By Paul Homewood

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01822-1/abstract

Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.

You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.

And sure enough, they claim to have found “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:

Each year is the same – they ignore real world data, which positively shows the opposite to be true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and dubious ways to satisfy their agenda.

The idea, of course, that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is itself absurd – but that does not stop the Lancet from saying it has!

They start by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but there is no mention of the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased by many more. They claim that heat exposure has reduced labour productivity, forgetting that, thanks to mechanisation, productivity has rocketed and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.

They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this is not derived from real world data, which is far too sparse to make such bold claims. Instead it is all based on computer modelling.

To be fair, the IPCC also claim that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but significantly also tell us that they can find no global trends in floods. In many places heavy rainfall is welcomed because it alleviates drought. Try telling the Indians that they had too much rainfall during this summer’s monsoon. As for those who suffered during the Dust Bowl years in the US, they would have given their right arm for a few storms.

It is the same with drought. Apparently 48% of the world’s landmass was affected by at least 1 month of extreme drought last year, up from 15% in the 1950s. But droughts build up over a period of months and even years, not one single month. It is plainly ridiculous to use such a metric – I wonder why they did?

And as with extreme precipitation, the Lancet study does not use actual rainfall data, but computer models which can be programmed to come up with any results you want, because the real world data they would need simply does not exist for most of the world.

But where we do have actual precipitation data, the IPCC only find that although some regions have seen an increase in droughts, while others have seen fewer:

And so it goes on. Apparently there are more sand storms, but again this is gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multimodel reanalysis ensemble”.

Malaria, we are told, is being spread by global warming, despite the fact that the number of new cases has been steadily dropping, with the exception of COVID affected 2020:

But the biggest joke of all must be this:

The mind boggles!

If they really were concerned about global health, there is plenty or incontrovertible, real world data which they could use, instead of their phoney models.

Around the world people live longer, child mortality is much lower, fewer live in extreme poverty or are undernourished. They live healthier lives, thanks to better access to clean water, medicines and healthcare. The children are better education, and technology is transforming people’s lives.

Thanks mainly to fossil fuels food output hits new records year after year. Meanwhile in contrast to the Lancet’s claims of desertification, the planet is greening because of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

.https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

But the Lancet are not interested in the truth, nor for that matter do they appear to care about global health.

They only want to generate alarmist headlines, to push forward their Net Zero agenda.

From Legal Insurrection

Americans are beginning to awaken realities of the “new green energy utopia”…which apparently entails a lot more chemistry and fire response than originally promised.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Another dramatic example of the hazards associated with lithium-ion batteries occurred in one exploded battery processing plant near Fredericktown, Missouri. The incident prompted local evacuation.

Residents of a southeast Missouri town were forced to evacuate their homes Wednesday when a fire erupted at a nearby battery recycler.

Madison County 911 posted on Facebook around 2 p.m. on behalf of the county sheriff’s office telling residents north and west of Fredericktown to leave the area.

“If you can see or smell smoke in this area, you need to evacuate!” the post says.

In a separate post later in the afternoon, Madison County 911 and the Fredericktown Fire Department said only residents on Madison County Road 277 needed to evacuate. The county urged other residents to shelter in place. The post said the city of Fredericktown was not affected by the order.

“Close windows, doors and turn off window AC systems,” the post says. “…Again, if you see smoke, stay indoors.”

Fortunately, there were no casualties that were reported. The company, Critical Mineral Recovery, a massive lithium-ion battery recycling facility.

On its website, the company says the 225,000-square-foot plant is used to “recycle lithium-ion-battery-related materials from battery manufacturers, automotive OEMs, battery dealers, recyclers, and processors worldwide,” and describes it as “one of the largest lithium-ion battery processing facilities in the world.”

I suspect the cause of the explosion was thermal runaway, which is a a major concern with lithium-ion batteries. It occurs when a battery cell overheats, causing a chain reaction that spreads to other cells. The reaction also yields oxygen gas, which adds to the intensity of the fire.

The battery’s temperature rises slowly at first and then all at once, spiking to its peak temperature in about one second.

Another factor that makes lithium-ion battery fires challenging to handle is oxygen generation. When the metal oxides in a battery’s cathode, or positively charged electrode, are heated, they decompose and release oxygen gas. Fires need oxygen to burn, so a battery that can create oxygen can sustain a fire.

Because of the electrolyte’s nature, a 20% increase in a lithium-ion battery’s temperature causes some unwanted chemical reactions to occur much faster, which releases excessive heat. This excess heat increases the battery temperature, which in turn speeds up the reactions. The increased battery temperature increases the reaction rate, creating a process called thermal runaway. When this happens, the temperature in a battery can rise from 212 F (100 C) to 1,800 F (1000 C) in a second.

Now the state and environmental authorities are investigating the impacts of the explosion on the region.

Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources sent two people to the scene Wednesday evening to assess air quality, water runoff and other potential environmental impacts.

“Our responders will help consult on fire-response actions, take environmental samples during the event as needed and oversee cleanup measures afterward,” information officer Brian M. Quinn wrote in an email. “Environmental contractors will do the actual cleanup, and our job is to make sure it is conducted correctly.”

The federal Environmental Protection Agency will also be involved in air monitoring. Until the agencies have a better idea of the impacts, Quinn said people should avoid direct contact with the smoke and follow safety instructions from local authorities.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that the lithium-ion battery fire at a San Diego facility took weeks to suppress. Interestingly, the nearby school remained evacuated…because further fire-suppression activities were anticipated.

Fredericktown R-1 Schools kept students indoors Thursday, according to the district’s Facebook page, but canceled classes Friday. The district said in a post Friday morning that it did not close because of air quality concerns, but rather “out of an abundance of caution” because further fire suppression efforts were expected.

Clearly, Americans are beginning to awaken realities of the “new green energy utopia”…which apparently entails a lot more chemistry and fire response than originally promised.

And the emissions from these fires is a bit more than zero as well.