3rd IPCC report out today. "It is now or never" to massively act on climate change - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15245560
Truth To Power wrote:
Falling for absurd scaremongering is not a good look.



Climatology reached consensus over 20 years ago. A few years later, the scientific community, over 100 organisations, threw their support for it.

Sleazy Big Oil propaganda is madness, a level of madness that makes Hitler look like a nun.
#15246025
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ad hominems against media companies are not an argument.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a relevant fact about your source.
If you do not want to address the article, the Lancet published a study by Dr. Qi Zhao et al that directly contradicts your prediction.

See: “Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study”.

No it doesn't. It shows temperature-related deaths plummeted while the world warmed, just as I said.
#15246026
late wrote:Climatology reached consensus over 20 years ago.

To the extent that there actually is consensus, it is not what anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers claim it is.
A few years later, the scientific community, over 100 organisations, threw their support for it.

Organizations are political, not scientific.
Sleazy Big Oil propaganda is madness, a level of madness that makes Hitler look like a nun.

Disgraceful. It is anti-fossil-fuel madness that is killing people, and will likely kill a lot more before it is done, and its proponents are reviled by all humanity for for all future time.
#15246027
Truth To Power wrote:

No it doesn't. It shows temperature-related deaths plummeted while the world warmed, just as I said.



While carefully ignoring the thousands of problems continued warming will cause, including a massive rise in mortality.

Aside from continually demonstrating your incompetence, you've got nothing.
#15246032
Truth To Power wrote:It's not an ad hominem, it's a relevant fact about your source.

No it doesn't. It shows temperature-related deaths plummeted while the world warmed, just as I said.


Quote the text from the study that says that.

Your original claim was that “heatwaves will be no more severe than they have been for thousands of years, and the fraction of people who die in them [i.e. heatwaves] will continue to decline”.

You did not claim that “temperature-related deaths plummeted” originally.

So, please show that the number of people who died from heatwaves has declined.
#15246110
late wrote:While carefully ignoring the thousands of problems continued warming will cause,

Periods of warmer global temperature were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically unacceptable. They were called optimums because conditions were more favorable than when the climate was cooler.
including a massive rise in mortality.

Total temperature-related mortality is declining and will continue to do so. Although heat-related mortality was slightly up in the very short time frame your reference studied, it is down massively over the longer term, on the scale of centuries.

Aside from continually demonstrating your incompetence, you've got nothing.
#15246114
Truth To Power wrote:


Total temperature-related mortality is declining and will continue to do so.





That's not what the science says.

But it's not just scientists, leaders in a hundred countries are facing a grim reality where heat withers crops, evaporates water supplies, and causes a thousand other problems...
#15246117
Pants-of-dog wrote:Quote the text from the study that says that.

"Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). There were 74 temperature-related excess deaths per 100 000 residents (95% eCI 60–87). The mortality burden varied geographically. Of all excess deaths, 2 617 322 (51·49%) occurred in Asia. Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess death rate and Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess death rate. From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global cold-related excess death ratio changed by −0·51 percentage points (95% eCI −0·61 to −0·42) and the global heat-related excess death ratio increased by 0·21 percentage points (0·13–0·31), leading to a net reduction in the overall ratio."

If you do a little math (not your strong point, I know), you will see that the reduction in cold-related deaths was ~25,000, or more than 20 times the increase in heat-related deaths.
Your original claim was that “heatwaves will be no more severe than they have been for thousands of years, and the fraction of people who die in them [i.e. heatwaves] will continue to decline”.

Which is correct.
You did not claim that “temperature-related deaths plummeted” originally.

So you are saying the tens of thousands of net lives saved by increased temperature don't matter because I was responding to a false claim about heat-related deaths??
So, please show that the number of people who died from heatwaves has declined.

The study noted a very slight increase in heat-related deaths, but only over the very short time period of the study: 20 years. I haven't found historical data that break out heatwave deaths, but it is certainly the case that climate-related deaths have plummeted:

https://www.humanprogress.org/dataset/g ... -per-year/
#15246118
late wrote:That's not what the science says.

Yes, it most certainly is, and I will thank you to remember it:

https://www.humanprogress.org/dataset/g ... -per-year/
But it's not just scientists, leaders in a hundred countries are facing a grim reality where heat withers crops, evaporates water supplies, and causes a thousand other problems...

But relieves far more.
#15246128
Truth To Power wrote:"Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). There were 74 temperature-related excess deaths per 100 000 residents (95% eCI 60–87). The mortality burden varied geographically. Of all excess deaths, 2 617 322 (51·49%) occurred in Asia. Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess death rate and Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess death rate. From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global cold-related excess death ratio changed by −0·51 percentage points (95% eCI −0·61 to −0·42) and the global heat-related excess death ratio increased by 0·21 percentage points (0·13–0·31), leading to a net reduction in the overall ratio."

If you do a little math (not your strong point, I know), you will see that the reduction in cold-related deaths was ~25,000, or more than 20 times the increase in heat-related deaths.

Which is correct.


No.

You claimed that the the global heat-related excess death ratio decreased, while the text you just quoted says that the global heat-related excess death ratio increased.

So you are saying the tens of thousands of net lives saved by increased temperature don't matter because I was responding to a false claim about heat-related deaths??


Yes.

When we are discussing heat related deaths, the number of cold related deaths are irrelevant.

The study noted a very slight increase in heat-related deaths, but only over the very short time period of the study: 20 years. I haven't found historical data that break out heatwave deaths, but it is certainly the case that climate-related deaths have plummeted:

https://www.humanprogress.org/dataset/g ... -per-year/


You did not originally make a claim about climate related deaths in general.

You made a claim about heat related deaths.

Are you now changing your claim?
#15246243
late wrote:And then it kills billions, and wipes out many thousands of species.

No, because warmer global temperature and higher CO2 are both better for life.
You're nuts, or a pro troll, not that it matters, the end result is the same.

I am merely informing you of the facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications.
#15246247
Truth To Power wrote:

I am merely informing you of the facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications.




You're shoveling BS no reputable scientist agrees with. What a science says is determined by the scientists in that discipline. You have less than nothing, a lot less.

You're part of Koch's troll army.
#15246263
late wrote:You're shoveling BS no reputable scientist agrees with.

OTC, many highly reputable scientists agree with me:

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
What a science says is determined by the scientists in that discipline.

And not by politically controlled organizations. Unfortunately, we don't know what the scientists in the discipline think because they are afraid to defy La Carbonostra.
You have less than nothing, a lot less.

I've proved that false many times.
You're part of Koch's troll army.

While you have offered no evidence for that oft-repeated claim, nor will you ever be doing so.
#15246264
Truth To Power wrote:
OTC, many highly reputable scientists agree with me:

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/



"A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

He that used to work for Shell oil, and lacks a degree in climatology.

Can you say paid hack? I knew you could, birds of a feather...
#15246282
Truth To Power wrote:No, because warmer global temperature and higher CO2 are both better for life.

I am merely informing you of the facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications.


I note that you are no longer arguing that heat related deaths will decrease.

Now, the study I mentioned earlier has put the death toll from climate change (from 2000 to 2019) at about five million people per year.

How is that “better for life”?
#15246329
late wrote:You're shoveling BS no reputable scientist agrees with. What a science says is determined by the scientists in that discipline. You have less than nothing, a lot less.

You're part of Koch's troll army.


Why of course.

Anyone who doesn't eat your BS is a troll and a Koch supporter. No room for dissenting views in your camp. Everyone is aware of that.

SCIENCE is NOT about consensus.

And lemme tell ya, there are a lot of "scientists" who are on the public dole of grant money, so they had better come up with the politically correct answer... that is, whatever it takes to separate people from their income.
#15246330
BlutoSays wrote:


SCIENCE is NOT about consensus.





There are different ways to characterise science. That's partly because we don't completely understand it.

Another way is process. There is a process by which an idea becomes the dominant theory, like the Big Bang.

Part of that process is convincing most scientists that you've got the best idea. When you have most of them, you have what is called consensus. Your competitors will usually have tenure, and they aren't about to give up something they've spent their career working on.

So they get left in the dust, the money and the kids go where it's hot.

Climate change has never faced a serious challenge, it never will. The consensus supporting it includes the overall scientific community.
#15246334
late wrote:There are different ways to characterise science. That's partly because we don't completely understand it.

Another way is process. There is a process by which an idea becomes the dominant theory, like the Big Bang.

Part of that process is convincing most scientists that you've got the best idea. When you have most of them, you have what is called consensus. Your competitors will usually have tenure, and they aren't about to give up something they've spent their career working on.

So they get left in the dust, the money and the kids go where it's hot.

Climate change has never faced a serious challenge, it never will. The consensus supporting it includes the overall scientific community.


For it not facing a serious challenge, you democrats sure work hard at pushing unread thousand page bills thru the congress at 2am to pad the pockets of companies that thrive on climate change and seem to do it with a tie breaking vote. Why is that?

The money goes where it's hot? Where is that? Beijing?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 18
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]