• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Living Longer in a Warming World

    Climate Science Exposed

    Indur Goklany was involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an author, U.S. delegate and reviewer since before its inception. His focuses are climate change and economic development, among others, and his presentation at Heartland’s 4th International Climate Change Conference on global warming and mortality was one of the standout presentations in the entire conference. His talk establishes the long-standing fact that cold kills more than warmth and that global warming policies cost more lives than global warming itself.

    One of the justifications for combating global warming is that higher temperatures will threaten human health and could cause sweeping epidemics of infectious diseases and ultimately more deaths. But don’t forget a warmer world has benefits as well as costs, as does a cooler one. The empirical data shows that mortality rates rise in colder months, and this is evident across latitudes and well-recognized by the medical community.

    As the earth has warmed the extent of malaria and hunger rates have dropped and life expectancy and health-adjusted life expectancy (disability adjusted life years) has increased. Goklany says that “global warming or its underlying human causes, if any, have not increased death or disease. In fact, they are probably responsible for the worldwide decreases in mortality rates and increases in life expectancy over the last century.”

    Goklany stresses that there are more important health risks than climate change. According to the World Health Organization, climate change health risks are last out of 24 risk factors- even ignoring the gains in mitigating cold-weather gains. Unsafe sex, unsafe drinking water and vitamin deficiencies are much higher on the list. When it comes to climate change, the real threat to increased death and disease is global warming policies, more specifically biofuel production.

    Goklany project 51,000 world-wide excess deaths because of additional poverty from bio-fuel programs alone. While climate change ranks on the WHO’s risk factor’s, being underweight ranks at the top. Biofuel production, which is heavily subsidized in many developing countries, diverts food away to fuel and attempts to address the lowest risk factor at the expense of the most important. To truly help developing countries with the risks associated with climate change as well as the many more important ones, we should shift away from biofuel policies and focus on broader economic development. He writes:

    Developing countries are generally deemed to be most vulnerable to climate change, not necessarily because they will experience greater climate change, but because they lack adaptive capacity (that is, financial and human capital) to acquire and use the technologies necessary to cope with its impacts. Hence, another approach to addressing climate change would be to enhance the adaptive capacity of developing countries by promoting broad development, i.e., economic development and human capital formation, which, of course, is the point of sustainable economic development.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to Living Longer in a Warming World

    1. Historyscoper says:

      A warmer world is desirable, something to be worked for. Who needs vast arctic ice deserts? What animal needs cold as a condition for survival? They adapted to it with more fur, feathers, hair, etc., and can easily unadapt. More CO2 in the atmosphere can not only warm the Earth but green the deserts. Coastal cities will have to be relocated, but it's only a temporary inconvenience, after which there will be vastly more food for all, and poor countries will become rich. Learn about the Antarctic Volcanoes Project to reactive as many as possible in an ideal location:


    2. Brad, Detroit, MI says:

      Just like socialism is not about "re-disributing" wealth – it is about controlling it ;

      Global warming (still a hoax) is not about "saving" the planet – it is about generating wealth for the believers thru taxes, subsidies, and controlling your freedoms.

    3. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      That's all one has to do is "read" Goklany's statement. Do the words of so many

      of Obama's lackeys come to mind, namely "redistribution of wealth". How many times must it be said that "man made golbal warming" is a hoax! Envented for the expressed purpose of taking our money and giving it to third world countries that will NOT use it to improve the way of life, but to enrich the dictators that run those countries, thus give them more power of the people. Naturally, a little bit

      of those funds will be skimmed off the top to also enrich those that produce and

      support the hoax.

    4. C Knight, Falls Chur says:

      Refreshing to see someone has a correct perspective. Economic development and development of human capital are key to improving conditions. And by economic development, I certainly don't mean a bailout or the introduction of a welfare state!

    5. Pingback: Cooling Fear of a Malaria Surge from Warming - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

    6. Jackson, Denton, TX says:

      Spot-on Brad. It is no wonder the bogus, chicken-little global warming scare tactics are not working when the headliner is Al Gore, inventor of the internet and a hypocrite with a "carbon" footprint that eclipses most all those to whom he is lecturing.

    7. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      First law of Nature: "What will happen, will happen."

    8. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, May 20 2010 « The Daily Bayonet

    9. Ted, Arizona says:

      There seems to be some confusion over temperature change locally versus globally. The claim that "cold kills more than warmth" is irrelevant. Yes, an ice storm in Vermont will result in more deaths during this event than a two degree rise in the average temperature/month in Vermont over the past decade, if that's the claim. Sounds like it. That is not the issue. Data showing mortality rising in colder months is, likewise an "apples and oranges" argument. This line of thinking sounds like Tony Campolo in his book on how to save the planet without worshiping nature. He said even though people in the West can turn down their thermostats when the planet warms up, we should still be concerned about those in the tropics who will feel the heat since they don't have a thermostat to adjust. Obviously, many of the people talking about this issue, don't understand the issue and that is scary.

      Another statement, "But don’t forget a warmer world has benefits as well as costs, as does a cooler one" reflects amorphous ignorance. No one knows what will happen or when due to change on this scale. We are talking about global patterns that are beyond our comprehension. One response that coastal flooding may be an inconvenient is unbelievable. There may or may not be flooding. If so, the extent is completely unknown. Shouldn't we approach this humbly rather than with a dismissive tone?

      Finally, the assertion "the extent of malaria and hunger rates have dropped and life expectancy and health-adjusted life expectancy (disability adjusted life years) has increased" is due to what? Warming? The issues are far too complex to make such claims. Suggesting global warming has probably increased life expectancy leaves out a few important factors like medical advances which are directly attributable to longer life. How can anyone make a direct connection between longer life spans and global warming? We can't even be sure the globe is warmer, so how can we tie anything to something we aren't sure about.

      Something is missing. Could it be evidence or reason or both?

    10. Pingback: Global cooling is deadlier than global warming. Oops - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

    11. victor grech says:

      i think everyone involved in this has done a pisspoor job no real idea's no direct action no plan just dyer conquences if were waiting for politicans and goverments to come up with the answers we are fucked


    13. Jim Macdonald, South says:


      He's not talking about a little cooling, but rather the inevitable ice age. For the last half million years, ice ages have been the norm 90% of the time. They occur every 100,000 years on cue. The warm periods between are rather short, lasting about 10,000 years. Our present warm period has lasted about 10,000 years. So, we are due to go back into the next ice age sooner or later. Now, that's something to worry about.

      Tell us what causes these major swings and you have the key to climate change.

    14. Beau Joule says:

      I came across a great 6 minute YouTube video. It is named "Global Warming Lies and Facts" and explains every lie that the Obama administration tells about global warming. Check it out at:

    15. Pingback: Energy News | Chales Digital Life

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.