The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.Study projects millions of European heat deaths as world warms
By SETH BORENSTEIN LONDON©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
25 Comments
Login to comment
Zaphod
Projected by who? A computer model with dozens of unknown variables reaching out for decades? Who is supposed to swallow that?
Raw Beer
Likely the nebulous "world-wide experts and respected institutions" and all their followers.
Jimizo
You are an expert ( in an unspecified field ).
Is your PhD and area of research relevant to this?
Have you read a lot in this area? Maybe half the books written on it?
John-San
May I suggest carry a fan and not mention is that people are living longer so body function deteriorate the longer you live. It not rocket science. It a product of living longer. So I assume this and latter generation that are living through these continuing higher temp that body function will adapt and will live even longer.
Raw Beer
Yes, that is part of it. There are also many meds (e.g. to treat high blood pressure) and the fear of salt that make it harder to survive extreme heat.
John-San
That will touch a RAW nerve, Yes I agree Salt is essential to long life.
GuruMick
Correct me ...but didnt Europe already have record temperatures and record numbers of deaths attributed to the heatwaves ?
I tread carefully on subjects now.
virusrex
The experts that have well defined methodologies to characterize and validate models, you seem to have the idea that the reports are just making random assumptions in a computer and can publish whatever the results are without anybody making sure the whole process is valid, nothing would be farther from the truth. For scientific reports this requires a detailed explanation of what factors were considered, references where the methods are confirmed as valid, etc. etc. Without an actual scientific argument against the reports you have no reason to doubt the conclusions, much less to misrepresent it as a random guess.
You mean you still have not found any institution in the whole planet, in any country, that disagrees with what is constantly reported? because that is not nebulous, "all of them" is a perfectly clear description.
When the deaths are well correlated with the climatic changes and not with a much more uniform elevation of age this argument loses all its value.
Not really, because the importance is how the changes in climate can be demonstrated to correlate with the deaths, countries that do not experience these changes as strongly do not have the increase of deaths, even when their population ages the same.
You have repeatedly made this claim, yet you can never find any support for it even when challenged, that means it is just a personal belief not rooted on reality.
On adequate quantities, else it becomes a reason for shorter lives.
With every year the records are broken and higher numbers are reported, that is why this can seem familiar.
GuruMick
Didnt mean it to be familiar, as in discard, but as established facts that need to be addressed.
I am no science denier. I am perplexed why people still disbelieve the science.
And, no need for the usual suspects to respond.
Raw Beer
Are these the same experts with well defined methodologies validated models that have a long history of making massively overestimated predictions... that were used to influence policy?
Science is not a consensus that must be believed. It should be questioned, rather than blindly believed. Also, I'm not a big fan of modelling, they have a long history of getting things wrong....
GuruMick
Yes Beer...but I feel the science is in and pockets of resistance are more about, for individuals at least, contrariness .
I KNOW there are well financed campaigns to discredit the science.
I thought science was ,in part, a consensus .
virusrex
Yes, but with each year the established facts are renewed, in 2024 it was reported record heat and deaths, in 2025 it is reported new records of heath and deaths. What I mean is that this is not something entirely new never said before but something that once again is demonstrated, just in higher degree.
Which "overstimated predictions" are you talking about? you keep bringing examples of people that were not scientists on the first place or predictions that were averted precisely because of global action.
You got it wrong, in science a consensus is not something dogmatic to be believed, is something that is reached when everybody ends up with the same conclusions after examining the evidence.
And getting things extremely right, as the current situation demonstrates. Without any actual scientific criticism of the model a personal belief have no value as an argument. People still deny germ theory because "doctors have a long history of getting things wrong..." obviously that does not make microbes and infection less of a stablished fact.
Raw Beer
Oh, but there are much more highly financed campaigns to promote the mainstream "science" narrative, whether it's man-made global warming, big pharma, big food...
Jimizo
Standard alternative media watcher response.
Let’s go from experience.
As a practicing scientist, what would you recommend to steer clear of such influences?
Is it just a question of honesty and integrity?
Zaphod
It does not matter if you believe the "man-made global warming" narrative or not.
Making population predictions decades out into the future based on countless unknowable parameters is nonsensical either way. Depending on what guesswork you enter, you can get any desired result. Any programmer can tell you that.
GuruMick
Zaphod above....theme of Rumsfeld's "known unknowns " ?
I feel your concerns.
Zaphod
GuruMick
Rumsfeld was funny with that. Now you tell us how you can precisely project demographic, geographic and climate developments decades out in the future. Not holding my breath.
albaleo
You could try reading the full paper at the link below, and then point out any issues.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2
virusrex
Of which you never provide any evidence, so they can be safely discarded as inexistent, after all it is impossible for anybody reasonable to believe every single institution of science is in the conspiracy, it is beyond irrational. It is just the same excuse of every antiscientific group, flat earthers, creationists, etc.
Believing it or not does not change the fact that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
No, not really intervals of confidence are good enough to give a very good idea of what will happen, for example the predictions for climate change have been continuously inside those intervals. You are confused between predicting details (the temperature of one specific day of the year in the future) and predicting things that are general (the increase of temperature on a year-scale). The first is not realistic, the second is routinely done with success.
GuruMick
Zaphod...my email explaining everything is on the way...be patient...
Mie Fox
you have no reason to doubt the conclusions :
https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Wrong-Again-50-Years-of-Failed-Eco-pocalyptic-Predictions-Competitive-Enterprise-Institute.pdf
JboneInTheZone
Yeah. Europe has deaths due to heat at around 10x of that in the U.S.
virusrex
Exactly what I mentioned, declarations of people that are not experts, avoiding things because the world actually did something, etc.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
So yes, you have no reason, no argument to doubt the conclusions, being in denial is of course not an argument.
John-San
Virus No wrong. Your science doesn't stand up to scepticism and without the rigour apply by sceptics you can not obtain the correct consensus or outcome.
virusrex
You have never brought any actual scientific argument, that is because there are no "sceptics" about climate change, there are science deniers that take pride in being irrational and just repeat debunked claims. Those kind of things are much better ignored since they bring nothing to a discussion.