Proof That Scientists Are Model Blind Discovered In Claim One Billion Will Die From “Climate Change”

Proof That Scientists Are Model Blind Discovered In Claim One Billion Will Die From “Climate Change”

I stupidly sent out two posts today. Those who received the second won’t get it again tomorrow. Apologies.

Headline: “Scientists Warn 1 Billion People on Track to Die From Climate Change“.

Query: How can you die from “climate change”? Answer: You cannot. Conclusion: Scientists are model blind.

Or headline writers are. Or both.

The fossil fuels that humanity burns today will be a death sentence for many lives tomorrow.

A recent review of 180 articles on the human death rate of climate change has settled on a deeply distressing number. Over the next century or so, conservative estimates suggest a billion people could die from climate catastrophes, possibly more.

Now there are 36,525 days in the next 100 years. If “at least” 1 billion will die from “climate change” or “climate catastrophes”, then on average 27,379 people every single day for the next 100 years must be slaughtered by a slight increase in globally averaged temperature.

Asserting that nearly thirty thousand people daily will die of “climate catastrophes” is certainly too absurd even for a scientist to claim. Maybe not an activist. Certainly a politician or journalist would say it. It’s easier to suppose that “climate catastrophe” deaths will be concentrated into events of days, or even a day.

Suppose, then, “climate catastrophe” deaths happen on a single or consecutive days, as we see in real-life events.

If one million people die per event—one million human beings slaughtered by “climate catastrophes” in single events—how many events in the next century will be needed to make one billion?

A thousand. There must be one thousand huge “climate catastrophes” in the next century. In which, each time, one million people are killed. That is almost three years in total of such murderous events over a century. It will be a busy time.

Except possibly for Noah’s adventure, and perhaps the odd volcanic eruption (which, yes, some foolish people did say where exacerbated by “climate change”), there have never been events where a million people have died. And, except in the fervid and fevered minds of activists, no possible real-world event like this can be imagined. With the possible, non-climate related possibility of giant rocks from space.

Something like 100,000 deaths per “climate catastrophe” event is more plausible. Suppose, then, that 100,000 people are killed in separate “”climate catastrophes” events in the next century. How many days will have such events in order to kill one billion? Ten thousand.

There have to be ten thousand “climate catastrophe” events, which is about 28 years’ worth of days altogether. That is, in the next century, some 28% of the century’s days will see 100,000 slayed by “climate catastrophes”.

Since it does not seem likely we’ll have any of these days on which 100,000 are killed any time soon, because we haven’t seen many in all history, they must then be concentrated into fewer years than 100. It’s going to be a lurid climatic abattoir in about fifty years. If these scientists are right.

Still, 100,000 seems mighty high per event, does it not? As we just said, we haven’t seen anything like that many killed in most of what we used to call natural disasters. Something closer to 10,000, though still high, is much more believable than 100,000, is it not?

Well, suppose that a mere 10,000 die per “climate catastrophe”. Then how many events are needed so that at least one billion die? One hundred thousand. We’d need 100,000 events in which 10,000 die per event.

But there are only 36,525 days in the next century. So we’d need roughly 3 events each and every day—thrice daily, for the next century—on which about 10,000 are killed per “climate catastrophe”.

Which is not going to happen.

So what does all this mean? It means that scientists are idiots.

There is just no chance that at least one billion people will die from “climate catastrophes” in the next century. Even though the “180 papers” asserted that not only was this possible, but that the one billion was on the low end of their guesses.

How could scientists have made such a childishly foolish blunder like this?

It turns out that some 150,000 die around the world every day. From all causes. Assume this level stays about what it is (adjusted for any population increase).

We’ve already seen that an average 28,000 or so per day are predicted to die daily from “climate change”. That means a bit under 20% of all deaths, every day, will be ascribed to “climate change”. Including those deaths right now, today; because today is just one more day among many in the “next century”.

Thus the only way to rescue these scientists from their magnificent error, we must reclassify deaths from other causes, like heart attacks, and say they are instead deaths from “climate change”.

In the future, you won’t die of “climate change”, but you will die with “climate change”. But since you have to die of something, scientists will saying “dying with” is the same as “dying of.”

Now where else have we heard of this kind of statistical manipulation?

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. that billions of academic brain cells have already died due to a single-digit percentage change in perceived temperature is already a reality; it is not an extrapolation that this will continue.

  2. PaulH

    Chaeremon: Good one!

  3. Ann Cherry

    The stupid burns.

  4. Tim Owens

    It’s a sad shame that more “educated” people have never had a class in basic statistical analysis. Had more done that, the sheer absurdity of GIGA-NUMBERS or MEGA-NUMBERS being trotted out by lying morons would be instantly spotted and dismissed as the BS it is. Hence, the DemonRat party would lose most of its base.

  5. Dors

    There may be a WW3, which in the case of it being a global thermonuclear war may change the climate in a big way, perhaps resulting in the perishing of 10-15% of the total world’s human population. What is the reasoning by which this scenario is impossible?

  6. Steve

    @Dors, you do realize these 180 papers almost certainly were not including thermonuclear war as a cause of anthropogenic climate change, right?

  7. Dors

    Right, of course!

  8. Forbes

    So, the effort to forecast rising temperatures due to hypothesized AGW has been abandoned in favor of forecasting future deaths due to hypothesized AGW. Apparently, slightly warmer temperatures are NOT sufficient to fear-monger the public into a stampede in favor of the enviro policies preferred by the eco-warriors.

    Even the introduction in the paper in “Energies” is a bit wobbly (my technical term). It extrapolates from warnings (serious warnings that GHG concentrations increase), an estimate (95% confidence that anthropogenic global climate destabilization is occurring), and a potential (potentially irreversible negative repercussions), are now declared facts from which policies must proceed. Yet, to not act, according to the authors, is equivalent to committing murder or manslaughter.

    To call this hyperbolic analogy as rather tenuous is not an understatement.

  9. Cary D Cotterman

    It’s a sure bet that giant rocks from space will be blamed on climate change.

  10. Gunther Heinz

    The last hurricane in Florida that happened last week killed over a million people but the right-wing corporate media controlled by big oil supressed the news. Bodies were buried in mass graves by Guatamalos from Guatamalan subcontractors brought in to do the work of FEMUS.

  11. Gunther Heinz

    p.s. the word ‘contractor’ is derived from the Spanish ‘con trator’, or ‘with tractor’ in English. That’s where it comes from, the meaning.

  12. Nonsense.

    Let me quote my favorite author; “Scratch any leftist and you’ll find the foundational belief: there are too many people, the world has limited resources, and we’re all going to die. It’s nonsense, it’s the lifeboat earth fallacy, and it’s not what Malthus actually thought, but the belief identifies the prophet and the source of the prophecy that failed, and continues to fail: the future the progressive left both most fears and most assiduously strives to create.”

    So: reducing fertilizer production; reducing farm fuel use; and reducing pesticide production produces climate change induced starvation and billions (with an S) dead.

    Note: since the fears are real and labelled “climate change” but the bogey man itself is not, saying that “climate change” induces starvation is correct.

  13. Spetzer

    Since between 150K and 170K people are estimated to die every day, throwing in a few with “Climate Change” listed as cause of death doesn’t seem all that much of a challenge. On the other hand, if you’re killed as the result of loss of home heating during extreme cold or loss of HVAC during extreme heat because the power company decided to conduct rolling black outs, weren’t you killed by climate change related activities? You’ve got to remember the goal of some parties is the have several billion fewer people on this globe in short order.

  14. Johnno

    Dum-dumbs don’t even need a model. They’ll write anything for a buck. THE SCIENCE ™!

    I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
    I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *