AP Touts Study That Projects Millions Of European Heat Deaths Using Debunked Model, Shaky Stats

A recent article by the Associated Press (AP) “Study projects millions of European heat deaths as world warms” was carried by dozens of media outlets. [emphasis, links added]

The story is false, because the study relied entirely on a climate model known to be flawed by science, combined with some scary statistical projections to make the results appear life threatening.

AP’s Seth Borenstein writes:

Extreme temperatures — mostly heat — are projected to kill as many as 2.3 million people in Europe by the end of the century unless countries get better at reducing carbon pollution and adapting to hotter conditions, a new study says.

Currently, cold temperatures kill more people in Europe than heat by large margins. But a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine used climate simulations of different scenarios and looked at death rates in 854 cities. They found as it warms cold deaths lessen slowly, but heat deaths soar rapidly.

The article is premised on a recent study published in Nature Medicine  that warns that Europe could face up to 2.3 million annual heat-related deaths by 2100 unless drastic emission reductions are implemented.

The dire prediction, shouted in headlines, paints a catastrophic future for the continent.

However, closer examination reveals that this projection rests on the RCP 8.5 scenario, an extreme and discredited emissions pathway.

The continued reliance on this outdated model isn’t just misleading—it actively distorts the climate debate.

The computer climate model RCP 8.5, the foundation of this study, assumes an improbable future of runaway coal consumption, stalled technological progress, and unmitigated population growth.

Even other peer-reviewed studies have shown this model is not just improbable, but impossible, running way too hot to even meet today’s reality, along with implausibly high warming outputs for the future.

Under the RCP8.5 model scenario, global CO2 emissions would have to triple by 2100, driving a global temperature increase of over 4°C. But here’s the reality:

• Global Energy Trends: Coal consumption is declining in many major economies, declining in Europe and the U.S. since the late 2000s.
• Population Dynamics: Population growth is slowing worldwide, with many countries projected to experience declines by mid-century.
• Technological Advances: Energy efficiency, urban planning, and adaptive technologies are evolving far faster than the pessimistic assumptions baked into RCP 8.5.

These facts render RCP 8.5 not just unlikely—it’s a climate alarmist fantasy. Yet it continues to be used in studies like this one, inflating risks and misleading policymakers.

The study wrongly assumes that Europeans will fail to adapt to rising temperatures, ignoring humanity’s demonstrated ability to innovate and adjust.

Historically, societies have employed technologies like air conditioning, improved building designs, and urban greening to mitigate heat-related risks. By disregarding these realities, the study portrays a static population incapable of adapting, which is both unrealistic and irresponsible.

Moreover, while heat-related deaths are emphasized, the study conveniently omits the larger issue of cold-related mortality.

Currently, cold kills far more Europeans than heat, and a warming climate could result in a net decrease in weather-related deaths as winters become milder. But such context doesn’t fit the narrative of impending disaster and is often excluded from the discussion.

To grasp the true implications of climate change, it’s critical to consider both heat and cold. Currently we know this from Climate at a Glance:

• Cold-related deaths outnumber heat-related deaths by a factor of 10 in Europe.
• Warmer winters have already reduced cold-related mortality in many regions.
• Adaptation measures, like affordable heating and cooling, remain the most practical solutions for addressing both heat and cold risks.

Ironically, climate policies inspired by studies like this may worsen cold-related deaths. For example, net zero-driven policies that increase energy costs—such as phasing out natural gas or subsidizing expensive renewables—make it harder for vulnerable populations to afford heating.

The continued use of RCP 8.5 in studies serves a clear purpose: fear sells. Apocalyptic predictions generate headlines, mobilize funding, and provide justification for costly climate policies.

But this approach does little to solve real-world challenges. Instead, it distorts public perception, focusing on implausible worst-case scenarios, these studies obscure more likely and manageable outcomes.

It further misguides policymakers, who divert resources toward combating hypothetical extremes rather than addressing real-world energy and adaptation needs.

Finally, studies like this erodes trust in science. When the public learns that RCP 8.5 is a relic of outdated thinking, it risks undermining confidence in climate science as a whole.

The study’s projections of millions of heat-related deaths in Europe are rooted in the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenario.

If we want to protect populations from heat-related deaths, the solution lies not in alarmist modeling but in practical adaptation strategies; expanding access to affordable air conditioning, designing cities to reduce the urban heat island effect, and improving public health systems to better handle heat waves.

At the same time, policymakers must acknowledge that warming isn’t all bad news—milder winters will reduce cold-related deaths and energy demand.

Balanced, evidence-based approaches are essential to managing the risks of climate change without succumbing to hysteria.

The study’s projections of millions of heat-related deaths in Europe are rooted in the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenario. This isn’t science—it’s scaremongering dressed up as research.

By exaggerating risks and ignoring humanity’s capacity to adapt, such studies do more harm than good.

Rather than fixating on improbable doomsday scenarios, we should focus on resilience, innovation, and pragmatic policies that address both heat- and cold-related risks. The public deserves climate discussions rooted in reality, not fear-driven narratives built on outdated models.

Read more at Climate Realism