse: that there’s a panic and there’s climate change (a construct of ideology to make sense of the panic.)
    Could there be a panic in the sense of Psalm 2 because we don’t really want to hear that our creational stewardship has been a failure even while our creational mandate is still “spoken” to us (Psalm 19) from the very fabric of the heavens?
    John Houghton In the Eye of the Storm is an important and measured contribution for this debate. Houghton, former chair of IPCC is a Christian and this is his autobiography.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website Powered by

Up ↑