Six Charts Put Climate Alarmism into Perspective

For more than two decades the public has been told that "the science is settled." Yet public scepticism has not disappeared. If anything, it has grown as predictions, policies and real-world experience have often failed to align.

A recent article on Watts Up With That? authored by Ramesh Thakur (Emeritus Professor, Australian National University, and former UN Assistant Secretary-General) attempts to explain why many people remain unconvinced by the dominant climate narrative. Rather than focusing on complex climate models, it presents six simple charts that illustrate why many ordinary people question claims of an unfolding climate catastrophe.

Figure 1: Dengue fever infections – global vs. regional

The BBC linked a dengue outbreak in Sri Lanka to rising global temperatures and mosquito range expansion, citing a surge from ~500,000 cases in 2000 to 14.4 million in 2024. Thakur notes that global *infections* (not just reported cases) rose from low levels around 2000 to ~37.5 million by 2023, but the sharp upward slope closely tracks the rise in Latin America and the Caribbean (from ~2 million to ~27.5 million). Asia’s increase has been far less dramatic.

Commentary

A global temperature rise does not automatically explain a regionally concentrated infection surge. Local factors (urbanisation, water storage, control measures, reporting changes) matter more than a uniform “climate change” driver.

Figure 2: Pakistan flood deaths – raw numbers vs. share of population

Media reports on Pakistan’s floods often emphasise climate worsening without long-term context or population growth. Raw flood-related deaths have risen since the 1950s, but when expressed as a share of total population the trend reverses (declining risk per person).

Commentary 

Growing populations and settlement in flood plains increase absolute exposure. Better infrastructure and economic development (which still relies heavily on affordable energy) reduce vulnerability more effectively than focusing solely on emissions.

Figure 3: Australia flood deaths relative to population

In Australia’s flood-prone regions, media coverage routinely frames events as evidence of a climate emergency. Proportionate deaths (relative to total population) have been lower in the four decades since the 1980s than in the preceding four decades.

Commentary 

Improved warning systems, building standards, and emergency management have reduced the human toll even as absolute events continue. Perspective is lost when every flood is treated as unprecedented.

Figures 4 & 5: Wildfire deaths/damage and area burnt (Australia & Canada)

Bushfires are common in Australia and Canada; recent European and North American fires are also framed as climate-driven. Historical context includes massive pre-industrial fires (e.g., the 1871 Peshtigo fire and others that killed thousands and burned millions of acres). Decadal averages of annual death rates and economic damage since the 19th century, plus area burnt so far this century, show trends that are “more reassuring than alarming.”

Commentary 

Fire weather, fuel loads, land management, and ignition sources all matter. Long records and pre-industrial extremes undercut claims that current fires are uniquely climate-driven or existential.

Figure 6: Extreme-weather mortality – cold vs. heat

Alarmist focus centres on heat-related risks while downplaying the much larger historical burden of cold-related deaths. Global data show a substantially greater reduction in extreme-weather mortality from very cold temperatures than from heat, alongside broader gains in food security (partly from CO₂ fertilisation/greening) and reduced vulnerability through development.

Commentary 

Cold has historically killed far more people than heat. Rising adaptive capacity and energy access have driven large net reductions in weather-related deaths overall.

Broader conclusion

Thakur argues that Net Zero policies are environmentally marginal at global scale, physically unrealistic, economically costly, and largely performative. They allow politicians to shift blame for inadequate disaster preparedness onto an all-purpose “climate emergency.” The more practical path, in his view, is resilient infrastructure and economic growth that reduce vulnerability to the natural disasters that have always existed.

The charts collectively emphasise context—population growth, regional differences, long historical records, and adaptation—over decontextualised event reporting. Readers can consult the original article and its linked data sources (especially Our World in Data) for the precise figures and full visualisations.

The Case Against mRNA for Flu

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first mRNA-based influenza vaccine, Moderna's mFlusiva, for adults aged 50 and over. It is a landmark decision that will no doubt be celebrated by supporters of mRNA technology as the next step in modern vaccine development.

For many others, however, the announcement raises an obvious question:

Why introduce a new mRNA flu vaccine when conventional flu vaccines already exist?

Unlike the situation in early 2020, when the world was facing a rapidly spreading pandemic with no approved vaccines, influenza has long been managed with a range of established vaccines using more traditional technologies. Those vaccines have decades of safety data behind them and continue to be widely available.

So why take the additional risk of a relatively new technology when the improvement in effectiveness appears to be modest?

Some Important Questions

In a recent video, Dr John Campbell carefully reviewed the FDA's approval documents and highlighted several aspects of the decision that deserve public attention.

His central argument is that new medical technologies should demonstrate clear and meaningful advantages before replacing existing alternatives—particularly when those alternatives already have established safety records.

One statistic immediately caught his attention.

Although headlines reported that the vaccine was around 27% more effective than a standard flu vaccine, that figure represents a relative improvement.

Looking at the absolute numbers, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in approximately:

• 2.8% of people receiving the standard vaccine.

• 2.0% of people receiving the new mRNA vaccine.

That represents an absolute reduction of roughly 0.8 percentage points—meaning that, compared with people already receiving a conventional flu vaccine, fewer than one additional flu case was prevented per 100 people vaccinated.

As Dr Campbell points out, whether that improvement is large enough to justify adopting an entirely new vaccine platform is a very real question.

More Reactions Than Conventional Flu Vaccines

The FDA documents also show that recipients of the mRNA vaccine experienced higher rates of expected vaccine reactions such as sore arms, fatigue, headaches and fever than those receiving the standard flu vaccine.

Most of these reactions were short-lived and not considered serious by regulators. However, Dr Campbell noted that the mRNA vaccine produces noticeably more serious adverse reactions. 

"Serious adverse events were reported in 2.2% of the recipients of mRNA-1010

Grade 3 solicited adverse reactions were reported by 6.4% of recipients of mRNA-1010 and 1.0% of recipients of the standard-dose comparator Adverse events of special interest in recipients of mRNA-1010 included thrombocytopenia 84 days after vaccination and cardiomyopathy 95 days after vaccination"

Given these more serious adverse events while delivering only a modest absolute improvement in protection, the overall benefit-risk balance deserves close scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance.

The Shadow of COVID

Public confidence in mRNA technology was profoundly affected by the COVID pandemic.

Millions of people believe legitimate questions about adverse events, myocarditis, long-term safety and vaccine effectiveness were dismissed rather than openly debated. It has undeniably left many people cautious about further expansion of the technology.

Against that background, regulators should arguably be setting an especially high evidentiary bar before approving new mRNA vaccines where effective alternatives already exist.

Existing Flu Vaccines Already Work

One important difference between COVID in 2020 and seasonal influenza today is that influenza vaccines are not a new field.

There are already several licensed vaccine technologies available, including traditional egg-based vaccines, cell-culture vaccines, recombinant vaccines and adjuvanted high-dose vaccines for older adults.

This naturally raises another question:

If existing vaccines already provide acceptable protection, what additional public health benefit is achieved by introducing an mRNA version?

Supporters argue that mRNA vaccines can be manufactured more rapidly and may eventually allow better matching to circulating influenza strains.

That may indeed prove valuable in future.

But that potential advantage has yet to be demonstrated in routine seasonal use.

Trust Must Be Earned

Medical innovation is essential.

Many breakthrough treatments began as new technologies that eventually proved themselves through careful testing and long-term experience.

But innovation alone is not sufficient.

Public trust depends upon transparent evidence, honest communication of both benefits and risks, and regulators demonstrating that new products offer meaningful improvements over existing options.

When a new vaccine platform offers an absolute improvement measured in less than one percentage point while producing more expected vaccine reactions than established alternatives, it is entirely reasonable for people to ask whether the evidence justifies the decision.

Those questions should not be dismissed as "anti-science."

They are precisely the questions that good science encourages us to ask.

After the controversies surrounding COVID, regulators should recognise that confidence cannot simply be demanded—it must be earned.

For many observers, including Dr John Campbell, this approval has yet to meet that standard.

Here is Dr John Campbell's video; -

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 33 of 2026

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Customer Service Has Left The Building
• The Economics of Wishful Thinking
• Boy George Shows The Courage So Many Others Lack
• Europe's Betrayal of the Iranian People
• Trump, Iran and the Endless Negotiations
• The Case Against mRNA for Flu
• Six Charts Put Climate Alamism Into Perspective
  

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Trump, Iran and the Endless Negotiations

Only a few months ago I urged readers to be patient.

Wars are not football matches. You cannot judge the final result after the first quarter.

That advice was sound then.

Today, however, we are well beyond the timetable everyone expected.

For months we have heard the same cycle repeated:

• America threatens devastating action.

• Trump announces Iran wants to negotiate.

• Iranian officials deny it.

• Deadlines come and go.

• Another "historic" breakthrough is announced.

• Shipping is attacked again.

• More negotiations follow.

If you're feeling exasperated, you're not alone.

Rather than trying to predict what President Trump will do next, perhaps it is worth asking a simpler question.

Where does the conflict actually stand today?

What we know

Although almost every headline contradicts the previous one, several facts appear reasonably clear.

Israel and the United States inflicted severe damage on Iran's military capability during the opening phase of the conflict.

Large numbers of senior military commanders and Revolutionary Guard leaders were eliminated.

Iran's nuclear infrastructure suffered extensive damage.

At the same time, Iran has demonstrated that it remains far from defeated.

It continues to possess significant stocks of missiles and drones and has repeatedly shown it can threaten shipping and neighbouring states.

The Strait of Hormuz remains far from normal. Shipping still moves through the waterway, but at reduced levels amid continuing attacks, warnings and military escorts. Fresh negotiations this week again suggest a possible agreement, but the details remain disputed and neither side appears willing to trust the other.

Meanwhile, America's economic pressure campaign continues.

Sanctions, restrictions on oil exports and naval interdiction have placed enormous strain on Iran's economy.

Inflation remains extremely high, government finances are under pressure and ordinary Iranians continue paying the price.

Yet despite all of this...

There is still no final settlement.

The credibility problem

Perhaps the greatest casualty has been credibility.

President Trump has repeatedly warned Iran that failure to comply would trigger overwhelming military action.

Each deadline has produced another extension.

Each extension has produced another promise that negotiations are progressing.

Immediately afterwards, Iranian officials often deny that meaningful negotiations are even taking place.

Neither side appears particularly interested in matching words with actions.

Iran's own record hardly inspires confidence.

The regime has repeatedly signed agreements before finding ways around them or openly breaching them.

That history makes every new announcement difficult to believe.

So what are Trump's realistic options?

I can see three broad possibilities.

Option 1 — Finish the job

The United States abandons negotiations entirely.

Instead it launches another concentrated military campaign designed to cripple Iran's remaining economic lifelines—particularly its oil export infrastructure.

The objective would not necessarily be occupation.

It would be to make continued resistance economically impossible while encouraging internal opposition to remove the regime.

America would then withdraw while warning Iran that any future attempt to rebuild nuclear weapons would trigger another devastating response.

The upside

The regime might eventually collapse.

Iran's people could finally remove a government many openly despise.

Trump's supporters would argue he finished what previous administrations never had the courage to complete.

The downside

Oil prices would almost certainly surge.

Iran would retaliate against Gulf oil infrastructure.

Regional instability could trigger a global recession.

Even if successful, the economic pain could last many months.

Option 2 — Keep negotiating

This is essentially today's strategy.

Military pressure.

Negotiations.

Threats.

Another deadline.

More negotiations.

Oddly enough, the global economy has adapted better than many expected.

Alternative supply routes are expanding.

Energy markets remain volatile but have avoided complete panic.

Meanwhile Iran's economy continues weakening under sanctions.

If enough internal pressure builds, the regime could eventually collapse without another major American offensive.

For Trump, this offers the possibility of achieving regime change without launching another large war.

The political cost is obvious.

Every delayed deadline chips away at the image of decisive leadership.

Yet if the Iranian regime eventually implodes under economic pressure, history may remember patience rather than impatience.

Option 3 — Walk away

America simply declares victory.

Military operations cease.

Sanctions remain.

The naval pressure remains.

Negotiations stop.

Iran is left to struggle under its own economic weight.

This avoids another war.

But it also creates a dangerous ambiguity.

Iran could continue harassing shipping.

Regional allies might conclude Washington has lost interest.

The regime could portray survival itself as victory.

From Trump's political perspective, this appears the least attractive outcome.

It risks looking like an unfinished war.

The uncomfortable truth

The reality is that nobody—not journalists, not analysts and probably not even those inside the White House—knows how this ends.

The conflict has repeatedly defied confident predictions.

Every time commentators announce that war is imminent, negotiations resume.

Every time a breakthrough appears close, missiles begin flying again.

Perhaps that is the real lesson.

We are no longer watching a conventional military campaign.

We are watching a prolonged contest between military pressure, economic strangulation and political endurance.

The battlefield is no longer only Iran.

It is also the world economy, energy markets, domestic American politics and the patience of everyone following the story.

Eventually something will have to give.

The only question is whether it will be Iran's regime...

...or everybody else's patience.

Europe's Betrayal of the Iranian People

For years, European leaders have presented themselves as the world's moral conscience. They have lectured others about democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Yet when faced with one of the world's most brutal regimes, those lofty principles seem to disappear.

A recent article from Gatestone Institute highlights a disturbing contradiction. While the Iranian regime continues to execute protesters, torture political prisoners, suppress women, sponsor terrorism and arm Russia, Europe's response remains one of diplomatic engagement, cautious statements and ongoing trade.

Contrast that with the speed and ferocity with which many European governments condemn Israel whenever it defends itself against terrorist organisations. One situation generates endless resolutions, investigations and moral outrage. The other receives little more than expressions of "grave concern."

Forgotten Victims

The greatest victims of this policy are not Western governments. They are the ordinary people of Iran.

These are the young women who removed their hijabs knowing they could be beaten or killed.

These are the students who marched for freedom.

These are the journalists, dissidents and political prisoners who dared to challenge a regime that has ruled through fear for decades.

Many have paid with their liberty. Many have paid with their lives.

Yet while these courageous Iranians risk everything in the hope that the democratic world would stand beside them, Europe continues to treat their oppressors as legitimate diplomatic partners. Iranian embassies remain open across Europe, trade continues, and normal diplomatic relations persist despite the regime's extensive record of executions, terrorism and repression.

Whatever Happened to "Never Again"?

Europe likes to remember those who resisted fascism during the Second World War.

It rightly celebrates those who fought Nazi tyranny, honours the heroes of the Cold War who resisted Soviet oppression, and praises those who stood against communist dictatorships throughout Eastern Europe.

Those struggles were once seen as universal battles between freedom and tyranny.

Why is Iran different?

Why are today's freedom fighters apparently less deserving of support?

If Europe's leaders genuinely believe in human rights, surely those rights belong to Iranian women, students and political prisoners just as much as they belonged to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain.

The Moral Confusion of Modern Europe

One cannot help wondering what has changed.

Is Europe simply exhausted after decades of international crises?

Has economic dependence clouded moral judgement?

Or has mass immigration from parts of the Islamic world altered the political calculations of many European governments?

These are uncomfortable questions, but they are legitimate ones.

Large-scale immigration from countries where political and religious attitudes often differ significantly from Europe's traditional liberal values has changed the political landscape in many nations. Politicians increasingly find themselves balancing foreign policy decisions against domestic electoral considerations.

That does not mean immigrants as a whole share the views of the Iranian regime or support extremism. Many fled precisely because they rejected such oppression. But it is reasonable to ask whether concerns about community tensions, electoral politics and accusations of "Islamophobia" have made some governments less willing to confront Islamist regimes with the moral clarity they once showed toward other dictatorships.

Whether or not that is the explanation, the result is the same: an oppressive regime receives accommodation instead of sustained pressure, while its victims are left to face imprisonment and execution largely alone.

History Will Pass Its Own Judgment

History rarely judges nations by their speeches.

It judges them by whom they stood beside when courage was required.

The brave people filling Iran's prisons today will one day be remembered in much the same way as the dissidents who challenged Soviet communism or those who resisted fascism.

When that day comes, Europe will have to answer a difficult question.

Did it stand with the victims...

...or with the regime that murdered them?

For all its rhetoric about human rights and democracy, Europe's actions increasingly suggest that commercial interests and diplomatic convenience have taken precedence over moral leadership.

That is not merely a failure of foreign policy.

It is a failure of conscience.