The Climate Fear Machine in Action

A recent study published in Science Advances has been co-opted by mainstream media (MSM) to fuel a climate panic narrative.

Headlines warn of catastrophic heat-related deaths, particularly targeting younger generations. What these headlines omit is equally, if not more, important: the study also reveals an overwhelming decline in cold-related deaths, resulting in a net decrease in temperature-related mortality under all scenarios.

This omission is no accident. It’s part of a broader strategy to perpetuate fear, distort public understanding, and bolster funding and policy agendas. The actual data tells a very different story, one that the climate fear machine cannot afford to let you see. Let’s dissect the study, expose the selective reporting, and uncover the truth.

Media Spin: “Climate Change Is Coming for the Young”

Media outlets and social media platforms have latched onto the study’s heat-related mortality projections, ignoring the broader context. For example:

• The Guardian proclaimed that “people aged under 35 are set to suffer the brunt of heat-related deaths,” painting a dire picture for future generations.

  

• NPR emphasized heightened risks to young people, portraying heat-related deaths as an escalating crisis while failing to mention the study’s findings on cold-related mortality.

  

• Social Media influencers and activists are flooding platforms like X and TikTok with posts claiming that climate change is sentencing Gen Z and millennials to early deaths.

The result is a lopsided narrative that amplifies fear without providing context. By focusing solely on heat-related deaths, the media suppresses the study’s broader and more optimistic findings.

What the Data Really Shows

The figure from the study provides a clear breakdown of annual deaths due to heat (top panel) and cold (bottom panel) under various GHG emission scenarios.

Here’s the key takeaway: the reduction in cold-related deaths vastly outweighs the increase in heat-related deaths.

Heat-Related Deaths: Heat-related mortality is projected to rise, particularly among older populations (70+) as warming increases the frequency of heatwaves. However, these increases are relatively modest and concentrated in specific vulnerable age groups.

Cold-Related Deaths: In contrast, cold-related deaths—historically far more common than heat deaths—are projected to decline dramatically across all scenarios. This decline is most pronounced in older populations, who are at the greatest risk of cold-induced conditions like cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses.

Net Mortality: The overall picture is clear: fewer people will die from temperature extremes in a warmer world. The reduction in cold deaths consistently outweighs the increase in heat deaths across all scenarios.

The Historical Context: Cold Is Far Deadlier Than Heat

This study isn’t an outlier; it aligns with decades of research showing that cold is far deadlier than heat. A 2021 global analysis in The Lancet revealed that cold exposure causes nearly 4.6 million deaths annually, compared to just 0.5 million from heat.

Cold-related deaths are primarily driven by respiratory and cardiovascular conditions aggravated by low temperatures, as well as insufficient heating in homes. With warming, these risks are expected to decline significantly, leading to tangible public health benefits.

The Fear Machine: How the Narrative Gets Distorted

The media’s selective reporting exemplifies how climate fear is manufactured and monetized. Here’s how it works:

1. Cherry-Picking Data: MSM focuses exclusively on heat-related deaths, ignoring the dramatic reduction in cold deaths that paints a more optimistic picture.
2. Worst-Case Scenarios: The extreme SSP5–8.5 emissions scenario, widely regarded as unlikely, is presented as the default future to inflate perceived risks.
3. Fear as a Funding Tool: Alarmist headlines sustain public support for massive climate funding, benefiting media outlets, advocacy groups, and research institutions.
4. Suppression of Context: The net benefits of warming, such as fewer overall temperature-related deaths, are ignored because they undermine the fear-driven narrative.

This approach isn’t about informing the public—it’s about controlling the conversation.

Why Context Matters: Warming Will Save Lives

When examined in full context, the study reinforces what researchers have long known: cold is far deadlier than heat. A reduction in cold-related deaths could represent one of the greatest public health benefits of a warming climate. Yet this fact is conveniently buried to maintain the urgency of the climate catastrophe narrative.

Admitting that warming could have benefits would dismantle the emotional leverage that drives climate policy, funding, and media narratives. Fear is the engine of the climate movement, and acknowledging any silver lining risks derailing the machine.

Conclusion: Follow the Science, Not the Fear

The Science Advances study offers a nuanced perspective on temperature-related mortality, but that nuance has been lost in the media’s rush to stoke fear. The data is clear: a warmer planet will save far more lives by reducing cold-related deaths than it will cost in increased heat-related deaths. This isn’t denialism… it’s an honest assessment of the evidence.

The real danger lies in allowing fear to distort science and dictate policy. For those who claim to champion “following the science,” the challenge is simple: acknowledge the full picture. Only by breaking free from the climate fear machine can we engage in rational, evidence-based discussions about the future of our planet.