Lancet 2001 study: "Most excess deaths were linked to cold temperatures (8·52%), whereas fewer were linked to hot temperatures (0·91%)."
Bjorn Lomborg comments on Lancet study: "Cold kills much more than heat on every continent US+Canada: 20K heat but 171K cold (8x more) Europe 179K vs 657K cold (4x) Africa 1.2m cold deaths Asia 2.4m cold deaths Yet, most reporting focus on heat deaths because it fits the climate narrative."
Extreme Weather Expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions: "Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends"
In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change.
Trends in extreme rainfall are not on the rise in Kentucky. ... As is usually the case, the media interviews the locals, who understandably say “this is the worst we have ever seen”. Of course it is, because these are small-scale, localised events, and people’s experience only dates back a couple of decades or so. The harsh reality, however, is that floods like these happen, and have always happened, somewhere or other every year. They have nothing to do with climate change. Also see: Biden falsely links Kentucky floods to ‘climate change’
"If we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensusfor the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers)."
Flashback 1974: ’60 theories have been advanced to explain the global cooling’ - In the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60 theories to explain it.: Ukiah Daily Journal 0 November 20, 1974 - "The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration that could last from 200 years to several millenia...Sixty theories have been advanced, he said, to explain the global cooling period."
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University: 'The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles." - "The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology: 'Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions.' - 'The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century. Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can’t make a convincing argument as to acceleration.'
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: 'For the past 130 years there has been ZERO acceleration in sea-level rise as directly measured by tide gauges in tectonically inert areas (land neither moving up nor down), even as CO2 has risen almost 40% in the same period.'
Around one in seven people across the globe still live without electricity, despite some progress in expanding access, and nearly three billion cook using polluting fuels, the World Bank said on Monday. The global electrification rate rose to 85 percent in 2012 from 83 percent in 2010, pushing the number of people without access to electric power down to 1.1 billion from 1.2 billion.
Daily Wire: Cricket powder will now be permitted in a number of food products, such as multigrain bread, crackers, cereal bars, biscuits, beer-like beverages, chocolates, sauces, whey powder, soups, and other items “intended for the general population,” according to the new regulation. Cricket One, a company that asserts that the insects are “nutritionally more efficient” and serve as a more reliable “source of alternative protein” than livestock, submitted the original application.
The New York Allergy and Sinus Centers has nevertheless found that “several allergic reactions to crickets” have been reported in the past two years. Individuals allergic to shellfish such as shrimp, crabs, and lobsters “may develop an allergy to crickets” because the species share many of the same proteins. ... Proposals for the increased consumption of crickets and other insects occur as many policymakers voice concern about the impact of meat production on climate change.