The ECHR Has Ruled That Governments MUST Sacrifice The Lives Of Lots Of Pensioners During Winter In Order To Make A Few 'More Comfortable' During Summer

That is basically what the latest ruling re. the Swiss pensioners suffering heatwaves comes down to.

We know for a fact that extreme cold is a lot more deadly than extreme heat and that there are many more deaths in winter caused by cold-related illness than there are in summer caused by heat-related illnesses.

We know that winters are warming even more than summers and that the number of extreme cold days is diminishing just as rapidly as the number of very warm days has been increasing.

The above two facts mean that, inevitably, as the climate warms further in the coming years, the reduction in the number of cold-related deaths will continue to outpace by far the moderate increase in the number of heat-related deaths.

We also know of course that a few pensioners suffering from the ill-effects of climate changed heatwaves is not really what the Strasbourg judgement was about, it was about empowering Green blob billionaires and the extremist eco-fanatical NGOs and charities which they fund to bypass democracy using human rights law and climate lawfare in order to do so. But nonetheless, as I keep saying, facts matter, science matters, even if the Green Blob has to invent alternative facts and science in order to justify the insane rulings of the judges which it has in its very deep pocket. Chris Morrison sums up the situation:

The old ladies of Switzerland have had their day in the sun – treble Factor 50s all round – but the real plaudits for the recent idiotic climate change verdict from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) belong to the elite billionaire paymasters behind lawfare activists such as Greenpeace and Client Earth. Greenpeace bankrolled the Swiss ladies and Client Earth supplied some of the legal arguments. The case is likely to throw a spotlight on the role that a few moneyed forces are playing in using the judicial system to enforce their insane Net Zero collectivisation on populations around the world. In Europe, the billionaires, who happily fund XR vandals as well as high-earning lawyers, are seeking to redefine the meaning of democracy. In the United States, as we shall see, extensive judge grooming is being undertaken to help the judiciary come to the correct political verdicts in the growing number of climate lawfare cases.

In its way, the ECHR verdict that politicians should somehow protect citizens from alleged human-caused climate change was a punishment beating handed down after a 2021 referendum in Switzerland rowed back on Net Zero. Jessica Simor KC represented the Swiss women and frequently acts for Client Earth. After the verdict she noted: “In Switzerland it’s particularly problematic because they have referendums… the people decided they didn’t want it. This is something that comes up all the time… the conflict between this idea of democracy as entailing… rights which matter irrespective of what the majority decides.”

However, the scientifically illiterate morons at GreenPiss and Client Earth still have to come up with some pseudoscientific justification for their insane gibberings which they wish to see enshrined in human rights law and thus they must convince judges, not only with wads of cash, but by brainwashing them with their unique brand of alternative facts. Hence Chris Morrison also says:

Washington D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute is backed by billionaire foundation money and, according to Influence Watch, it received $500,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to set up the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). According to Influence Watch, by May 2023 more than 1,000 judges have participated in the CJP program, which includes 13 curriculum modules. According to the CJP website, the goal is to provide “neutral, objective information” to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation”.

Needless to say, neutral and objective are not words that spring immediately to mind when examining some of the detailed curriculum notes. Misinformation is particularly rife in a module that suggests individual weather events can be attributed to longer term changes in the climate. The judges are told that it is now possible to use attributions techniques to link individual human-caused weather events to climate change. It is not, it is junk science from computer models and since any ‘results’ are unfalsifiable, they fail the first test of the true scientific process. The best known ‘attribution’ service is called World Weather Attribution and is partly funded by Jeremy Grantham. Despite this, CJP claims bizarrely that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change couldn’t hold the view that human influence has warmed the planet without the many attribution analyses that are said to underpin it.

It may be a lost cause at the dawning of the Age of Unenlightenment, but I personally am not willing to give up on exposing the lack of rigorous scientific analysis and actual, true, irrefutable facts which underpin the very shaky scientific foundation of the entire climate change scam. Hence. I’m going to show you this graph of excess deaths recorded in Switzerland in 2015, a year which saw exactly the kind of hot summer weather which the Swiss pensioners were complaining about and which Greenpiss claimed was attributable to government ‘inaction on climate’:

It comes from a publication called Swiss Medical Weekly and the particular article in point was titled: ‘Excess mortality during the warm summer of 2015 in Switzerland’.

It concerns itself solely with an analysis of the excess deaths during summer 2015 in Switzerland:

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: In Switzerland, summer 2015 was the second warmest summer for 150 years (after summer 2003). For summer 2003, a 6.9% excess mortality was estimated for Switzerland, which corresponded to 975 extra deaths. The impact of the heat in summer 2015 in Switzerland has not so far been evaluated.

But what do you notice from the graph? Firstly, it is pretty obvious that, on average, between the years 2005 and 2014, a lot more people died during the winter season than during the summer season (approximately 200 per day vs. about 160 per day). So, that’s 280 more people dying per week in Switzerland throughout the three month winter period compared to those who die during the three month summer period. That’s a lot.

But also, look specifically at excess deaths in 2015, supposedly the Year of the Dreaded Climate Changed Heatwave (second in intensity only to 2003) which dispatched many vulnerable pensioners who might otherwise be alive today, and which prevented many more vulnerable pensioners supposedly from exercising their human right to a family and private life. What do you notice? Of course! You notice the bloody great big elephant in the room which the authors of the piece apparently have failed to notice:

There was indeed a moderate increase in excess deaths in summer 2015, but there was also a huge increase in excess deaths in winter/early spring 2015 which greatly exceeded the summer spike in both absolute and relative terms.

‘The Science’ tells us that such anomalously cold winter/early spring seasons as 2015 are becoming increasingly rare in a warming climate, whilst the opposite is true for extreme hot summers. In fact, the ‘Scientists’ have obligingly quantified the effect in the case of Europe:

Detection of a Climate Change Signal in Extreme Heat, Heat Stress, and Cold in Europe From Observations

We demonstrate that on average across Europe the number of days with extreme heat and heat stress has more than tripled and hot extremes have warmed by 2.3 °C from 1950–2018. Over Central Europe, the warming exceeds the corresponding summer mean warming by 50%. Days with extreme cold temperatures have decreased by a factor of 2–3 and warmed by more than 3 °C, regionally substantially more than winter mean temperatures. Cold and hot extremes have warmed at about 94% of stations, a climate change signal that cannot be explained by internal variability.

So there you are: extreme hot days have tripled and extreme cold days have decreased by a factor of 2 to 3 also because ‘climate change’. Note also the magnitude of the change. Whereas extreme hot days have got warmer by 2.3C average, extreme cold days have got warmer by 3C on average, which means that winter warmth is outpacing summer warmth.

So by legislating to protect an elite group of Swiss pensioners from the nasty effects of heatwaves, ECHR have in effect legislated to increase the vulnerability of a far larger group of vulnerable pensioners to extreme cold!

Is this not an abuse of the human right to life of pensioners who are vulnerable to cold weather related illnesses? By denying them the benefits of warming, which demonstrably outweigh the harms? I think so.